Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2014/04/23
1. In brief, how was your youth? Did you have any personal heroes growing up?
I think two biology teachers I had, which I did not realize at the time, but looking back they were a gay couple. They were lovely. They inspired me to know biology and to understand what life is. We are talking about the 1960s, when I was at a ghastly boarding school, which I absolutely hated. They did inspire me. But Miss Bayliss said to me, “You know, Biology is nearly finished. We have really done nearly everything that we need to do in Biology. That is not the science of the future. The science of the future is going to be psychology.” That’s why I went into psychology and physiology rather than biology at university, but it is kind of funny when you look back at what happened to modern biology! (Laughs) I do not regret that at all. That’s why I love biology. I still do.
2. How would you describe your early philosophical framework? Did it change? If so, how did it change?
I think false memory is probably relevant here. It is terribly hard. (Laughs) I can remember things about my philosophical and scientific ideas as a child, but whether I am really accurately remembering them – I do not know. As far as I can tell, I was always interested in deep scientific questions. What is light? What is heat? Why does water run downhill? What does it mean for something to be heavy? I can remember seeing splashes of water and wondering about it. My father used to clean out our pond once a year. I used to collect all of the newts. It was really interesting because nearly every year there were always 42 or 43 newts. I wondered if they were the same ones or different ones. Basic kinds of questions that scientists ask. I wondered about bees and birds in the sky. Did some supernatural power keep them up? I always had a faint interest in supernatural forces that science did not particularly understand. That was when I was older, probably as a teenager. I had an interest in that stuff.
I guess another side of philosophical thinking is religion. I was brought up as a standard Church of England kid. I went to a Methodist boarding school. My parents were Christians. My dad was not much of one, but my mom was very serious. I used to have huge arguments with her about the existence of god. I had various phases in my childhood of being very skeptical of god, the afterlife, heaven, and so on. All of these kinds of things. I used to really annoy my mom with this stuff. Oddly enough, I was probably an atheist by the time I left school. However, I had religious phases again. And I think, the one I particularly remember, when I fell in love at the age of 25 and got married within a very few months. I was ‘head-over-heels’ in love. We both had a religious phase at that time. And we both got married in church. I suppose it was this transcendental feeling of love that lured me into being religious again. It did not last. Quickly, I became an atheist again. It was the last of my religious phases. I began to find other ways to have a spiritual life other than religion. I have been pursuing what I call a spiritual life ever since
3. You did early work in your academic career in psychology and physiology. You moved into parapsychology for some time. For your parapsychology Ph.D. thesis, entitled Extrasensory Perception as a Cognitive Process, what did you find?
Ha! I did not find what I expected to find. I was doing physiology and psychology as my degree at Oxford. And I loved it! I was interested in the science, what little was then known about how the brain, memory, perception, and so on, works. In my first term, I had this extraordinary ‘out of the body experience’ (OBE). Based on this experience, I just uncritically thought there was telepathy, clairvoyance, spirits, precognition, and anything seemed possible given the challenge of that experience to the science that I was learning. I decided at that moment – then and there. I am going to become a parapsychologist. I wanted to prove all these phenomena to my “closed-minded” lecturers at Oxford. (Laughs) Even then, during the experience, and in the weeks and months after it, I remembered the sense of reality, “Yes, but, it would still all be.” The sense of reality, the vividness of it, the sense of rightness, and the ineffable noetic quality, “I know this is more true, more real than anything I have ever experienced in my life.” That quality kept coming back and I did not know how to understand it. Reflecting on my foray into parapsychology was a 10, 15, (laughs) 20 year ‘wild goose chase’ off in the wrong direction. Subsequently, my Zen practice and meditation – and the explorations of the illusion of self and free will – are connecting with the depth of that experience in a way that parapsychology did not, and never could.
To answer your question, what did I find? I developed a grand theory of the paranormal – of memory and extrasensory perception, I set out to test this theory in terms of experiments on telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psycho-kinesis, and I never found a single phenomenon! And then I tested tarot cards, and I kept on, and on, and on. I never found any evidence of any paranormal phenomena. To keep a long-story short (Laughs), in the end, I came to the conclusion, which I have now, I cannot prove they do not exist, but am sure as one can be –not 100%, that they do not exist. It was a long, long journey. And you might say a waste of time. I would not say that. It was very interesting. And if such phenomena existed, it would be really, really important.
4. You worked on the Advisory Board of the Journal of Memetics. What is the state of memetic research?
I am not sure if there is anything worthy of the name ‘memetic research’. It is quite interesting. I still strongly believe thinking about cultural evolution in terms of memes is the right way to go about it. All of this man-made environment – all of our culture – is a mass of information competing to use our brains to get itself copied. The power lies in these memes to evolve by variation and selection. Therefore, memes, we human meme machines, are constantly constructing new memes out of old ones. Varying them in different ways and then selecting amongst them. Some thrive and others die off. It seems to me to make sense of the extraordinary world around us. To make sense, to my mind, the horrible speeding up, the endless speeding up, of how much stuff we are bombarded with – how much difficulty we have in choosing among it. It is choose, choose, choose, our brains cannot take it! I feel memetics is the appropriate way to understand this phenomena. I am in such a tiny minority. There is something about the word meme, which people do not like – something about the idea of memes that people do not like. That includes ordinary people and scientists, who shy away from it endlessly. There is a lot of research in cultural evolution. Some of that research looks very close to memetics. Some of it is by people who absolutely reject memetics. The journal that you mentioned ceased publication. There has not been any replacement. It may be some time before the light dawns and people realize that this is really the way to go.
5. From the previous question, you define genes as the 1st replicator; memes as the 2nd replicator. You gave a TED talk on the ‘3rd replicators’: temes. What are temes? How do they work? Do you envision the future with a Journal of Temetics?
I was contacted out of the blue by someone from NASA to contribute to a collection on cultural evolution in the cosmos. The only example of cultural evolution is on the Earth, but I thought, “What would it mean to have cultural evolution on other planets?” We know of lots, and lots, of other planets out there. Many of them in the ‘goldilocks’ region such that you could think of some kind of life evolving. What would it mean for other forms of life – completely different on distant planets? That set me thinking. The ideas that I came up with go something like this. First, a replicator appears. Something with the appropriate resources around it will get copied. That’s what we mean by a replicator. Some kind of information that is copied. This is copied with variance, and the environment will select some variants over others. So you have an evolutionary process going. That’s standard universal Darwinism. That’s just what happens, and must happen indeed – if the chemical situation is right. What happened on Earth? We may have an RNA precursor. We are not sure of the earliest stages. But we ended up with genes as the first stable, long-term replicator. All life on this planet depends on the evolution of genes. That’s the first replicator on Earth. The second replicator came about because one of these creatures, gene machines – creatures created by genes for the replication of genes, one of these creatures became capable of replicating information in a completely different way. Early humans were able to imitate sounds, gestures, making stone tools, lighting fires, wearing clothes, whatever those early memes may have been, when those creatures became capable of copying information with variation and selection, a new replicator was born!
To have a replicator, you have to have copying with variation and selection. With human imitation, you have that. That’s what we mean by the second replicator called, by Richard Dawkins, memes. I began to think, “Could there be further replicators after that?” I have been worrying for a long time about the status of information on the web, the emails we send, and all of the information we send. I wonder, “Is it really in our control? Did we really construct all these machines for our own benefit? Or are we deluded into thinking it is for our benefit? Could it really be for the memes’ benefits? Is it still memes if it is not us directly copying it? What if the machines started copying stuff without us knowing about it?” I thought, “Aha!” By the sorts of definitions that I am using, then if there is information that is copied with variation and selection by machines outside of our control, then there is a third replicator. I gave that the name techno-memes or ‘temes’. I think ‘thremes’ would be a better name. Unfortunately, it is difficult to change the name now. These are technological memes. Information, digital information, that is stored, copied, varied, and selected by machines. Now, are there such things already? For the moment, you could say that most of the information out there, certainly the stuff seen on our screens, is dependent on us. In the sense that we do the selecting, or do we?
When we put some terms into google, google has a lot of say in the things that come up. It has a lot of amazingly clever algorithms based on who we are, where we are, and so on. What about the varying? There are lots and lots of programs constructing variance out there on things by taking things out, reconstructing it, and sending it out. We are still doing much of the varying and so on. However, it is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility that it is information out there that we are not seeing being stored, copied, varied, and selected entirely by machines. I would term that temes.
It is extremely worrying in that it will be using the space in these machines. These machines require an awful lot of planetary resources. They put out an awful lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for the sake of replicating. If it got really, really up and running as a new replicator, the first thing we would know about it might be something like dark energy – it would be dark information. The servers are using a lot of energy but we don’t know where it is going because the information is not interacting with us. So we can’t see it. Anyway, that was the type of wild speculation that I was led to.
In terms of the original question that I was asked in the first place about cultural evolution and the cosmos, I thought, “You are not going to get planetary communication between civilizations based on only having genes or a second replicator. You would need a third replicator, where information could be stored in machines that do not require air to breathe and food to eat in order to communicate from one planet to another.” So we would only be able to see other civilizations out there if they had got to the third replicator stage. If they had, in my opinion, it would be dangerous because every time another replicator comes along it is dangerous for the planet. In the sense that when genes arrived, the atmosphere changed. When memes arrived, humans changed, the brain got bigger. It is hard to sustain, but we pulled through. If there is a third replicator now, maybe, we should be optimistic and say, “We will pull through!” Or maybe, we should be pessimistic and that is the reason we do not hear from other civilizations. Anyway, that is what my TED talk was about. I throw out ideas for other people to think about, and see what happens.
6. In psychology and parapsychology, what do you consider the controversial topic(s)? How do you examine the controversial topic(s)?
As far as parapsychology is concerned, I do not think there are any controversial topics. I think it is doomed to failure. It is not to say, “People should not be doing it”. I am really glad people are doing it because endlessly people believe in telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and so on. All of these kinds of things. People are continually having experiences they don’t understand. So they leap to the wrong conclusions, just as I did all those years ago. We can now understand those experiences without inventing the paranormal. Of course it would be very important to science if there really were paranormal occurrences but I do not think there are. Parapsychologists will carry on searching but will have the same disheartening experience that I had, but let them try.
In psychology, what really interests me at the moment, we have all of these kinds of ideas about ourselves that are basically wrong. We feel as though we are a self, experiencing the world that has to make all of these decisions, but these things do not seem to be true based on the way the brain works. Therefore, the question is, “Why are we so deluded?”
7. You argue free will is an illusion. By your line of reasoning, what type of free will are illusions? If any, what kinds of free will seem implausible, but possible, to you?
I like to define free will in the ordinary, everyday, human sense that I can by my own conscious thoughts – my own conscious decisions – cause something to happen independently of the state of my genes, memes, environment, brain state, and so on and so forth, that is what people mean by free will. They mean, “I did it!” Not, “My brain or genes did it!” I am not going into all of the many sophisticated definitions. This kind of free will does not exist. In this ordinary sense of the term, we do not have free will.
8. If you had sufficient funding and complete academic freedom, what would you research?
I would have to think about the implications of it. If somebody ‘out-of-the-blue’ gave me the money, I would study the physiological effects of meditation. I think we have only just begun to study the capacities of the human brain for self-control, for changing itself, for learning to be in different states without taking drugs or being hit in the head with a hammer. The capacity to see through the illusions of self, free will, consciousness, and so on. That is being done, and has for a long time been done through meditation and mindfulness. We are only beginning to understand the things going on inside of those brains that undergo those very, very profound changes in terms of the self. Probably, if somebody did (laughs) force upon me lots of money, I would probably throw myself into that.
9. Who most influenced you? Can you recommend any seminal books/articles?
The three Ds: Darwin, Dawkins, and Dennett. Darwin is obvious.
Dawkins is obvious. The selfish gene is the book in which he invented the idea of memes, but I think a lot of his work shows the wonder of how the varieties and splendor of life arise out of purely mechanical information-based evolutionary processes is wonderful! Although, he does not leap into changing his life through meditation or anything. He does not take it into the direction that I have taken it. Nor has he gone on exploring memes that way that I like to do it.
Now, of course, there is Dan Dennett. And I would say, the book that has most influenced me is his 1991 book, Consciousness Explained, which still more than twenty years on makes points that most scientists in the field of consciousness studies simply do not understand. He explores all of the traps that we fall into such as imagining the little ‘self’ inside, who is experiencing this stream of consciousness. He replaces this with the Multiple Drafts theory, which is so difficult to understand. I explain it again, and again, and again, to my students. Only some of my students understand it. I check with Dan to see if I understand it the way he understands it. I think I do understand it. It is so counterintuitive. I agree with him. If we are to understand consciousness, we have to throw out our intuitions. Intuitions about self and consciousness because it is all illusory. It’s all not how it seems to be, we get it wrong all of the time. We fall into all of these traps. So that is the most wonderful book. Unfortunately, I part company with him in his book Freedom Evolves because I think the book should be called Choice Evolves. As we evolved as more complex creatures and created more complex environments, we have to make more choices, but those choices are made based on what goes on inside of our brains, the genes we have, and all of those reasons. Not because of something called free will. Not because our will is free. I think the grounds of our disagreement are that he takes a much more sophisticated view of free will. He says, “There is the magical idea of free will, which people believe in. Obviously, it cannot be true. So let’s have a different one.” But that is the one that matters. The one where I can magically choose for no other reason that I want to choose it. That’s where we part company. I think Dan Dennett’s views are still the best. And that the people involved in consciousness studies ought, at least, to consider their intuitions. I believe they are leading astray the science of consciousness studies.
However, Dan Dennett, like Richard Dawkins, has no interest in the spiritual life. He points out these illusions and traps that we fall into, but he does not then say, “Right! Let’s try live my life in a way that overcomes those.” For me, I stumbled across Zen a long, long time ago and have practiced meditation and mindfulness for years. I discovered through that a systematic way of training yourself to drop the illusions of self, consciousness, and free will. It is a long, long tough haul.
I would add one more: William James. My only other hero that does not begin with D. Principles of Psychology from 1890 by James. It’s something like 1,200 pages in two volumes. I read it all. I read lots of parts of it again, and again, and again. I have a first addition, which is annotated with lots of scribbles! It is the only book that I possess which I love. I physically love the book! His ideas are so subtle and interesting. Way ahead of his time! He was considering what kind of entity this illusory self might be, fascinating man. I would recommend the Principles of Psychology and the Varieties of Religious Experience. He did, unlike the three Ds, wonder about religious and mystical experiences as I do.
10. And gave them book-length treatment.
Yes, indeed!
11. You are the mother of two children, Emily and Jolyon. Both are professional academics. In this, your advice for young academics is concrete. What advice do you have for young academics?
It still amazes me that both of my kids are academics. It does not terribly surprise me that Emily would be because she was always terribly clever and had that kind of mind. She is doing very well. Jolyon was, as a child, much more interested in art and building things. He would be down the cellar making stuff. All the sudden, in his late teens, he started to get interested in science. I guess, he was in a scientific family. It was around him all of the time. It took off at that time. I am glad that I did not push them into any particular direction or career when they were young. I thought, “Okay, that is what they are interested in.” Perhaps, I was too interested in my own life ad work. (Laughs) Jolyon as we speak is off in Africa doing research on camouflage in birds and having a very good academic career. However, in another way, I think, “The academic life now is so pressured, competitive, stressful! I hesitate having anyone go into it. Except that, it is the best way to pursue one’s scientific curiosity.” That is, perhaps, the only way to seriously pursue one’s scientific curiosity. If you are curious like me and that is what you want to do, then my advice to young people, as it has always been, “Do what you are really interested in. Follow the questions that are burning in your mind. If you do not have those questions, then do not be an academic because it is awfully tough!” (Laughs) If you love something and really want to know the answers, you will work hard and enjoy it. But if you do something because it is the ‘trendy’ thing, your parents tell you to do it, or you will earn more money, no good at all. Do what you love and do it well.
Bibliography
1) Blackmore, S. (2009). Help find a name for the third replicator. New Scientist, 203(2719), 36-39.
2) Blackmore, S. (1998). Imitation and the definition of a meme. Journal Of Memetics – Evolutionary Models Of Information Transmission, 2(2), 1.
3) Blackmore, S. (2005). Implications for memetics. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 28(4), 490.
4) Blackmore, S. (2008). Memes shape brains shape memes. Behavioral And Brain Sciences, 31(5), doi:10.1017/S0140525X08005037
5) Blackmore, S. (2009). Replicators on other planets?. New Scientist, 203(2719), 36-39.
6) Blackmore, S. (2012). She Won’t Be Me. Journal Of Consciousness Studies, 19(1/2), 16-19.
7) Blackmore, S. (2008, February). Susan Blackmore: Memes and “Temes” [Video File]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.
8) Blackmore, S. (1986). The Adventures of a Parapsychologist. Buffalo and New York: Prometheus.
9) Blackmore, S. (2002). The grand illusion. New Scientist, 174(2348), 26-29.
10) Blackmore, S. (1999). The Meme Machine. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
11) Blackmore, S. (2009). The third replicator is among us. New Scientist, 203(2719), 36-39.
12) Blackmore, S., & Bradie, M. (2000). Do Memes Make Sense?. Free Inquiry, 20(3), 42.
13) Blackmore, S., Fouad, N., Kagan, J., Kosslyn, S., Posner, M., Sternberg, R., Driscoll, M. Ge, X., & Parrish, P. (2013). Psychology. Educational Technology, 53(5), 53-63.
14) Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15) Dennett, D. (1991). Consciousness Explained. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.
16) Dennett, D. (2003, February). Freedom Evolves. New York, NY: Viking Books.
17) James W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology, 2 vols. n.p.: Dover Publications.
18) James W. (1902). The Varieties of Religious Experience. Harlow, UK: Longmans, Green and Co.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2014/04/15
1. What is your current position?
I am the Canada Research Chair, Tier 1, and Professor of Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience in the Department of Psychiatry at The University of British Columbia (UBC).
2. What major positions have you held in your academic career?
Now, besides being a professor and Canada Research Chair, I am the head of the division of developmental cognitive neuroscience of psychiatry at UBC. Before coming to UBC, I was at University of Massachusetts Medical School (UMass), where I was professor of psychiatry and director of the center for developmental cognitive neuroscience. And before that, I was a visiting associate professor in the department of brain and cognitive sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Before that, I was an assistant professor in the department of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn). Last, and prior to that, I was an assistant professor in the department of psychology at Washington University (Wash. U) in St. Louis.
3. Can you name a seminal experience in your youth that most influenced your career direction?
I was not planning on having a career. My high school yearbook says, “Valedictorian; ambition: Housewife.” I was going to get married and have children. That changed sometime while in college. Although, I do not have a particular experience that changed it. So, no, there is no seminal experience, sorry!
4. Where did you acquire your education?
I went to the New York City Public Schools (John Bowne High School) and then I went to Swarthmore College, which is a fantastic undergraduate institution in the United States (US). Harvard University for my Ph.D. and Yale University for my post-doctoral work.
5. What was your original dream?
My original dream was to be home with my kids. And then, when I decided to go on, in college and beyond, I was not interested in science. I was interested in understanding people. I was interested in society and culture, but I was not interested in science. So I avoided anything that sounded like science. I had to take two science courses for distribution requirements. So I took engineering, but, other than that, I did not even take experimental psychology, though psychology was one of my majors, because experimental psychology sounded too much like science. When I went to graduate school, I said, “I want to do interdisciplinary studies in what I called “human development,” which I defined as including psychology, sociology, and anthropology. I thought of anthropology as doing investigations that deeply inform us about people, society and culture, however, I did not view it as science. I thought of’science’ as being something more objective and quantitative. Anthropology gets more at the flesh and essence of things – understanding individuals in social context as opposed to trying to fit lots of people into some general category. It is the difference between nomothetic and idiographic science. Nomothetic being the attempt to apply principles that apply across the board, but it will not apply perfectly in any individual case. Idiographic refers to studying one case, studying it deeply, but realizing that it will not be able to completely be able to generalize to any other case.
I got two national fellowships for graduate school. One from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Another from the Danforth Foundation. I was a freebie. I got nine years of funding – more than any I could ever use. So the graduate schools said, “Fine lady, you can study whatever you want!” I went to Harvard. Although, my home was psychology. I spent the first four years primarily in sociology and anthropology. Harvard had a cross-cultural training grant that funded PhD students for three years: one year to prepare to go into the field, one year to go anywhere you wanted to go (I was going to the South Pacific because it seemed the most idyllic, and one year to write it up. My idea was…I was reading a lot in sociology, psychology, philosophy… that asserted that people need to feel they are masters of their fate. If they did not feel they are, you see learned helplessness, depression, and suicide. Everything I was reading said there was an intrinsic human need to feel we are masters of our own fates. But everything I was reading was western. It seemed to me that was not necessarily intrinsically human. It might be that someone from another culture might not feel the same way. At any social gathering people find my idea intriguing. I felt I was not coming up with a good way to study this, however. If you think about it more deeply, it gets kind of squishy. What do you want to have control over? How do you exercise control? You can exercise control in subtle ways without it seeming to be control. The more I went into it, the less confident I was that I could come up with a good study design. Now, I had very famous people at Harvard advising me. I did not think they had a solid idea of how to study this either. This did not seem to bother them. They said, “You’ll go on and do great work.” I said to myself, “You guys are loonie. I am not going to paradise to be miserable for a year, worried about how I’ll get a thesis out of this.” I turned down Years 2 and 3 of the funding. I gave the money back. I figured I would re-apply for funding if I ever came up with a good way study it, but I was not going to do a lousy job. So I had to come up with another thesis topic.
My first year in graduate school, which, by that time, was three years earlier. My advisor, Jerry Kagan, had been jumping up and down about the cognitive advances seen in babies in the first years of life such as stranger anxiety and finding a hidden-object. Things like that. These changes appeared at roughly the same time in babies all over the world –babies living at home, babies in daycare, in kibbutzim, in Africa, Europe, Asia, North America, and so on. It didn’t matter. He said, “It cannot be all learning. It cannot be all experience because their experiences are too different. There must be a maturational component.” He was jumping up and down about it. He was so excited that you could not help but feel excited about it. However, at the time, I had another thesis topic. But when I gave up my original thesis topic, I came back to this question. Clearly, the maturational bit had to be in the brain. So I had to begin learning about the brain. That’s how I got into neuroscience. There was no one at Harvard in Psychology at the time studying the human brain, which is hard to believe now. I said to them, “There should be someone on my thesis committee that knows something about the brain, especially the parts of the brain I am talking about — prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus — just to see if what I am saying makes sense.” (My thesis was just behavioral studies with babies, but the hypothesis behind it was based on the brain.) Harvard replied, “We don’t have anyone who does this, so we don’t think it’s important.” But they allowed that I could add an additional member to my thesis committee from outside Harvard who had this expertise. I was very lucky that Nelson Butters at the Boston VA accepted my invitation to join the thesis committee as the fourth member.
Until I did my Postdoc in the Department of Neuroanatomy at Yale Medical School, I was pretty much self-taught because there was no one around to teach me. I mispronounced all sorts of words wrong – such as pyramidal neurons which I pronounced as pyr·a·mi·dal (ˈpir-ə-ˌmi-dal) but which should be pronounced py·ra·mi·dal (pə-ˈra-mə-dəl) – because I was only learning by reading.
It is ironic that I never expected to be a scientist; I never wanted to be a scientist; yet I have worked not only worked in cognitive neuroscience and developmental cognitive neuroscience but in many different disciplines like molecular genetics and visual neuroscience that even after I went into neuroscience I never imagined do any work in. It was never because I wanted to study another discipline or another technique in themselves. It was because I had a question that required that I go there. So I went into neuroscience because I wanted to answer the questioned posed by Jerry Kagan. All of the other times were that I wanted to answer the next question that came from what I was doing.
6. What have been your major areas of research?
All of my research has been tied to prefrontal cortex and the cognitive abilities dependent on prefrontal, whichare loosely called executive functions (EFs). That involves being able to exert self-control to not blurt out something you regret. You think before you act rather than reacting or acting impulsively. Another part is reasoning and problem-solving – being able to hold different pieces of information in mind and relate one fact or idea to another, to be able to play with ideas in your mind. That involves working memory. Another aspect of the inhibitory control component of EFs besides self-control is selective attention, to be able to inhibit extraneous things so that you pay attention to the most important things. The third core EF cognitive flexibility, involves being able to flexibly react to a situation rather than rigidly sticking to one plan, being able to creatively think outside the box, being able come up with something that perhaps nobody has thought of before. All of my work has been about that. It turns out that the abilities, which were beginning to develop in babies in the first year of life all over the world, were elementary EFs: working memory and inhibitory control. After I got data from monkeys that made an argument that the frontal lobe was involved in these changes, the next question was, “What about the frontal lobe was changing?” It is too vague to say the frontal lobe is maturing. It is like saying, “Children develop.” What about prefrontal cortex was changing? Probably a lot of things. But we knew in the monkey brain that the level of the neurotransmitter, dopamine, which is very important in prefrontal cortex was increasing in the whole brain, and particularly in prefrontal. I thought increasing levels of dopamine in prefrontal might be part of the biological change making possible those cognitive changes in the babies. So how are you going to study this?
It so happened that at a conference a colleague mentioned that she was looking into children with the disorder called Phenylketonuria (PKU). These kids cannot metabolize an amino acid called phenylalanine. If you do not treat this disorder, levels of phenylalanine become so high that they are toxic to the brain, and you have gross damage brain and severe mental retardation. The treatment is to try and remove phenylalanine as much as possible from the diet. However, phenylalanine never occurs in isolation. It is a component of protein. So the only way to take out phenylalanine is to take out protein. You do not want to deprive kids entirely of protein. Doctors needed to do a delicate balance between getting a child some protein and not having the child have too much phenylalanine. Phenylalanine competes with tyrosine to enter the brain. So if the compromise the doctor works out involves the level of phenylalanine in the blood being a little more elevated than it should be, the level of tyrosine reaching the brain will a little less than it should be. Now, what the person at the conference told me was kids with PKU on the dietary compromise prescribed by doctors had EF deficits, but doctors were ignoring those reported deficits because nobody could imagine a mechanism by which only certain functions of the brain would be affected. Besides, the kids looked great on IQ tests, and they had normal head circumference. So the doctors did not want to hear about problems. They said, “We solved this. They are no mentally retarded.” Well, when I was a postdoc, on the floor below me, there was a lab headed by Bob Roth who happened to be studying the competition between tyrosine and another amino acid. What they showed was that if tyrosine is lowered only a little bit (tyrosine is the precursor of dopamine, by the way) it does not affect most dopamine systems in the brain. They are robust in the face of having a little less raw material (a little less tyrosine from which to make dopamine). However, Bob Roth’s lab showed that prefrontal cortex is different; it is affected by even small reductions in tyrosine. So I said, “This fits what is happening with these kids with PKU.” If they are on diet, phenylalanine levels are only slightly increased, which would reduce the amount of tyrosine reaching the brain only slightly. So it should selectively affect prefrontal cortex and selectively affect EFs. We did an animal model to show this. We followed children with PKU longitudinally to show this. We showed the mechanism causing the EF deficits in PKU children and we showed the EF deficits more definitively than had been done before. In response, almost overnight, the guidelines for medical treatment of PKU changed because once they had a mechanism, once they understood the cause and what to do about it, it was easy to react.
In the course of doing the longitudinal study, I got some information I did not want to hear – which was that the special property of the dopamine system in prefrontal cortex that made the effects of PKU selective to prefrontal were also true of the retina. Every last one of the special properties. To be consistent, I had to predict that the retina would be affected in kids with PKU too. I contacted the world’s expert on the retina at Harvard. He got all excited because ”we know this” and he started telling me at the cellular level. But I wanted to know at the behavioral level so I could study it! He said, “Well, we do not know as much about that. However, we do know that if dopamine is dramatically reduced, as in Parkinson’s disease, there is a deficit in contrast sensitivity. So I teamed up with a pediatric optometrist, Chaya Herzberg. We studied contrast sensitivity in the kids. Sure enough, they were impaired. We had two totally different behavioral deficits predicted by the same underlying mechanism. I can keep going on, but I will not. There is a paper in a book called Malleable Minds, edited by Rena Subotnik and others, which talks about how I went from one thing not finding, or that I did not understand, to investigating what might be going on there. How can I try to understand the thing that is not fitting? Or, what are the implications of what we know now for something else? Or, now that we know enough to help kids, how can we go about helping kids, and showing that it helps?
7. If you had unlimited funding and unrestricted freedom, what research would you conduct?
That’s easy. I want to study the benefits of theatre, music, dance, storytelling, youth circus, and so on, for kids. EFs are like the ‘canary in the coal mine.’ They are the first to show the effects, and they show them most dramatically, if you are sad, stressed, lonely, not physically fit, or sleep-deprived. In other words, if you want kids to be able to function well cognitively, if you want them to succeed to school and careers, you need to care about their emotional, social, and physical health. If any of those needs are unmet, they will pull EFs down. It will pull school or job performance down. If you think about the activities that address all the parts of you, it is activities like those I just mentioned. They challenge EFs, which is critical. They require holding information in mind, paying close attention and concentrating, and so on. They give kids great joy and feelings of pride and self-confidence. The things that I have been talking about are ensemble activities like orchestra, social, communal dance, and so on, where everyone is part of a group or team and working together. Everybody is an important part of a whole (social connection and belonging). All of them involve developing physically. It is most obvious with something like dance or circus. However, even something like playing an instrument requires eye-hand coordination, manual dexterity, and so on.
That is what I would do. I had an ad in Variety that asked for funding to do this because the eyes of grant reviewers (who love my basic science work) galze over when I ask for funding to study the benefits of music, dance, storytelling, or youth circus. I am considering trying to raise funds to serious, state of the art studies of this through crowdscource funding.
The arts have been around since the beginning of civilization. And they have been in every civilization everywhere. If they were just a frill, would they have lasted so long and been found everywhere? If they were just a frill, you would not think they would have that staying power. You would not think they would have independently developed in so many different places. They must address fundamental needs of people.
8. You earned the Tier I Canada Research Chair Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience in 2004. What is involved in this position? What social responsibilities does subsequent funding and influence entail?
The Canada Research Chair means that I am freed from other responsibilities to do research. I do not have to teach. I teach every other year because I love to teach; I do not get paid anymore to teach. I do not have to run my conference, and I do not get any more pay for running the conference. The conference is for the general public. It is transformational for the people who go to it and it has a ripple effect, helping many more people than just those who attend. Every single person of the 700+ attending gave it a standing ovation at the end. For the last two conferences (2010 and 2013) 98% of attendees gave it an outstanding review. The effects reach medical practice, educational practice, and parenting. If you go to my website, you will see several different social service things that we are involved in. For the conference, I worked hard with people from countries that Canada is not so inclined to give visas to such as the Philippines, South Africa, or Palestine.
The only child and adolescence psychiatrist in Gaza emailed me that he was coming to the conference. He was all excited. Two weeks later, he emailed me, very disappointed, that his institution had spent all of its travel funds for the year. I emailed him back right away, “Do not worry, you can still come. We will not charge you registration for the conference and between the Arab-Muslim and Jewish communities in Vancouver, each will raise half of the funds for your travel expenses.” Of course, I had not asked anybody yet. So now, I had to ask people! (Laughs) People were great. They raised the money. Jews outside of British Columbia (BC), even as far as Israel, sent money.
About 6 weeks before the conference, I received another concerned email from the doctor in Gaza. Obviously, there is no Canadian embassy in Gaza or anywhere in Palestine. So his visa had been sent to the closest Canadian embassy – the one in Cairo – but there was unrest in Egypt and Canada had closed its embassy in Cairo. Also, he was supposed to fly out of Cairo but the border between Gaza and Egypt had been closed because of the unrest. The wonderful, wonderful man who was the Representative of Canada in Ramallah (Hussein Hirji) arranged for the doctor’s visa to be sent to Tel Aviv, but Israel, bless its heart, would not allow a Palestinian to go from Gaza to Tel Aviv to pick up the visa and back. So Hussein had it couriered from Tel Aviv to Sami Owaida (the doctor in Gaza). Then I had to quickly change Sami’s flight to go out of Amman, Jordan, instead of Cairo. But he needed a visa to enter Jordan. All of that happened and he was at the conference! (Laughs)
It was great. One of the big topics at the conference was trauma. In particular, the ways to recognize unusual signs and how to try and help people recover. It is hard to think of a place where there have been more traumatized people.
9. What do you consider the controversial topics in your field? How do you examine the controversial topics?
One controversial topic is, what EFs are – if they are distinct or all one? Whether EFs can be improved in children, and how, is controversial. In addition, there is a lot we do not know such as the optimal timing of programs to improve EFs, how long programs should be – in terms of months/years and in terms of how long a single session should be. Many of the programs that have worked have had multiple components. There is disagreement about whether we should try to discover which discrete part is most responsible for the benefit, or whether it is a gestalt and trying to study individual features in isolation would be the wrong way to go.
There are disagreements about how to interpret behavioral findings on EF tests. Exactly, why did somebody fail or succeed? There are disagreements about most everything. So in that sense, most everything is controversial.
10. What do some in opposition to you argue? How do you respond?
Sometimes, it is an empirical question. We respond by saying, “Let’s do a study together.” I did that with a colleague from England. We published in 2013. He was right. I was wrong. We say this in the paper.
Sometimes, it is very clear that they are wrong, and they are just being stubborn to say what they say, because the data so clearly show they are wrong. I try to say that, but it usually falls on deaf ears.
Sometimes, we, alone, will try to do a study to answer the question empirically. It may at times send me back to the drawing board to re-think things.
11. What advice do you have for young psychologists?
I think that they should follow their heart, what excites them, and not worry about whether they will get a job or even tenure. Sometimes, they think that they should study x because x is more marketable. I do not think that they should worry about marketability. I think they should follow what really is their passion. And the opportunities will come from that because they will do the best work in what they are most interested in doing. There is no best time to have kids. If somebody is waiting to have kids until there are no pressures or the right time;there is no right time and there always be pressures. You might as well do it.
There is no point in holding a grudge or being ungracious. There is no point in making enemies. Let things roll off your back, and to just be kind and considerate to everybody, even if someone has not been that way to you.
12. Whom do you consider your biggest influences? Could you recommend any seminal or important books/articles by them?
Jerry Bruner, Pat Goldman-Rakic, George Goethals, Robert Swearer, Elliott Stellar, Jim Stellar.
13. In an interview with Dr. Elizabeth Loftus from In-Sight Issue 2.A, I quote an acceptance speech for an award from the AAAS for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility. In it, she said, “We live in perilous times for science…and in order for scientists to preserve their freedoms they have a responsibility…to bring our science to the public arena and to speak out as forcefully as we can against even the most cherished beliefs that reflect unsubstantiated myths.” How important do you see criticizing ‘unsubstantiated myths’ in ‘perilous times’ for Science?
I wonder if that was done during President Bush, seriously, because he would say things that were not true. There were political ads by “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth”that were full of lies first against Senator Max Cleland from Virginia, a Vietnam veteran who was paraplegic, and they challenged his patriotism and military duty. After that, they did to the same thing against Senator Kerry when he was running for President.What they said were lies, just lies.
A lot of times, if you look at the discussion section of a scientific paper, what is said there is not substantiated in the results section. Oftentimes, what people will say in the press, or a discussion paper, is unsubstantiated, even though they make it sound like it is substantiated. That is very serious, a very serious problem.
I think it is very important to speak out against lies, to speak the truth, and the to stand up for justice and what is right. It is important to speak up when scientific findings are ignored or mis-used.
Prime Minister Harper is making it difficult for scientists in the federal government here to get the truth out. If he disagrees with the truth, they are not supposed to publish it. That is a huge problem.
14. I noticed in conducting a rather large literature review with a professor from the University of the Fraser Valley, in some of our research for environmental psychology, the discussion on the great level of lobbying involved in environmental issues.
Look at fracking, the evidence is that it is bad. We should not allow fracking. However, there is so much money coming from the industry that the material is not coming through. President Obama supports fracking now, and he is a good man. I think if he saw the evidence, he would change his mind. It is a huge problem. People claim x, y, and z is evidenced-based. That a, b, and c are not. Even though, the evidence shows the reverse.
Emile Durkheim said, ‘Words really are not nearly as powerful as we thought. They do not really have the power to persuade you if your mind is set against it. The only time words have power is if you were already sort of inclined to think that way.’ If you were not inclined in that way at all, words will not likely persuade you.
15. Regarding Durkheim’s statement, this might support more foundational education. For example, rather than a smart group of people selecting the appropriate thoughts and ideas for everyone in their education, you have students learn the tools for effective reasoning.
Right! You want people who can reason, problem-solve, can think, and can use executive functions.
Bibliography
1) [On Being] (2009, September 30). Soundseen: In the Room with Adele Diamond. Retrieved from http://vimeo.com/7708845.
2) Dalai Lama Center [dalailamacenter] (2013, June 20). Heart-Mind 2013: Adele Diamond – Cultivating the Mind. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXn74sYHsQM.
3) Dalai Lama Center [dalailamacenter] (2012, January 25). Adele Diamond with the Dalai Lama. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD2cWBGMVAg.
4) Diamond, A. (2014). Want to optimize executive functions and academic outcomes? Simple, just nourish the human spirit. Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology, 37, 205-232
5) Diamond, A. (2012). Activities and programs that improve children’s executive functions.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 335-341.
6) Diamond, A. (2001). A model system for studying the role of dopamine in prefrontal cortex during early development in humans. In C. Nelson & M. Luciana (Eds.), Handbook of developmental cognitive neuroscience (p. 433-472). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Reprinted in M.H. Johnson, Y. Munakata, & R. O. Gilmore (eds.). (2002). Reader in brain development and cognition. London, UK: Blackwell Press.
7) Diamond, A. (2011). Biological and social influences on cognitive control processes dependent on prefrontal cortex. Progress in Brain Research, 89, 317-337. (special issue entitled “Gene Expression to Neurobiology and Behavior: Human Brain Development and Developmental Disorders”)
8) Diamond, A. (2007). Consequences of variations in genes that affect dopamine in prefrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 161-170.
9) Diamond, A. (2012). How I came full circle from the social end of psychology, to neuroscience, and back again, in an effort to understand the development of cognitive control. In R. F. Subotnik, A. Robinson, C. M. Callahan, & P. Johnson (Eds.), Malleable Minds. (p.55-84). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, U. of Conn.
10) Diamond, A. (in press). Want to optimize EFs and academic outcomes? Simple, just nourish the human spirit. Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology: Developing cognitive control processes: Mechanisms, implications, and interventions, 37.
11) Diamond, A., Ciaramitaro, V., Donner, E., Djali, S., & Robinson, M. (1994). An animal model of early-treated PKU. Journal of Neuroscience, 14, 3072-3082
12) Diamond, A. & Herzberg, C. (1996). Impaired sensitivity to visual contrast in children treated early and continuously for PKU.Brain, 119, 523-538.
13) Diamond, A., Prevor, M., Callender, G., & Druin, D.P. (1997). Prefrontal cortex cognitive deficits in children treated early and continuously for PKU. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (Monograph #252), 62(4), 1-207.
14) Garrison Institute [GarrisonInstitute] (2011, January 10). Adele Diamond at the Garrison Institute. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB6sVyTXJRg.
15) Garrison Institute [GarrisonInstitute] (2011, December 5). Adele Diamond on Why Disciplining the Mind May Be Critical for Children’s Academic Success. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wdFKPTEL2M.
16) Garrison Institute [GarrisonInstitute] (2012, July 16). Child Development and the Brain: Insights to Help Every Child Thrive. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ_j1mjGLow.
17) Kiefer, F. [Fanny Kiefer] (2012, January 24). Adele Diamond on Studio 4 with Fanny Kiefer Part 1 of 2. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKbXXGT5N8M.
18) Kiefer, F. [Fanny Kiefer] (2012, January 24). Adele Diamond on Studio 4 with Fanny Kiefer Part 2 of 2. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBHZC5vkhQg.
19) Seattle Children’s Hospital [SeattleChildrens] (2012, October 18). Understanding EF. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWBn9LOHjzA.
20) Towson University [Towson University] (2012, January 24). MSDE – Dr Adele Diamond. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0W8Y9l1toE
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2014/04/08
1. In terms of geography, culture, and language, where does your family background reside? How do you find this influencing your development?
I was born in Israel. My father came to Israel in a youth movement in 1925, as a pioneer who wanted to build an independent state for the Jewish people, and their dream was realized 1948 with the establishment of Israel as an independent state.
My mother’s older brother did the same, and his family followed him and came to Israel in 1931, when my mother was 11 years old.
2. What do you consider a pivotal moment in your upbringing? Did this influence your entering into the your field? If so, how?
A pivotal moment was when my parents moved to a suburb of Haifa, when I was 8 years old. In this community the emphasis was on contribution to the society at large and to the local community in particular, including the absorption of new immigrants who managed to survive the holocaust and to come to Israel. This has strongly influence my own personal development.
3. Your current responsibilities lie in research and teaching under The Mendes France Chair of Management & Economics. What does this role imply? What courses do you teach at present? In particular, what research have you conducted up to present through this position?
I do not anymore hold the Mendes France Chair… because I am a professor emeritus now. However, I am still the Vice Dean for the MBA programs, the advisor to the Technion President on the promotion of women students and faculty, I am the chair of the National Council for the promotion of women in science and technology, and the founder and chair of the Knowledge Center for Innovation, which I established after I received the Israel Prize in 2005, and I felt I want to contribution to the Israeli society by enhancing innovation in the Israeli industry.
4. An aging workforce stands as a major problem for the economy of advanced industrial nations, especially in the long-term. According to Tanova and Boltom in 2008, traditional factors contributing to ‘voluntary turnover’ are the ‘ease of movement’ and the ‘desirability of moving’ with regards to work. Furthermore, you found new results about the contributory factor of ‘job embeddedness’. In a paper entitled Why People Stay: using Job Embeddedness to Predict Voluntary Turnover (2001), you state, “The personal and organizational costs of leaving a job are often very high.” Can you define ‘job embeddedness’? Why does voluntary turnover occur in spite of the ‘very high’ costs? In particular, what does this mean for advanced industrial nations with an aging work force?
Embeddedness conveys the meaning of being part of workplace, part of the community and part of the physical surrounding. One of our poets – Saul Tcernichovsky, wrote that a “Man is nothing but his native landscape format”. What this means is that we are shaped by, and become part of the place in which we work, we live as part of the social community, and as part of the physical landscape. Our research findings showed that indeed, people who have a stronger sense of embeddedness are less likely to change their workplace and their social community. This paper highlights the existence of forces that attenuate the likelihood of turnover, and that it is not only the level of work satisfaction which explains the tendency to stay or quit jobs.
5. Of particular interest in the area of life, but within your area of expertise as well – work, you published a paper in 2013 called Emotion Display Norms in Virtual Teams. You incorporated a conceptual framework from A dynamic multi-level model of culture: From the microlevel of the individual to the macro level of a global culture (2004). This describes the connections of nested relationships between cultures and values from the individual to the global level. What were the findings of this 2013 paper? In addition, in an increasingly diverse, multi-cultural, and international world and subsequent work environment, how much does understanding multi-cultural and contextual differences in emotion matter for virtual collaboration?
We are only now starting to learn the effect of a virtual, multicultural environment on human communication, on the social identity – from a local identity to a global identity, and on team cooperation and team performance. The 2013 paper on emotion display norms showed that there is going to be a global culture, with global emotion display norms. Namely, when working in the global work context, people from different cultures perceive the emotional display norms in a similar way, namely, more positive and less negative than in their own culture. While there is going to be a consensus among members from different cultures about the emotion display norms in the global context, there is still a high variation in the perceived emotion display norms in different cultures. My prediction is that individuals and teams are going to function at two contextual environments, in their local cultural environments, in which they activate their local identity and display emotions in line with their cultural norms, and at the same time, they also function in a global context, in which they activate their global identity and display emotions similar to others who come from other cultures.
6. You co-authored an interesting paper in 2005 highly relevant to entrepreneurs in the world of international business called Culture and International Business: Recent Advanced and Future Directions. It looks into the changing nature of international business. In particular, you ask if global business will change, and if the various differences in values and culture might create a standard set of ‘business practices’. The paper was meant to draw out the basis for future directions of research. What future directions did you derive from the research?
Similar to my answer to point #6, we are going to live in two contexts – the immediate local cultural context, and the more distant, global work context. As a result, we are going to develop two identities – local and global identity, and two sets for emotional and behavioral norms – one for the local culture and one for the global culture. Hence, the world is going to be more complex and individuals will have to learn which emotion to display and which identity to activate, depending on the salience of the local versus global context. Furthermore, it will be interesting to study which identity dominates in case of identity conflicts.
7. In a hypothetical perfect world with plenty of funding and time, and if guaranteed an answer, what single topic would you research?
I would study how to enhance the level of creativity and innovation in a global work environment of a growing complexity, and through cooperation, in order to come up with solutions to human problems in all the spectrum of life, in all parts of the world, and to share the benefit of innovation in a more egalitarian way.
8. What do you consider the controversial topic in your field at this time? How do you examine the issue?
The controversial topic in my field pertains to the increasing level of diversity in the workplace, as a result of globalization, and to the impact of team and organizational diversity on innovation.
I initiate studies on the meaning of creativity in different cultures, and studies on the interaction effect of culture and the work context on creativity. For example, in our 2013 paper we studied the level of innovation of culturally diverse teams versus homogenous teams when working under very specific instructions versus general ones and we found, that the level of creativity is higher under general versus specific instructions for both culturally heterogeneous versus homogenous teams. This is not the case when performing and “execute” task that has one correct answer. In this case, homogeneous teams work better than heterogeneous teams when performing a task under general instructions, but there are no differences between the two types of teams when working under specific instructions.
9. You have spent time speaking on the plights of women in the academy. In particular, the low enrollment and graduation rates of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. What is the set of causes for this plight?
We are in a period of change from a traditional society with a clear sex role differentiation – women at home, men at work, to a modern egalitarian society with equal opportunities to make choices for both men and women. The change is already observed in medicine, where the percentage of men and women is equal today, but there were times when women were not allowed to be admitted to medical schools. But another related reason for it is that women have a higher social motivation than men, and better social skills than men, and as a result, they are more attracted to jobs that allow them to interact with others and to contribute to the society. Today we find that the gap between technology and socially oriented work is getting smaller. For example, there is a strong relationship between having IT knowledge and skills, and facilitating social interactions via social networks. Also there is a strong relationship between medical instruments and helping people to improve their quality of life. In addition, there is a shortage of engineers and scientists today, and the job opportunities and the high salaries relative to social science jobs, will eventually attract more women and companies will pay more attention to make the workplace more friendly to women.
10. If any, what responsibility do academics and researchers have for contributing to society and culture?
Academics and researchers have a huge responsibility for contributing to society and culture. They are responsible for the education of the new generations, they are responsible for developing new knowledge in all fields of science and technology, and consequently, they are responsible to the quality of life and well-being of humanity.
11. Who most influenced you? Why them? Can you recommend any books or articles by them?
It is hard for me to answer it. I was influenced by different people and different books in different periods of my life. I believe that I was also influenced by the interaction with my family members and with my students as I have developed as a person, as an educator and as a researcher.
12. Where do you see your field in the next 5, 10, and 25 years? With respect to more representation of women, where do you see the demographics of men and women? Especially, what about the high-end of the achievement?
I think that the direction of our field of social sciences in general and of organization behavior in particular is going towards a higher level of complexity, a stronger emphasis on methodology, and a new direction towards studying the physiological correlates of emotions, thoughts and behaviors.
Bibliography
1) Erez, M. [The Open University]. (2012, December 2). Prof. Miriam Erez: Statistical Overview of Women in Science in Israel and Abroad. [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9kOOoM-n2g
2) Erez, M., and Gati, E., (2004). A dynamic multi-level model of culture: From the microlevel of the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 583-598.
3) Glikson, E., & Erez, M. (2013). Emotion display norms in virtual teams. Journal Of Personnel Psychology, 12(1), 22-32. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000078
4) Govindarajan, V. and Gupta, A.K. (2001) The Quest for Global Dominance: Transforming Global Presence into Global Competitive Advantage, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
5) Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage: Newbury Park, CA.
6) Leung, K., Bhagat, R., Buchan, N.R, Erez, M., and Gibson, C.B. (2005). Culture and International Business: Recent Advanced and Future Directions. Journal of International Business Studies 36, 357-378
7) Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W., Sablynski, C.J. and Erez, M. (2001). “Why People Stay: Using Job Embeddedness to Predict Voluntary Turnover”. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102-1122
8) Tanova, C., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Using job embeddedness factors to explain voluntary turnover in four European countries. International Journal Of Human Resource Management, 19(9), 1553-1568. doi:10.1080/09585190802294820
9) Yarron, H. M. et al [The Open University]. (2012, December 17). Panel Discussion: The Road to the Top: Paved with Dubious Intentions?. [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6ccvZMtqF8
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2014/04/01
1. In terms of geography, culture, and language, where does your family background reside? How do you find this influencing your development?
My mother’s background is Swedish– from northern Sweden, near the Arctic Circle. My grandfather came to Canada and set up a homestead in Alberta. His wife and their oldest five children – my mother had not yet been born – were scheduled to follow two years later, on the Titanic…seriously! My grandfather didn’t know that the Titanic was overbooked and his family had to take a later boat; instead, he thought they were lost. Of course, communication was poor in those days.
My father’s background is Irish, English, and Scottish. His grandparents immigrated to Nova Scotia, with 3 of the children (my grandfather being one), later moving west to Saskatchewan, where my grandfather made a living as a professional boxer. (Laughs). Apparently, he never lost a fight and won most matches by knock-out. I guess, he had a bit of an Irish temper. (Laughs)
From both sets of grandparents (and from my parents), I learned the value of hard work, kindness towards others, and being adventurous. Even during the difficult days of the Depression, my maternal grandfather never turned away anyone asking for work on his farm, for food, or a place to stay. There was a generosity of spirit, which was communicated to his children and grandchildren.
2. How was your youth? How did you come to this point? What do you consider a pivotal moment?
Growing up, I always wanted to make a positive difference in the world and to help others. Back when I was in university, not a lot of doors were open for women, and I did not have a lot of professional roles models. For example, among my 73 first cousins, I am the only one who went on to do a doctorate. Because I loved teaching and enjoyed working with young people, I followed in my mother’s footsteps and became a teacher. When I was offered the job, I was asked, “Would you like to teach Law 12 as part of your teaching assignment?” As a history major, I thought, “I know nothing about law, but I want the job.” (Laughs) I said, “I will approach it as a person who knows little, but knows people who do know.” So developed my course around a community-based curriculum, inviting many guests into my classroom and learning with the students. II received funding from the Legal Services Society to share the model I had developed, since very few Law 12 teachers had a law degree, and later was hired by this agency as their Schools Program Director. My job was to provide curriculum resources and professional development for teachers and students in British Columbia, to improve their overall knowledge of law.
This position was pivotal in my own career. While planning a national conference I met a professor at Simon Fraser who encouraged me to develop a program with him in the Faculty of Education. We were able to secure funding from the Law Foundation of BC, the Real Estate Foundation, the Notary Foundation and other agencies and law firms, and began what came to be called the Centre for Education, Law & Society.
While developing the Centre (CELS), I obtained my Master’s degree in law-related education from SFU and later secured a scholarship to attend the University of Chicago, where I earned my Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction. I returned to SFU in a professorship position, where I happily remain.
In terms of what motivates me: I like to be creating new things, to push the boundaries of “what is” to “what could be.” I like to be challenged and seek to draw like-minded people together to advance these goals.
3. At present, you hold the position Director for the ‘Centre for Education, Law & Society’. What responsibilities and duties does this imply?
It is a part of my work as an Associate Professor of Education. The centre’s mandate is to improve the legal literacy of youth and young adults, in the school system, in community settings and at the post-secondary level. We do this through a program of research, teaching and community-based initiatives. We developed 3 undergraduate courses and recently completed our first offering of a Master’s program in justice, law, and ethics. Our research topics vary: for example, recently we completed a 4-year study on legal literacy of youth in grades 6 to 10, which focused on human rights, citizenship, identity issues and environmental sustainability. We’ve also investigated cyberbullying in schools and at the post-secondary levels. I also helped establish a school for students who face multiple challenges in their lives and who don’t succeed in the regular public school. I continue to be an educational consultant to this unique and highly successful school (see http://www.focusbc.org).
My job as Director is to manage our current projects, seek additional funding for new projects, provide support to graduate students, and work with other agencies to improve the legal literacy of youth. Legal literacy involves understanding the role law plays in our society and what it means to be an informed, engaged citizen. The law can be a tool to create a society that is respectful and caring towards others, sensitive to human and civil rights, and inclusive of diversity. Legal literacy also involves knowledge of those aspects of law that affect our daily lives in a practical way, such as purchasing goods from a store, holding a job, renting a home, or getting married. It also involves an understanding of broader influences which guide our society, such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights and other UN documents. Also, asking, “Are we implementing those basic human rights in our own society and elsewhere in the world?” And if we are, what role can Canada play in providing for the needs and rights that all human beings should have for themselves?
4. In some recent research, you note the unfortunate global occurrence of bullying. In particular, the existence of cyberbullying. For readers, can you define cyberbullying? What negative psychological, emotional, and physical consequences arise from cyberbullying for the victims and the perpetrators?
‘Cyberbullying’ is bullying through online sources such as smart phones, Facebook, e-mail, blogs or chat rooms, or any of the various technological tools at our disposal. It involves sending harmful, derogatory, harassing, negative, sometimes repulsive – even sexual, messages or images to somebody with the intent to harm or hurt them. The impact is often quite devastating. It can cause sleeplessness, anxiety, depression, fear, inability to concentrate, and sometimes leads to suicidal thoughts. Cyberbullying is different from face-to-face bullying in that it can be anonymous: “Where is this coming? A friend, an acquaintance, a stranger, someone I sit next to in class, why are they doing this to me?” People are so connected online. They open their social networking sites and see a derogatory message from someone. How do they deal with it? Oftentimes, they cannot get rid of the message, which results in them being bullied over and over again.
Research shows that cyberbullying can start as early as age 9 or 10, extending into adolescence and dying down somewhat by age 15 or 16. In our current study we are looking at the extent of cyberbullying at the post-secondary level, among undergraduates and towards faculty members. We were surprised to learn that approximately 1/5 of undergraduate students at the 4 universities we studied had experiencing cyberbullying from another student, and approximately the same number of faculty members had been cyberbullied either by students and/or by colleagues. These messages can be hurtful—indeed devastating– at any age.
5. Your conceptualization of ‘cyberkindness’ seems to me, in essence, digital civility, bringing civil discourse in the real world into the electronic media.
Yes, I call the internet and other outlets for communication a ‘flat medium’, in that, they cannot convey facial expressions, body language, or tone of voice, and therefore the intent of a message may be misinterpreted. Further the sender does not see the impact a message might have on the recipient, such as they might see in face-to-face bullying. We have yet to learn more effective ways to communicate through technology.
Also, we have cyberbullying because bullying is present in the wider society, and too many are rewarded for their bullying behaviour. Politicians bully each other and sometimes seem to relish in the experience. Countries bully each other, employers bully employees, corporations bully each other to get an edge in the market, and so on.
We need to look at what is being modelled by adults, since modelling is one of the most powerful teachers. Young people learn not only from what they are told, but what they experience and see being modeled around them.
6. What strategies can students employ individually and collectively to reduce the occurrence and harms of cyberbullying and bullying in general? In addition, within your recent work, you discuss the development of “cyber-kindness” and an “ethic of care”. For readers, what is the abridged definition of this terminology, and the practical application and outcome of them?
I began researching cyberbullying because I had done research on the ethic of care and the positive impact this philosophy had on students, teachers and the school culture. When I began to investigate cyberbullying, I did not want to deal with the negative alone. I wanted to look at the notion of “cyber-kindness” and the ways in which technology could be used to communicate positive, respectful and kind messages. This notion of care is situated within the broader philosophical worldview of Nel Nodding’s and Carol Gilligan’s work – caring being a relational ethic. Here caring is not a ‘fuzzy’ feeling, by rather showing empathy towards the other, understanding the needs of the other, and working in the other’s best interests.
Schools that embrace the ethic of care have less bullying and cyberbullying, because they focus on relationships, empathy and the understanding of others. For example, a couple of years ago, we worked with a school where five grade 7 girls were actively cyberbullying each other with really nasty comments on a social networking site. The principal, rather than suspending them, saw their leadership potential and re-directed the negative energy they had towards each other into working on productive projects at the school. She met with them once a week and, as the discussions unfolded, they apologized to each other about the hurtful messages they had been sending. They stopped these negative interchanges, but more importantly, ended up contributing to the school, and influencing the culture of the whole school. Their enthusiasm for doing positive things was infectious and spilled over to the other grades as well.
What this principal demonstrated is that it is important to address the root causes of cyberbullying, not just the symptoms (i.e. the behaviour).
7. In a hypothetical perfect world with plenty of funding and time, and if guaranteed an answer, what single topic would you research?
Ways to create a kinder world, how do we change the ‘human being’ to become more respectful and kinder to one another? I am somewhat of a utopian in this regard.
Perhaps we can start by getting to know our neighbour, and by this, I mean getting to know others outside of our circle or enclave. Entering into a dialogue, listening to others and learning from others. A kinder world would be a more peaceful world and a happier world.
8. If any, what responsibility do academics and researchers have for contributing to society and culture?
I believe we have a 100% responsibility to share our knowledge. Further, our research should connect with real issues facing the world. We not only have a responsibility to research important issues, but to also communicate our findings to the wider public. In my own work, I try to focus on areas that will benefit society. Also, I engage with the media and the public to bring an academic perspective to issues. For example, everyone has an opinion on cyberbullying, but we need to situate this discussion within the research. We should not develop policy based on opinion. It is important for academics, policy makers, government, the media and the public to work collaboratively to solve social problems.
9. Who most influenced you? Why them? Can you recommend any books or articles by them?
There are many, many people who influenced me, but I’ll just mention a few. My parents, of course. Also four particular women. A pastor’s wife when I was a teenager who made me feel that I was important and that my opinion was valued, even though I was young; she listened attentively, asked gentle but probing questions, and encouraged me to find my future.
Anna York, a friend I met when studying at the University of Chicago. Although she struggled with MS, she was always authentic, a real person with depth, honesty and integrity. Her book, Rising Up!, documents her physical and spiritual journey into health.
Another woman I have known for years, Doreen, who now lives in Texas. She has experienced many challenges and setbacks in life, but is always positive, hopeful, with a deep faith that plays out in the practice of her life. She has always been there for me, when I’ve faced my own struggles and challenges.
Finally, I must mention the impact my daughter has had on my life.
Having a child has taught me so much — to be wise in what I share with her, to model what I feel is important in life, to have that wonderful opportunity — indeed a gift — to influence someone so inquisitive and open to learn. Being given the gift of motherhood has caused me over and over again to re-evaluate my priorities and to consider what is important in life. Probably more than anyone else in my life, just as I’ve influenced her, she has influenced me and now that she is a young adult, she continues to surprise me with her insights, her creativity, her commitments, and her wisdom.
10. Please elaborate on a point made earlier about ‘building a culture of compassion’, and focusing on the important things in life and in one’s work.
We are all busy. There are too many things to distract us. We need to be constantly reflecting on ‘who we are’ and, maybe this sounds trite, on our purpose in life. In other words, asking ourselves, “What difference do we want to make in the world?” It could be just influencing one person. We do not need to look ‘big’ in that sense. If someone helps one child, it may be just as significant as what Mother Theresa or or Nelson Mandela accomplished. We all come to that point in our lives where we ask the question, “Why am I here? Why are we here? What am I doing?” Reflecting on these big questions of life, helps us focus and work towards goals that matters.
11. What worries and hopes do you have for the educational settings of the Lower Mainland, Canada, and international settings regarding bullying and cyberbullying?
I worry about people gravitating to quick-fixes.–buy this program, bring it into the schools, and it will solve the problem of bullying or cyberbullying. This approach is not effective. Rather, we need to do the hard work of building relationships and working on the root causes of negative behaviour. This also involves each one of us examining our own behaviour.
Another worry is that people will think, “Bullying has always been with us, just deal with it.” This is not helpful to the victim nor does it show empathy. I’d like to think we can reduce incidents of bullying/cyberbullying rather than merely “learning to live with it.”
Bibliography
1) Agatston, P., Kowalski, R., & Limber, S. (2012). Youth views on cyberbullying. In J. W. Patchin, S. Hinduja (Eds.) , Cyberbullying prevention and response: Expert perspectives (pp. 57-71). New York, NY US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
2) Beck, K. & Cassidy, W. (2009). Embedding the ethic of care in school policies and practices. In K. te Riele (Ed.) Making schools different: Alternative approaches to educating young people (Chap. 6), pp. 50-64, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
3) Brown, K., Jackson, M., & Cassidy, W. (2006). Cyber-bullying: Developing policy to direct responses that are equitable and effective in addressing this special form of bullying. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, Issue 57. http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/brown_jackson_cassidy.html
4) Cassidy, W. (2006). From zero tolerance to a culture of care, Journal of Safe Management of Disruptive and Assaultive Behavior: Special Edition on School Safety, Fall 2006, 22-26.
5) Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2013). Cyberbullying among youth: A comprehensive review of current international research and its implications and application to policy and practice, by invitation, in special international issue of School Psychology International, 34(6), 575-612.
6) Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2013). An essential library of international research in cyberbullying, by invitation, introduction to SAGE special collection of articles published by School Psychology International. [virtual special edition, published online with accompanying podcast by C. Faucher]
7) Cassidy, W., Brown, K., & Jackson, M. (2012). ‘Making kind cool’: Parents’ suggestions for preventing cyber-bullying and fostering cyber-kindness. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(4), 415-436.
8) Cassidy, W., Brown, K., & Jackson, M. (2012). ‘Under the radar’: Educators and cyberbullying in schools. School Psychology International, 33(5), 520-532. Doi: 10.1177/0143034312445245
9) Cassidy, W., Brown, K., & Jackson, M. (2011). Moving from cyber-bullying to cyber-kindness: What do students, educators and parents say? In Dunkels, E., Franberg, G.-M., & Hallgren, C. (Eds) Youth culture and net culture: Online social practices (pp. 256-277). Hershey, NY: Information Science Reference.
10) Cassidy, W. & Chinnery, A. (2009). Learning from indigenous education. In K. te Riele (Ed.) Making
schools different: Alternative approaches to educating young people (Chap. 15), pp. 135-143, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
11) Cassidy, W., Jackson, M., & Brown, K. (2009). Sticks and stones can break my bones, but how can pixels hurt me? Students’ experiences with cyber-bullying. School Psychology International, 30(4), 383-402.
12) Centre for Education, Law & Society (2014). Center for Education, Law & Society. Simon Fraser University. Retrieved February 18, 2014, from http://www.sfu.ca/education/cels.html
13) Faculty of Education (2014). Dr. Wanda Cassidy. Simon Fraser University. Retrieved February, 2014, from http://www.educ.sfu.ca/profiles/?page_id=111
14) Faucher, C., Jackson, M., & Cassidy, W. (in press). When on-line exchanges byte: An examination of the policy environment governing cyberbullying at the university level. Canadian Journal of Higher Education.
15) Gilligan, Carol (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16) Jackson, M., Cassidy, W. & Brown, K. (2009). Out of the mouth of babes: Students’ voice their opinions on cyber-bullying. Long Island Education Review, 8(2), 24-30.
17) Jackson, M., Cassidy, W., & Brown, K. N. (2009). “you were born ugly and youl die ugly too”: Cyberbullying as relational aggression. In Education, 15(2).
18) Kowalski, R. M., Morgan, C. A., & Limber, S. P. (2012). Traditional Bullying as a Potential Warning Sign of Cyberbullying. School Psychology International, 33(5), 505-519.
19) Noddings, Nel. Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.
20) Noddings, Nel. The Challenge to Care in Schools. New York: Teachers College Press, 1992.
21) Noddings, Nel. “Excellence as a Guide to Educational Conversation.” Teachers College Record, 94(4) (1993): 730-743.
22) Noddings, Nel. Educating Moral People: A caring alternative to character education. New York: Teachers College Press, 2002.
23) Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2012). Cyberbullying: An update and synthesis of the research. In J. W. Patchin, S. Hinduja (Eds.) , Cyberbullying prevention and response: Expert perspectives (pp. 13-35). New York, NY US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
24) SFUNews (2014). Symposium: Cyberbullying at Canadian Universities. Simon Fraser University. Retrieved February, 2014, from http://www.sfu.ca/sfunews/stories/2014/symposium-cyberbullying-at-canadian-universities.html
25) Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal Of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 49(4), 376-385. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x
26) Smith, P. K., & Slonje, R. (2010). Cyberbullying: The nature and extent of a new kind of bullying, in and out of school. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 249-262). New York, NY US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
27) Topcu, C., & Erdur-Baker, O. (2012). Affective and Cognitive Empathy as Mediators of Gender Differences in Cyber and Traditional Bullying. School Psychology International, 33(5), 550-561.Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2007). Cyber Bullying Among Youngsters. Conference Papers — International Communication Association, 1.
28) von Marées, N., Petermann, F., Kowalski, R., Morgan, C., & Limber, S. (2012). Traditional bullying as a potential warning sign of cyberbullying. School Psychology International, 33(5), 505-519.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2014/03/22
1. What positions have you held in Academe? What position do you currently hold?
My positions held have been: Assistant Professor in the School of Education in the Faculty of Human, Social and Educational Development at Thompson Rivers University, where I was promoted to the position of Associate Professor. I was also Chair of a large department. I applied for and was offered the position of Dean here at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. Also, I have done a lot of different sessional and online teaching, at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. In fact, I recently taught a couple of courses at Royal Roads, in both online and face-to-face formats. However, this is my first full-time administrative role.
2. How did you come to this point in your academics? Who/what influenced you the most?
Soon after I started a permanent job at Thompson Rivers University (TRU) I became Chair. I discovered I was good at it. It felt right. What is more, I liked it. However, administrative work is not highly valued in the Faculties. It is not something faculty desire to go into. For example, when I told people I had taken on the position here, many of my colleagues responded that I had gone onto the dark side. It is seen as a negative rather than something to aspire to. While at TRU, I slowly started doing more administrative work. I sat on more internal and external committees. In 2012 I was invited to apply for my current Dean of Arts position, but I was on sabbatical at the time and I had full intention to return to TRU. It was one of those situations where I thought it would be interesting to go through the interview process. I thought I will see what it is like. It was low risk for me because I had a job which I liked and looked forward to there. And, the more I looked into the position at KPU, they more I was intrigued. The interviews were great. I liked the people I met. I like the trajectory of Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU) from a college to a university-college to a polytechnic university. It felt like a good fit for me.
3. How did you gain interest in Social and Educational Studies? Where did you acquire your education?
I think of myself as a historian. I did my B.A. and M.A. in History. When I decided to do my Ph.D., I wanted to work with a particular historian. Her name is Veronica Strong-Boag. At the time, she was at Simon Fraser University (SFU) in the history department. About the time I talked to her, and she agreed to be my supervisor, she had accepted a position at University of British Columbia (UBC). She would become the head of the Centre for Women’s Studies and Gender Relations. That position was affiliated with Social and Educational Studies at UBC. Now, Nicki, my supervisor, is a historian, but she became associated with Social and Educational Studies. Therefore, being her student, I became, de facto, associated with Social and Educational Studies. I do not have a teaching degree, nor a teaching background in terms of K-12, but I began to teach in the teacher training program and the courses I taught had to do with history of education, history of childhood, history of women, and the history of the family. These were the history courses within Social and Educational Studies. Social and educational Studies at UBC is composed of sociology, history, anthropology, and philosophy of education. None, or few, of the faculty within Social and Educational Studies have teaching degrees. The courses are called foundational because they look at the history or sociology of education. That is how I got into it. It is a bit odd because many people think I come from education, but I do not.
4. What kinds of research have you conducted up to the present?
Lots of research, it is kind of funny. As I became affiliated with Social and Educational Studies, and earned my Ph.D., I became aware that a lot of the jobs available were the jobs in education. I took the job at TRU in Educational Studies. However, my research continued to be in history. My Ph.D. was on women in the family in Canada in the post-World War II period (1945-1960), and the transition from war time to peace time and the way this played out in the context of the family during the Cold War. For instance, the context of the Cold War was creating a discourse of ‘a stable nation is a stable home’. My Masters was on orphanages, which was on the history of childhood. So my Ph.D. was a continuation of research on the history of the family, but in a different time period. I published and edited a collection of articles on the history of family and childhood issues. I worked on roadside shrines, which was a history of grieving and memorialization in British Columbia (BC). I published more recently a book co-authored with my husband called Vancouver Noir, which is Vancouver between the 1930 and 1960 period. Also, I recently began work on de-institutionalization. Beginning in the 1950s in Canada, people began to leave mental health facilities. I looked at their experiences. What was the experience of deinstitutionalization like for them? In addition, I studied de-institutionalization of the developmentally disabled. I focus much of my research in the domain of. About three years ago I thought, I really am in a Faculty of Education, I should do some educational research. Opportunities arose around the history of ‘principal preparation’ programs in the province, ‘diversity’, and diversity education and administration. When I was on sabbatical in 2011/2012, I did a lot of that research which is coming out in a number of publications this year. I have oscillated between history and education, which for me are two separate tracks of research with modest intersections. As of late, it is difficult to continue researching because of the demands of this position, but I consider it really important for me, as Dean of the Faculty of Arts, to continue with a research agenda. So, although difficult in terms of finding the time, it is important and a definite priority for me.
5. In your current role as Dean of Arts, where do you see ‘The University’ (as an abstract) going?
Good question, I could talk a lot about that, but I think we are re-defining ‘The University’. Is it a place for people to become credentialed for a skill or job? Is it job preparation? Or is it the place for people to become enlightened in terms of liberal education? I do not necessarily consider these antithetical, although they are often presented as such. I do not think they necessarily need teasing apart. For instance, in the university, we can prepare people for jobs and for living in a global society. Prepare them for living in a society with people who have a multitude of diversities. It does not necessarily mean not equipping them with the tools for a job. At KPU, we have the polytechnic title, but we have liberal education courses. The courses do not necessarily have pragmatic applications for an immediate job. For example, philosophy does not necessarily teach someone a skill for a job, but it does open our minds by making us consider things in a different way, especially those things that we have not considered before. We may not have questioned ourselves and our assumptions before, which is essential, to me, to be a citizen in today’s world and to be a good employee at virtually any job. In terms of the direction for the University, I think universities will be around for some time. I would like to see universities having more open access regarding the constraints people have with respect to the cost of university. Even though universities may not be very expensive, while attending university you may be unable to work, which is a negative expense. I want universities to be more open, more available, and much more flexible in terms of when we offer courses. Not simply a more fulsome summer semester, but I mean weekends, evenings, early mornings, that sort of stuff to make education way more accessible for people. Education or a university is becoming more than graduating from high school, doing your four years like I did, but becoming a place to come back to for continual learning. This is the place where I see universities going. In terms of our post-secondary institutions, I like the idea of various institutions connecting to one another. For instance, a student could live in Dawson Creek going to Northern Lights College (NLC) can take those courses and go to Athabasca University (AU) for open learning, come here, and then put things together from a variety of experiences. Also, I am a big believer in prior learning assessment. Putting things together from these various life experiences and different courses that they have taken. It is fundamental to the institution. You know, not all faculty at KPU conduct research. They may not conduct research in the traditional academic sense, but they are actively engaged in the research and the scholarship of teaching and learning, they re-work assignments, think about their classes, re-design their courses, and they think about this in consistent and constant ways without even realizing it or recognizing it as a form of research. I think research in all its forms is important for me to recognize and value.
6. In some cases, you have sciences such as biology bringing the knowledge and experiments down to the high school level, and having ambitious teachers and their students, at least in some cases, attempt, and in occasional cases succeeding, to publish their work.
I love that. I think more high school students should come into the university setting and receive dual-credits. I love the idea of having students engage in the university in this way. I think KPU should do more of this, and I have been an active supporter of the dual credit program, which at KPU is called Xcel.
7. Since you began studying social and educational studies, what do you consider the controversial topics? How do you examine the controversial topics?
I work with people have mental health issues. They have problems, obviously, and this impacts the research. For instance, I worked with a woman in creating a video. She disappeared for about six months. I worried about her. As it turns out, she went through a bad time. She did not want to be part of the world. Now, she is back – to my delight. However, these factors come into play when conducting the research. It can come into their own experiences with poverty, stigma, homelessness, and so on. All of those things are much different compared to going out to the library and having total control for four hours to conduct research on archival materials. This has made me appreciate working with people, and the challenges of that. The dynamic between you, as the researcher – let’s face it, a middle-class privileged white researcher – and the way it plays out in the research, how this plays out in our relationship, and the way I need to understand and research their lives. It has led to really, really understanding other people, and by that, also understanding myself. I am a historian through and through. I love history. I do not want to devalue history, but working with actual people is a different animal – let me tell you. It has hugely changed my attitude to research and to people.
8. In both cases, we have qualitative research.
I do mostly qualitative research; a little quantitative, but not a lot. Most of my historical research is 20th century, recent history.
9. How would you describe your philosophical framework? How did it change?
When I was first in university, I was exposed to Marxism and Socialism, which was huge for me. Labour history had a huge influence on me. Then I was introduced to feminist history during my masters, and that had a big influence on me as a female in the academy because I came to realize I had only a few female role models. In terms of both faculty and historians, at that time in the 80s, it was much different. Even when I was a history student, to make it from there to a professorship was a huge challenge, I will give a little example. When I decided to do my Ph.D., I had finished my B.A., worked for a while, began my masters, had a child, finished my master’s dissertation, had two more children, and then decided to do a Ph.D. I applied to various universities and for a few that included an interview process. In one interview, the interviewers wondered about the gap between finishing my masters and starting my Ph.D. I worked at (what is now) KPU, Douglas College, University of the Fraser Valley, Simon Fraser University, and Vancouver Island University, all of the institutions of the lower mainland going back and forth between them attempting to gather together a life. An interviewer asked, “Why did you take a 5 to 6 year break?” I paused and said, “I had three children.” He replied, “I put it to you. If you were serious about your academic life, you would not have had children.” That was in the 90s. I thought, “That makes a statement.” Maybe, that is the reason for women not existing in significant numbers in the academy. If he treated me like that, I wonder of the treatment of his female colleagues.
10. If you had unlimited funding and unrestricted freedom, what would you enjoy researching?
That is a good question. It goes to my previous statements about working with people having mental diagnoses. That is, although I love history and think of myself as a historian, and believe a historical perspective benefits our understanding of everything in our society, I have to tell you, from working with people having mental diagnoses and seeing their experience, the way they walk through life and stick with it, especially coupled with my living in Gastown, Vancouver now. One and a half blocks from Hastings Street, the population, the homeless population, addicts, I know many of these people are deinstitutionalized. They have a ton of mental health problems. I cannot help but think, if we focus our research on people suffering from addictions and if they received appropriate help, we would be a much better society. If I could have unlimited funds, and research anything I wanted, I would research the way to support people with mental health diagnoses. How do we help them? How do we get them to a point where they can help themselves? How do we create real choices for them? How do we get them more housing? How do we get services for people? What is the intersection between crime and the legal system with the homeless and addicted population – even diagnosis? All of that stuff. I consider this a huge social justice issue in our society today. I think many people think of this as too much to take in. It’s overwhelming. Therefore, they blame the victim. I think this problem is screaming out for attention in the inner cities and committed citizens want to do something about it. I would really focus energy on this issue.
11. Sheryl Sandberg made a statement in her TED talk akin to that, but from the female side of the ledger, “If it’s me who cares about this, obviously, giving this talk, during this talk, I can’t even notice that the men’s hands are still raised, and the women’s hands aren’t still raised. How good are we as managers of our companies and our organizations at seeing that the men are reaching for opportunities more than women?”
Yes, I began to realize this at a certain point in my life. I went to seek out female faculty members as mentors. I searched my faculty, female members of the Ph.D. committee, and so on. Interestingly, the ones I found were tough. Sometimes tougher than males. I asked a woman on the Ph.D. committee, “Why is that the case?” She said, “It’s a tough world out there. You have to be tough. That is my attitude towards it. I had to deal with it. You will have to deal with it.” At the time, I thought this was unfair because my experience does not have to replicate her own experience. Her experience was twenty years previous. In terms of influences, I would say feminism. I went from the labour history to looking at feminist historians. I think of some of them like Natalie Zemon Davis, a French historian, as being particularly influential. She wrote a number of books, which I like because of their interface between academic history and history for a popular audience. She wrote a book called The Return of Martin Guerre, which was a book set in 16th century France. It became a movie. She was the historical consultant on the movie. I found that amazing to bring history to the people through this medium. Actually, I heard her speak a short time ago at UBC. She is wonderful. She was the second woman president of the American historical Association and in 1971 she co-taught at the University of Toronto one of the first courses in North America on the history of women and gender, and hence has been an important figure in the development of that field. In terms of my philosophical orientation, I would say a social history perspective. In other words, a history of marginalized people whether that be due to labour or class, gender, ability, race or ethnicity, sexuality, or the intersection of these..
12. One mistake of people: the fundamental attribution error. We look at the contextual factors and the individual. We attribute the surrounding environment for our faults/accomplishments and the individual for other people’s faults/accomplishments. For instance, we, as individuals, say, “I am good because of talent.” For others, we say, “They are evil because of them.”
We need to develop empathy. My regular driving route to KPU has recently become re-routed. Now, I travel through the alleys for part of the drive. I regularly drive by 10 to 15 women. They are street workers in the downtown eastside. It is sad. Do not misread me, I am not saying that it is a bad thing to do because I am not commenting on these peoples’ choices or the circumstances that drove them to this place. However, these women are severely marginalized. Most of the women are addicts; many are aboriginal women; some of them are in their teens. It is tragic. We live amongst this and we are educated people with lots of resources who know about past crimes such as Robert Picton and who nevertheless turn a blind eye to the suffering of others.
13. Yet, it does not seem like an idealistic notion to me. Here’s my sense of you, on the one hand, you state the observation, and “This is a problem. We have to fix it.” On the other hand, it does not seem like much lay commentary on war, “War is horrible. We should end war.” Of course, people consider war bad. In that, you seem pragmatic in problem-solving here compared to the idealistic, optimistic paying of lip-service to negative societal issues. In other words, we need reasonable consideration of the amount of reduction in these problems.
Absolutely right, we do have some solutions. We do have harm reduction, safe-injection sites, INSITE, and so on. But things like ‘Just Say No’ do not work. Again, I know myself as a historian and historians don’t have the reputation in the academy of leading social causes, but this is something that we can do. We can do something about this.
14. In short, other than the theoretical, we need to do concrete, on-the-ground research. In the immediate, something practical.
Yes! In my work with colleagues on this mental health project, one of things we are developing are educational resources for people in professional programs. When individuals receive a mental health diagnosis they inevitably end up meeting with a lawyer, doctor, a nurse, a social worker, and so on. When those professionals are being educated, what do they need to know about the people with a mental health diagnosis? I ask the people in the group I am working with, what would you want these professional people to know about your life? We are developing these resources that will be used in education. We work with colleagues who have various mental health diagnoses, fascinating! We have a group of about 20 or so. 2 of them are doing their masters in history and ended with mental health concerns and on the street. Their lives completely changed. I was a student. I was doing my master’s degree in history. People have narrow assumptions of people who are homeless, living in poverty, and who have a mental health diagnosis.
15. What advice do you have for undergraduate and graduate students?
I think going into the world and experiencing in all of its terror and beauty is important. Take risks, even for university students, go into a course unrelated to your field, try a lab, go out there and work with community people. One of the things I consider important, not everyone has the opportunity, travel out in the world – even volunteering in the downtown eastside. Go to India, Germany if you want, and do a year abroad, even a semester – travel up north! These experiences are worth it. When you take risks, leave the comfortable behind, whether for a sustained period of time or one day or a week, the benefits are huge.
16. What is the most important point about education?
I considerate it important to understand history. If we understand, we know why things are the way they are today. So a classic, easy-to-understand example, is the place of aboriginals in society today. If we understand history, and acquire a history of aboriginal people before colonization, look at the colonization period, look at the epidemics of disease, and, more recently, residential schools and the sixties scoop, that would allow us to have a deeper understanding of some of the challenges facing our society today – especially in terms of aboriginal people. Another example of the importance of history is simply developing an understanding of our education system. You go to school from September to June, why these dates? Why is school something paid for by the state? Why is it that people without children pay for the education of all of our society’s children? Our ancestors wanted our society full of people educated a certain way. It was a form of indoctrination. It was also a way of creating a viable workforce. There was a belief that if you had to train children to be good productive workers so you began by training them to go to school at a specific time and days of the week. Think of a difference that made to children and to our notion of childhood. Previously, most children got up with the sunrise and slept at sunset. They lived with the rhythms of the seasons. Imagine how different it was to always have to be at school at 9:00 am no matter the time of year. People previously did not have a sense of time that was coupled to a clock. Suddenly, you have to be at school at 9 o’clock. At 10 o’clock, you have to open your algebra textbooks, and so on. The purpose of school, of mass school, was to pave the way for people in the workforce: industry. There was a reason for the development of public schooling. There was a historical reason for that. Without understanding that, I consider it difficult for people to understand the grounding for our educational system. People take it for granted. It is paid for by the state. It runs from September to June, and so on. To me, that lesson is a critical thinking lesson. If you begin to question things like that, you begin to learn that the taken-for-granted structures in our society are not simply there. They happened for a reason. It allows you to re-think anything in our life. Also, it allows us to think of the possibility of change. If our schools, as an example, were developed these structures in these ways, then they can change. It seems to me a hopeful notion for change.
Bibliography
1) American Indian. (2014). In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/405873/American-Indian
2) colonialism, Western. (2014). In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/126237/colonialism
3) education. (2014). In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/179408/education
4) Faculty of Education: Department of Educational Studies (n.d.). Veronica Strong-Boag. Department of Educational Studies. Retrieved March 6, 2014, fromhttp://edst.educ.ubc.ca/facultystaff/veronica-strong-boag/.
5) higher education. (2014). In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/265464/higher-education
6) historiography. (2014). In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/267436/historiography
7) Natalie Zemon Davis. (2014). In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1566421/Natalie-Zemon-Davis
8) Purvey, D. & Belshaw, J.D. (2009). Private Grief, public Mourning: The Rise of the Roadside Shrine in British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: Anvil Press.
9) Purvey, D. & Belshaw, J.D. (2011). Vancouver Noir: 1930-1960. Vancouver, BC: Anvil Press.
10) Purvey, D. & Walmsley, C. (2011). Child and Family Welfare in British Columbia: A History. Vancouver, BC: Detselig Press.
11) Purvey, D., Vermeulen, & Power, C. (2011). Restorative Justice: Does it have a place in elementary schools?. International Perspective on restorative Justice in Education.
12) Purvey, D. & Webber, C. (2011). ‘Something Greater was Happening’: A Novice Principal Reflects on Creating Change Through Building Community Relationships. New Primary Leaders: International Perspectives.
13) Saunders, J. (2012, June). Kwantlen welcomes Dr. Purvey as dean, faculty of arts. Kwantlen Polytechnic University Newsletter. Retrieved March 6, 2014, fromhttp://www.kpu.ca/news/kwantlen-welcomes-dr-diane-purvey-dean-faculty-arts
14) Sandberg, S. (2010, December 21). Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_too_few_women_leaders.html
15) Sandberg, S. (2014, December). Sheryl Sandberg: So We Leaned In… Now What? [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_so_we_leaned_in_now_what
16) Sheryl Sandberg. (2014). In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1698757/Sheryl-Sandberg
17) The Runner (2012, June). New Dean of Arts at Kwantlen. The Runner. Retrieved March 6, 2014, from http://runnermag.ca/2012/06/new-dean-of-arts-at-kwantlen/diane-purvey-web-01/.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2014/02/22
1. In terms of geography, culture, and language, where does your family background reside? How do you find this influencing your development?
My parents speak different dialects of Chinese (Hakka and Cantonese) and so our common language was always English. Although, often, my parents would speak their own dialect to each other – so two languages simultaneously – and they would understand. My mother was born in Hong Kong and my father in Malaysia, but they rarely spoke about life before Canada. I think, for different reasons, and with different degrees of success, they both tried to forget. They couldn’t afford to return home, and so they had to accept that it was gone or else feel the constant pain of being cut off. For a long time I felt an incredible sadness when I thought about the sacrifices my parents made for us. Now that I’m older, I see their courage, selflessness and their extraordinary reinvention.
2. How was your youth? How did you come to this point? What do you consider a pivotal moment in your transition to writing?
It was chaotic. We moved a lot and my parents were under constant financial stress. My siblings left home at very young ages, and my father left when I was sixteen. That was probably one of the earlier pivotal moments, because for a while he simply disappeared. I was living with my mother, but we were really cut off from one another emotionally. I lived in my head. Writing became a way to express things that were unsayable, either because they were private and confused, or because they might injure another person, or because I didn’t know what the truth was. Writing was a space to lay things down.
3. Where did you acquire your education? What education do you currently pursue?
I studied contemporary dance at Simon Fraser University (SFU) and, later on, creative writing at The University of British Columbia (UBC). My devotion to books, reading and learning is intense but also exhausting. I’m deeply interested in 20th century history, particularly transitional times; I’m utterly fascinated by the Silk Road, and also the post-independence years in Southeast Asia, and lately, Communist China. I’m also working on documentary projects, art installations, and I occasionally choreograph. I want to live about a thousand lives! I think that’s why the novel, and fiction, have been the mainstay in my life.
4. At present, you hold the ‘Writer-in-Residence’ position at Simon Fraser University. What does the position provide for you?
Yes, I’m incredibly lucky. The English Department is full of creative, questioning and generous scholars. And SFU has brought me back to Vancouver where I grew up, but where I haven’t lived for more than twelve years.
5. You have written four major works: Certainty, Dogs at the Perimeter, The Chinese Violin, Simple Recipes: Stories. Most recently, Dogs at the Perimeter, I read it. I urge readers to go and purchase the book. For those interested, what inspired this book? What is the overarching theme?
I had been spending months at a time in Cambodia, and the country preoccupied me more and more. For me, Cambodia is like nowhere else – inhabiting his seam between the ancient cultural reaches of India and China, all filtered through a formidable Khmer culture. The Cambodian genocide happened when I was a child and has been largely forgotten by the rest of the world; or, if remembered, is remembered almost abstractly. That our governments played an undeniably large role in the de-stabilization of Cambodia and its civil war, and that the ensuing genocide claimed the lives of 1.7 million people, and that hundreds of thousands of Cambodians had to seek refuge outside of their country – has become a footnote of history. I wanted to think about how people begin again, how they remember and how they forget, and how these acts change over the course of a life. The Cambodians I know live both inside and outside their memories, they carry ruptured selves and also, in their own philosophy, multiple souls.
6. If you currently work and play with a piece of writing, what do you call it? What is the general theme and idea behind it?
It has no title as of yet. I’ve finished a draft and am fine tuning now. The centre of the book is the story of three young musicians studying at the Shanghai Conservatory in the 1960s. They’re Chinese musicians studying Western classical music, trying to express themselves through Bach, Beethoven, Prokofiev, Debussy, and also trying to express the tenor of the times. Because of Mao’s extremism during the Cultural Revolution, this expression proves not only to be untenable, but it alters their lives forever. This novel is about how ideas and artistic practices move from East to West and West to East, what it means to speak in another language (be that music, ideology or literature), and it’s also about copying, repetition and the desire, however illusory, for transcendence, to be outside of one’s time.
7. If any, what do you consider the purpose of art? More importantly, what role do artists play in shaping, defining, and contributing to society and culture?
To be a witness to this time and place, and to each other. I don’t see it as a record of one’s self. I want my art to be a record of the people and the world around me. A complicated questioning of what is, and a way to learn how to see more than I do now.
8. If you had sufficient funding and time, what would you like to write?
I think it would be the same. I think of funding and time almost solely as a means to write, and so I try to create the conditions for this in my day to day life.
9. What do you consider the most controversial topic in writing at the moment? How do you examine the issue?
Race. It makes everyone afraid. A few decades ago we could talk about race, but now even saying the word is difficult, in both national and geopolitical contexts.
10. In terms of representation of ‘minority populations’ in literary circles, presentation of awards and honours, and media time provided, what do you consider the present conditions? What do you think and feel about these conditions?
I think literary culture in Canada and America has been adversely affected by the closing down of bookshops and the merging of publishers. It’s extremely competitive, and bookshops and publishers are simply looking to survive. It makes sense that, with such fine margins, they support (financially, emotionally, intellectually) work that has the potential to be mainstream. But how do we imagine mainstream? Sadly, I think that we mean white middle- or upper-class. So this audience (or the way a publisher envisions this audience and what they want) is reflected, in some way, in the novels that are published and supported. A Chinese novelist might sell a million copies in China, but a publisher here may still see that work as foreign, other and unlikely to appeal.
I think we should widen our understanding of the reader.
I’m a pretty stubborn person, and so these conditions make me want to push back the boundaries even more.
11. Furthermore, in concrete, or practical and applied, terms, what needs doing? How might these aims come to fruition? What about their short- and long-term implications for impacting the literary culture in the Lower Mainland, in Canada, and abroad?
Deeper engagement and from those of us who have another perspective. Acknowledgement that
New York literary culture is an echo chamber and increasingly narrow.
I’m teaching an Asian Literature course in the US right now, I teach in a Master of Fine Arts (MFA) program in Hong Kong, where I work with writers from around the world, and I’m helping to develop the curriculum for a fine arts university in Zimbabwe. I love the responses I get when I ask this younger generation why literature matters, why they are studying it, and why bookshops are shelved with stories that are already familiar to us. Does it matter to us as individuals or as a society if our literature supports singular concepts of national identity, or when celebrated literature is narcissistic or apolitical, or when the majority of the world is invisible in 99% of the literature we read and discuss? We have a stake in trying to see what the system makes invisible, and then articulating these gaps in forthright and intelligent ways.
12. Who most influenced you? Why them? Can you recommend any books or articles by them?
James Baldwin. Cees Nooteboom, All Souls Day. Alice Munro. Michael Ondaatje, Running in the Family and so many other books. Dionne Brand. Ma Jian, Beijing Coma and Red Dust. Liao Yiwu. Sven Lindqvist. Tsitsi Dangarembga, The Book of Not and Nervous Conditions. Hannah Arendt. Antonio Damasio and Oliver Sacks. Shirley Hazzard, The Great Fire and The Transit of Venus. Colin Thubron, The Hills of Adonis and In the Shadow of the Silk Road. Dostoevsky and Chekhov. The literature, memoir and reportage around Cambodia, from Vaddey Ratner to Bree Lafreniere, Loung Ung, Elizabeth Becker, Francois Bizot, Jon Swain and Peter Maguire. Bao Ninh, The Sorrow of War. Kazuo Ishiguro, The Unconsoled, The Remains of the Day, Never Let Me Go and When We Were Orphans. All these writers break form and enlarge content, they are humane and, in my eyes, fearless.
13. Where do you see writing, the teaching of writing, and publishing in the near and far future? How does, and will, the internet change the landscape?
I’m curious about the publishing worlds of India and China. I wonder how they’ll influence and alter the English-language market, how soon will they become centres of influence alongside London and New York. I hope the internet will break down some of the stagnation in the way we talk about books, and which books we encounter.
14. What advice do you have for young writers?
Fiction is not outdated or tired. Fiction is what you make of it, what you bring to it, how far you’re willing to travel both into yourself and outside yourself. Don’t knock the imagination.
15. What worries and hopes do you have for the world of literature regarding the older and younger generations – writers and readers?
I’m not worried. I think that even when things seem stagnant or narrow, fissures always appear. I love multimedia and the experimentation with the new forms available to us via our laptops and phones and interconnectedness. But I also value closing all that down, turning inward, reading a book, and giving time, attention and focus to the interpretation and engagement with story.
16. Besides your own organizational affiliations and literary interests, what associations, writers, and even non-/for-profits can you recommend for interested readers?
The Documentation Centre of Cambodia (DC-CAM) and the Bophana Centre. And, in Vancouver, the extraordinary Thursdays Writing Collective.
http://www.bophana.org/site/index.php
http://thursdayswritingcoll.netfirms.com/wordpress/
Bibliography
1) Bophana Centre (2014). Bophana Centre. Retrieved from http://www.bophana.org/site/index.php.
2) Dangarembga, T. (1988). Nervous Conditions. Ney York, NY: Seal Press.
3) Dangarembga, T. (2006). The Book of Not: A Sequel to Nervous Conditions. Oxfordshire, UK: Ayebia Clarke Publishing Ltd.
4) Documentation Centre of Cambodia (2014). Documentation centre of Cambodia. Retrieved from http://www.dccam.org/.
5) Hazzard, S. (2003). The Great Fire. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
6) Hazzard, S. (1980). The Transit of Venus. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
7) Ishiguro, K. (2005) Never Let Me Go. New York, NY: Random House Inc.
8) Ishiguro, K. (1995) The Unconsoled. New York, NY: Random House Inc.
9) Ishiguro, K. (1989) The Remains of the Day. London, UK: Faber and Faber Limited.
10) Ishiguro, K. (2000) When We Were Orphans. London, UK: Faber and Faber.
11) Jian, M. (2008). Beijing Coma: A Novel. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
12) Jian, M. (2013, November 10). My Life: Ma Jian. Post Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/article/1349783/my-life-ma-jian.
13) Jian, M. (2001). Red Dust. London, UK: Random House.
14) Ninh, B. (1991) The Sorrow of War: A Novel of North Vietnam. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
15) Nooteboom, C. (2001). All Souls Day. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt.
16) Thien, M. (2011). Dogs at the Perimeter. Toronto, Ontario: Mclelland and Stewart Ltd.
17) Thien, M. (2006). Certainty. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.
18) Thien, M. (2002). Chinese Violin. Vancouver/Toronto: Whitecap Books Ltd.
19) Thien, M. (2001). Simple Recipes. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.
20) Thubron, C. (2006). In the Shadow of the Silk Road. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
21) Thubron, C. (2009). The Hills of Adonis: A Quest in Lebanon. Toronto, Ontario: Random House Canada.
22) Thursdays Writing Collective (2014). Thursdays Writing Collective . Retrieved from http://thursdayswritingcoll.netfirms.com/wordpress/.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2014/01/01
1. What academic positions have you held?
Although I have taught at various institutions, including the New School for Social Research in New York and UCLA, I have never held a full-time academic position. I have always loved teaching, especially the intro course, but my career has primarily been as a writer—of textbooks, general interest books, book reviews and essays, articles for journals and magazines—all with the goal of promoting critical thinking and psychological science. In a world full of pop-psych pseudoscience, that is a full-time job!
2. How did you develop that career?
When I was in graduate school, a new magazine called Psychology Today was born. It was meant to be the Scientific American of psychology—a magazine that would bring good psychological science to general audiences. I wrote to them, looking for a summer job. They told me they would hire me, but only if I came for a year. Though scared to death to take a year off the Ph.D. program, I did, and that experience changed my life. There, working with brilliant editors, I learned to write, edit, and conduct interviews. When I went back to Michigan, I was an Associate Editor. When I got my Ph.D., I had a choice: proceed with an academic career or go back to the magazine as a Senior Editor. The latter option was risky: no tenure or even job security, after all. But my beloved mentors at UM said, “You know, there are many ways to be a good social psychologist, and one of them is having the ability to educate the public about what social psychology is.”
3. When did psychology interest you?
Not as an undergraduate! I took one intro course and got a C+. I majored in comparative literature and sociology, and went to the University of Michigan in sociology—to study “the sociology of literature,” whatever that was. But there I found the interdisciplinary program in social psychology, and loved it. I switched into that program immediately. We learned an array of methods, topics, and perspectives.
4. Where did you acquire your education?
I was an undergraduate at Brandeis University, and a graduate student at Michigan. But I “acquired my education” also first and foremost from my parents, who were committed to critical and creative thinking, and social activism; from working at general-interest magazines, which taught me the importance of using my education to help inform the public about science and critical thinking; and by coming of age during the civil-rights and women’s rights movements.
5. Since you began studying psychology, what do you consider the controversial topics?
There is always “controversy” in any field: sometimes over politically sensitive issues (e.g., sex and race differences), or over methods, or about findings. In my lifetime, the most divisive and emotional issues were the “recovered memory” and “multiple personality” hysteria of the 1990s, along with widespread claims in Canada and the U.S. of ritual sex abuse going on in daycare centers. So many lives and families were shattered by these faulty beliefs—notably, the idea that traumatic memories of sexual abuse are repressed until “recovered” in therapy with hypnosis, dream analysis, and other methods now known to create confabulations; that trauma causes the self to “dissociate” into many personalities; that “children never lie” about being molested. These epidemics made many psychological scientists more committed than ever to educating the public about the importance of good psychological research. That research has showed how best to interview children to avoid coercing or inducing them into telling fanciful tales, while being open to their telling about actual abuse; how “multiple personalities” can be manufactured in a collaboration between therapist and patient; and how trauma and memory really do function.
Of all my writings, I am especially partial to the popular book I wrote with Elliot Aronson, Mistakes were made (but not by ME): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts. In this book, we use cognitive dissonance to show why it is so hard for people to deal with controversies, once they have taken a position: why it is so hard to say, “hmm, time to give up that outdated belief after all” or to admit that a particular choice we made might have been wrong.
6. You have devoted much of your life to criticizing work most often termed ‘pseudoscience’. How do you define pseudoscience? What do you consider its most common markers?
At least in its ideal form, science is falsifiable. A scientific premise can be disconfirmed; it is testable. Do you believe that dowsing and ESP exist? Do you believe that the Bible says the world will end next Friday? These are beliefs that can be tested empirically. If the test repeatedly fails, the hypothesis is wrong—you need to modify it or drop it. But pseudoscientists keep the belief despite the disconfirming evidence: “It was the wrong day for dowsing because of clouds.” The world did not end Friday? Nothing wrong with my prediction, I just read that page of the Bible incorrectly—I meant Tuesday.
7. You earned numerous awards for your book The Mismeasure of Woman–such as the Distinguished Media Contribution from the Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology, the Heritage Publications award from Division 35 of the American Psychological Association, and the Distinguished Contribution to Women’s Health Award from the APA Conference on Women’s Health. You have received other awards, as from the Independent Investigations Group of the Center for Inquiry, for your contributions to skepticism. What do these awards mean to you?
Getting awards is extremely gratifying; it means your peers and colleagues respect and honor your work. But it’s also humbling. The next day, everyone forgets, so it’s back to work.
8. Who most influenced you? Can you recommend any seminal books/articles by them?
I hate lists! This question is impossible, because my influences were feminism, and the countless important books in psychology, politics, and culture about gender equality and how to achieve it; great studies in social psychology; great writers and poets, who have inspired me as a writer . . . how long have you got? Besides, what had an impact on me might have no interest to you. My advice to students, therefore, is always to follow your heart, mind, and nose—explore. Read in areas other than your specialty. Read for fun. Read and memorize poetry. Take courses not only because it is a required subject, but because you’ve heard the professor is brilliant and compelling—even if that course is far afield from your major.
9. Where do you see psychology going?
The biggest issue that psychology will face, in my view, is to remember that it is psychology. The biomedical revolution is transforming research and how we understand human behavior; neuroscience in psychology and other fields is rising in dominance. But we must not overlook the equally powerful influences of culture, learning, and the environment in determining how we behave, what we believe, and how we shape our worlds.
Bibliography
1) Center for Inquiry (2014). Center for Inquiry. Retrieved from http://www.centerforinquiry.net/.
2) James Randi Foundation [JamesRandiFoundation] (2012, August 8). Carol Tavris, Ph.D. – “A Skeptical look at Neuroscience – TAM 2012. James Randi Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwxdgZeIdqI.
3) Tavris, C. (2006). The high cost of courage. In M. Garry & H. Hayne (Eds.), Do justice and let the sky fall: Elizabeth F. Loftus and her contributions to science, law, and academic freedom. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4) Tavris, Carol, & Aronson, Elliot (2007). Mistakes Were Made (but not by me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts. New York: Harcourt. Paperback edition, 2008, Harvest books. Foreign editions: England, Poland, Germany, Japan, Hungary, Romania, France, Taiwan, China (Taiwan and mainland), South Korea, Turkey, Holland, Czech Republic.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2013/12/15
1. What academic positions have you held? What academic positions do you currently hold?
I was a postdoc at the University of Washington, working with Elizabeth Loftus and Alan Marlatt, and then I came to Victoria University of Wellington in 1996. I’ve been there ever since. I’m a Professor of Psychology here.
2. In brief, how was your youth? How did you come to this point?
I’m really a first generation college kid. My parents grew up in the Great Depression and thought college was the way you get a high paying job that gives you lots of security. They were never thrilled with my interests in academia.
3. When did Psychology interest you?
Well, from the time I was about 8, I wanted to be a forensic scientist. It wasn’t until I was about to graduate from a forensic science program as an undergrad did I learn that I would not be able to pass the eye text to be an FBI agent. Back then, the FBI was suspicious of contact lenses. So I used my forensic and chemistry degrees to teach high school, and then I became interested in cognition, and I realized that I could still tackle forensic problems via cognitive psychology.
4. Where did you acquire your education?
I did my PhD at the University of Connecticut and my Forensic Science and Chemistry degrees at the University of New Haven.
5. What kinds of research have you conducted up to the present?
I’ve done research on eyewitness memory, implanted false memories, expectancy effects, truth effects, and some educational research.
6. If you currently conduct research, what form does it take?
I’m doing a lot of work with my grad students.
7. If you had infinite funding and full academic freedom, what would you research?
Probably the same thing I do now. I really like human memory.
8. Since you began studying Psychology, what do you consider the controversial topics? How do you examine the controversial topics?
Without a doubt, in my field it’s been the drama about repressed and recovered memories. But across psychology, I think the controversial topic is what’s happening now with respect to null hypothesis testing; replications; low ns producing quirky results, etc.
9. How would you describe your early philosophical framework? Did it change? If so, how did it change?
The classes I had with Mike Turvey as a grad student had an enormous impact on the way I think, or at least try to think. I know a lot of people think the Gibsons and their wider ecological approach is some kind of wacky cultish thing, but I don’t. In this big picture sense, I think my frameworks haven’t changed that much. On other levels, yeah, they’ve changed. It’s a mix of hilarious and painful for me to pick up my dissertation and read any random page. For one thing, I didn’t know anything. That’s the great myth of getting a PhD: that you’ll leave with your degree knowing what you’ll need to know for the future. For another thing, I am much more dedicated to well written manuscripts. The day is too short to slog through papers that make your eyeballs bleed.
10. What advice do you have for young Psychology students?
Without a doubt, here are the three pieces of advice that probably account for 90% of the variance in success:
- Learn to write. Nothing else matters if you write like crap. Think of the last few truly engaging scientific articles you read. Were they in a journal? Probably not. They were probably in Scientific American, or New Scientist. Learn to write like that. If you have been told that “good data speak for themselves,” guess what? They don’t. Likewise the idea that you need to write in polysyllabic passive prose. Ugh.
- Write an hour or two every day. Without fail. Mark it in your calendar, and treat it the way you would any other important appointment. You wouldn’t not show up to teach class. Show up to write. The most productive writers write every day, whether they think they have anything to say or not. It turns out they always have something to say. Don’t think you’re a writer? That’s the first hurdle you need to get over: you are. So yep, turn off Facebook, staple your ass to a chair, and write.
- Master the technical side of research. That means taking stats classes, and learning to program. Don’t leave grad school until you know something about multivariate techniques, and can program an experiment.
11. Who most influenced you? Can you recommend any seminal books/articles?
I had a few influential professors in grad school. From my advisor, Scott Brown, I learned how to be a good advisor. From Mike Turvey, I learned the importance of good teaching and the well-crafted lecture. From Beth Loftus, I learned that how you say something is as important as what you say.
12. Where do you see Psychology going?
Away, finally, from slavish reliance on null hypothesis testing and goofily erratic effects. At least I hope so.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2013/11/15
1. What positions have you held? What position do you currently hold?
I am an Associate Professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Director of the Pharmaceutical Sciences Undergraduate program at University of California, Irvine. (UCI)
2. In brief, how was your youth? How did you come to this point? What was your original dream?
I was lucky to be raised in a family with loving parents. They were both educated and cared about the education of their children. They were open-minded. They encouraged my two brothers and I to choose careers that we liked, especially my mother. She was supportive of me. She was also a university professor. Growing up, I lived in 3 different countries. I think being exposed to different cultures and languages had a big impact on who I am today.
I became interested in science in the fifth grade. I describe this in a TEDx talk. That is the story of how I came to this point. I feel lucky because I do exactly what I dreamed about doing in fifth grade. My dream was to do scientific work and teach. I love to learn. When working in science, you have no choice, but to learn. I am living my dream right now. (Laughs)
3. When did Pharmaceutical Sciences interest you?
When I got sick as a kid, my parents used to take me to Dr. Maani. My first strep throat was painful. I had a high fever, body ache and could not swallow anything, even my own saliva. Dr. Manni got a swab culture from my throat, checked it under the microscope, and started me on antibiotics. When we went back to see him for a follow-up, he spent a lot of time explaining to me the importance of hand washing and having a strong immune system. I loved to go back for these follow ups because the prize for getting better was always a lollipop. I also remember that every fall, my entire family would go to Dr. Maani for our flu shots. In my neighborhood, Dr. Maani was considered a hero. Everyone respected him and everyone loved him. Many kids (including me) wanted to become Dr. Maani when we grew up.
By now, you are probably thinking Dr. Maani was an amazing primary care physician, that he was the neighborhood doctor who cared about his patients. Well, you are right about thinking that he was our neighborhood doctor, but he was not a physician. Dr. Maani was an amazing neighborhood pharmacist. He had a Pharm. D., a wealth of knowledge, and a passion to teach and help people.
4. Where did you acquire your education?
I earned my Doctor of Pharmacy from the University of California, San Francisco.
And then I did a Clinical Pharmacy Residency at University of California, San Francisco.
5. What kinds of research have you conducted up to the present?
I used to be a clinical scientist. If you look at my publications and research up to 2005, I was a clinician. I mostly did research on pharmaceuticals. My main work was around cardiovascular pharmacotherapy. I left academia in 2002 and worked as a senior scientist for Abbott Laboratories for a few years. I worked on metabolic complications of Central Nervous System (CNS) drugs.
Then in 2005, I came back to UCI and joined Pharmaceutical Sciences. The focus of my research shifted from diseases of aging such as cardiovascular diseases and neurological disorders to aging. I became interested in slowing the aging process. At present, I am working with botanical extracts because I believe if we use them at the right dose and quality they are safer than medications. So we work with botanical extracts and try to extend lifespan, but I have to tell you I didn’t choose to work with botanical extracts from the start. Sometimes, I like to think my fruit flies chose this for me. We were screening for anti-aging drugs, compounds, supplements, natural extracts, and botanical extracts. Plants and botanical extracts, did the best during this screening process. With fruit flies there is no placebo effect, I cannot tell you, “They felt real good having Tumeric.” (Laughs)
6. If you currently conduct research, what form does it take?
Mainly, I work with Drosophila, fruit flies. That is our main model system. Additionally, we conduct cell culture research. We work with human-cultured cells. Again, we use these as a model system to identify agents, which are all botanical extracts at the moment, that extend lifespan and to understand their mechanism of action.
7. How much did you increase the lifespan of the Drosophila fruit flies?
By 25%! Our most recent publication, received much media attention with an Orange County Register article on June 26th. We have been on many media venues such as MSN, Yahoo! Voices, and others like this.
8. Since you began studying Pharmaceutical Sciences, what do you consider the controversial topics? How do you examine the controversial topics?
This could be an essay. (Laughs) I could write a ten-page essay or talk for hours. In Pharmaceutical Sciences and research, we have a few challenges. For instance, there is the area of ethical conduct of research. When we talk of randomized double-blind controlled studies, especially in psychiatry literature where you use patient interviews and scales, you are probably more familiar with it, Scott, the results can be subjective. In other words, I could conduct research to bring forth the results desired by me. Research is controversial. The safety of some of the medications, which are already approved by the FDA is controversial.
In my field, with my interest in dietary supplements and botanical extracts, my controversy is looking for the quality and safety of these supplements. For instance, the reporter from the Orange County Register asked me, “In 2008, you published a study with Rhodiola Rosea showing a 10% increase in lifespan. Now, you have 25% increase, what happened?” I told him, “Fruit flies don’t lie. We gave them a better quality product and better things happened.” That is exactly what happened. When we characterize the plant that we gave them back in 2008, the plants had the active components, which you like to see in Rhodiola Rosea. It was Rosavin and Salidroside, but percentage wise the extract in the 2013 paper was superior. With this superior extract, my fruit flies did better. Therefore, a superior extract produces better results. For me, the controversy with the work right now is on dietary supplements and botanical extracts. My questions are, “How good is the quality of the product? How safe is the product?” A big controversy arising from this, which I think is applicable to both pharmaceuticals and botanical extracts is false advertisement. With my position as a Professor, my primary job is to be an educator, ahead of a research. I tell my students that I consider myself an educator and a teacher above all else. If I cannot translate my science into an understandable fashion for people, what is the use of that science?
I am not familiar with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in Canada. I can tell you about the FDA in the United States. If you had asked me to comment about FDA four years ago, I would have told you, “The FDA is very ineffective and slow.” Now, I work closely with them and I know first hand what an important function FDA plays in our public health. I developed an internship for our UCI Pharmaceutical Sciences students at the FDA. One of the goals is to expose them to the FDA, but an opportunity for them to become ambassadors to educate the public about FDA and to improve public health. For instance teaching the public how to report drug adverse effects to FDA could be a major contribution. Sometimes, you may experience an adverse drug reaction. Even if you do not know what the cause is, you still have to report it to the FDA because one never knows. We see how much FDA tries. We see how much they do. Reality: they are understaffed and under-budgeted. What do you do in that situation? How could you deal with that? Their work is very important, but they need more resources.
9. How would you describe your early philosophical framework? Did it change? If so, how did it change?
I do not know what to tell you about my Philosophical Framework. I like to think that it is a philosophy that encompasses the teachings of philosophers whose goal was to improve humanity. However, I can tell you about service. I was raised in a household devoted to service. My parents and grandparents were involved with the community at many levels. I guess this framed my life philosophy.
For me, Humanism is one aspect of it, especially based on my upbringing . I have a special outlook on life. As a scientist, sometimes you are questioned about religions and the existence of God. However, our science is not advanced enough to understand the big picture. One day it will do that, I am hopeful for science.
A pillar of my philosophical framework is a strong sense of ethics, and practical ethics. I am not a philosopher or an ethicist. However, in my mind, if an ethical principle is unpracticed, what good is it?
10. If you had infinite funding and full academic freedom, what would you research?
If I had infinite funding, I would conduct the same research that I am doing now and for teaching, I would start an education reform to focus on conceptual understanding and not memorizing. I am optimistic that if I had more funding, I could contribute a lot more to biomedical research. I would expand my basic work to clinical work. As I said, I was a clinician. I understand basic science, translational science, and clinical science. If I had unlimited funding, I would begin interesting human trials, and start testing my extracts in humans. By the way, if I had infinite funding, I did not have to spend so much time writing grants. I would focus more on research and teaching.
Scott, I see another controversy. A big problem in this country with the study of botanical extracts is taking the western magnifier to dissect botanical extracts to find out what specific molecule is functioning. What do we find with this kind of work? We may identify a few active molecules but we still see that the whole extract works best. People have used these extracts for thousands of years. They have seen results. Then we say, “Rhodiola Rosea is a great plant and it has many benefits, but I want to know exactly what molecules are beneficial.” If I had infinite funding, I would not worry about the grant reviewers. I would work with the whole extract, not the molecule. That is a big controversy in botanical extract research. That is probably the reason for controversy behind my research because we produce good results with the whole extract. I understand the commercial value. Many of my colleagues tell me, “If you isolate the molecule, you can patent it. You can make money.” I tell them, “Why would I want to do that?” Nature knows best. (Laughs) But of course we will devote some of our efforts to identifying active molecules in the extracts we work with.
11. From the philosophical point of view, there has been much comparison between Western and Eastern philosophies. Western philosophies tend to have a particular view. It asks, especially Aristotle, “How can I separate the world into fundamental units?” It seems non-accidental to me to have the Atomists like Democritus and Leucippus come from this philosophical tradition in the West. Whereas in the East, obviously not as an absolute, but there seems to me a greater tendency towards analysis of whole systems…
…Think of Avicenna, what did he say? He was perhaps the founder of modern medicine. He is an Eastern Iranian philosopher. He said that you needed to focus on the whole person and not just on his symptoms. Until we do that in medicine, we will stay where we are right now; a reactive approach to health and an illness model. We treat the symptom and not the root of the problem. We prescribe antibiotic for the infection or a pain medication for the pain because we are interested in treating the symptom fast. But I hope that we move away from this model to a wellness model when we treat the whole person and not just his symptoms and when we take a proactive and preventive approach. This was the reason that I offered the Life 101 class. My students with anxiety take Xanax. When they are sad and depressed, they take Prozac. When they need to stay awake to study, they take Ritalin. My 20-year old students take all these medications and they sadly received prescriptions for them. I offered Life 101 based on these facts. I wanted to give my students tools to manage their stress and aim for wellness.. If you deal with the root of the problem, I guarantee that you will not need to take these medications.
12. …On the Harvard campus, I read about Positive Psychology courses. Two people doing much research are Drs. Tal Ben Shahar and Daniel Gilbert. Positive Psychology is one of the most popular courses on campus…
I want to take that course! Their popularity tells you the importance people see in this material.
13. What other areas have robust research attesting to evidence for life-extending properties of an ingested compound (or compound with a specific active ingredient in it)?
There are a number of researchers working with botanical extracts or compounds to extend lifespan. They have been successful. I take pride in our work because our results are replicable and they seem to work even in healthy fruit flies. A science that cannot be replicated in other countries or other labs is not real science. For instance, the compound resveratrol extends lifespan, mostly in diabetic and high caloric intake situations. We showed our fruit flies do not need to be unhealthy to experience life extension with Rhodioal rosea, which is a significant finding. Resveratrol only extended lifespan in mice with diabetes and obesity. That is not the case with Rhodiola rosea. We gave Rhodiola rosea to both calorically restricted and non-calorically restricted fruit flies and still observed an extension in lifespan. As far as my research, I can tell you my research is robust because Rhodiola has worked in different strains of flies and different model systems and it has had a positive impact on health and tolerance to stress, but we still have a long way to go.. Our findings need to be repeated in mammalian model systems and eventually humans.
16. You have a personal story of continuing forward in spite of hardship, planting seeds in the process, and sowing the later benefits of that perseverance. What advice do you have for students going through hardships – big and small?
My younger brother, Kay who is a Law student, taught me something valuable. A few months ago, I was under a lot of pressure for a grant deadline and felt stressed. Kay told me, “Stress is only a reaction. You choose to be stressed.” I tell my students, “Rather than focusing on details, you should focus on the big picture.” When my son, Matin, was 13 years old, he gave a TEDxYouth talk. In it, he said, “There’s nothing wrong with being knocked down – just get back up.” We all have hardships. The key is how fast you recover and refocus on the big picture, not the details.
17. …There is a Parade Magazine columnist, Marilyn vos Savant, who said, “Being defeated is often a temporary condition. Giving up is what makes it permanent…”
…That’s right. I still go through hardships – big and small. I have my dream job, but I worry about my students and of course research funding! It sounds cliché, “Never give up.” I want to add one sentence to it. It’s part of life to feel down and upset, but try to minimize it. I tell my students, “You failed your MCAT. Okay, cry for a day, but not for a month.” (Laughs) Take responsibility for the mistakes you make and your actions, accept it, and then move on. We have become a blaming society. We look outside of ourselves to find someone or something to blame. I do it myself sometimes. I do not understand it. In this Life 101 class, we talk about emotional intelligence by taking responsibility for our actions. I wish I had a better answer, but I do not have one. (Laughs)
Happiness is a funny thing. Go and help someone, see how you feel. You will notice something. You will want to help more and you feel so happy.
18. You have received multiple awards for mentorship and teaching excellence. What do these mean to you? What responsibility do these awards entail?
I feel honored and humbled. My responsibility is to keep listening to my students to improve the way I teach and mentor. Earning a reward does not mean you have reached excellence. I feel blessed, Scott. I have such an open line of communication with my students. They feel comfortable with giving me feedback as I teach. For instance, two weeks into my course one of my students said, “Dr. Jafari, why did you look grumpy in class?” I replied, “I didn’t look grumpy!” He said, “Yes, you did especially in the beginning of your lecture. You did not smile once for the first fifteen minutes. When you smile, you make us feel comfortable.” He was paying close attention and he was right.
19. Who most influenced you? Can you recommend any books/articles by them?
I cannot think of specific authors. I read a lot, but I cannot think of just one article or a book of great influence on me. I consider my mother the most influential person in my life. I am not saying this because she is my mother. I am saying this because she is brutally honest with me. She never sugar coated anything and to date she points to my weaknesses or my flaws. Of course, sometimes I don’t like it, but I know I cannot change her. So, I hear her comment, I get upset and then I realized she was right and then move on. Talking about a true humanitarian, my mom is one of those people.
One book comes to mind, which I had one of my graduate students read. It is called The Purple Cow written by Seth Godin. It is a marketing book. His message is this, ‘if you want to be successful, you need a high quality product and a very outside the box product.’ You can apply this to science and teaching too.
20. Where do you see Pharmaceutical Sciences going? Regarding lifespan extension through botanicals, what future do you envision for this research?
I can tell you what I hope for Pharmaceutical Sciences to go as a field. I hope that Pharmaceutical Sciences move towards discovering new therapies to treat diseases in a collaborative fashion. I wish that one day pharmaceutical scientists in pharmaceutical companies and in academic settings collaborate and not compete because I think with collaborations we will achieve more faster. As far as my research with botanical extracts goes, my goal is to slow the aging process with these extracts. Of course I will continue devoting some of my work in identifying the active molecules in these extracts. But I still think when it comes to aging and targeting various genes and pathways, plants work better as a whole and not when they are dissected. I would not think this way 5 or 6 years ago. In 2005, when I started developing an anti-aging lab using fruit flies, I tested many pharmaceuticals and some botanicals. My findings surprised me because botanical extracts did much better than the molecules or pharmaceuticals. Of course, how we approach and work with a plant extract in my lab is exactly how we would work with a drug. We control for their quality and we have consistent standardization methods – meaning you standardize every time you use them. Working with botanical extracts is challenging because the active compounds change depending on external factors such as altitude, temperature, harvesting time, and that is why standardization is important.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2013/11/01
1. What academic positions have you held? What academic positions do you currently hold?
My current position is Professor of Philosophy in the Department of History and Political Science at Southeastern Louisiana University, where I have worked since I began teaching in 1981. I started as a part-time philosophy instructor and remained in that position for seven years until I completed my Ph.D. in philosophy at Tulane University in 1988. That year, the university created a tenure-track position for me as an assistant professor in philosophy, making me the first full-time, credentialed philosopher Southeastern ever hired. I earned tenure and promotion to associate professor in 1994, and ten years later I was promoted to full professor.
2. How was your youth? How did you come to this point?
I was born and grew up in Hammond, Louisiana, a small city of 10,000 people that was the epitome of what people typically understand as the “deep South.” I was a bookworm and spent most of my spare time reading. Growing up in the 1950s and 60s, my childhood and adolescence were shaped mostly by the civil rights struggle, which was taking place in my own immediate area and throughout the South. I watched my town change from one in which the public schools were segregated to one in which both white and African-American children attended school together. I was among the first group of students to attend high school under the federal desegregation order, which, believe it or not, is still in effect in my old school district. So my early life was shaped by issues of social justice, particularly concerning race.
3. What was your original dream? If it changed, how did it change? Furthermore, what changed it?
My earliest career plan, my “dream,” was to become a physician. This dream was rooted in my concern for social justice and the deep religious faith that I had during childhood and adolescence. My role model was Dr. Albert Schweitzer, the famous Alsatian physician and theologian who left his life in Europe to run a hospital at Lambaréné in French Equatorial Africa. One of the highlights of my childhood was receiving a reply from his secretary to a letter I had sent to him in Lambaréné — several years after I wrote the letter! During recess in the sixth grade, I used to sit on the sidelines and read books about medicine rather than play with the other kids. I was a “nerd” before that word even existed! But at some point my goals changed. I had little aptitude for mathematics, which I knew that I would need in the study of the sciences necessary to medicine. I was also by nature more suited to teaching, and tackling the problem of ignorance was a very pressing concern to me since I was literally surrounded by it in the form of racism. I was extremely idealistic! So I went for the Ph.D. rather than the M.D. One of my sons is a physician, but he’s much better at math than I was!
4. When did Philosophy interest you?
I began taking philosophy courses when I was about halfway through college. My original goal was to become a high school English teacher since I loved books and had wonderful English teachers in the public schools I attended. I married at eighteen, so I was married when I started college. (And I am still married to the same guy after 43 years!) My husband urged me to take at least one philosophy course before I graduated, as he had done: “Everyone ought to take a philosophy course.” So my husband actually gets the credit for steering me toward my profession.
I was an English major and had always loved reading fiction. I loved “highbrow” fiction such as the novels of Thomas Hardy and philosophical poetry such as Alexander Pope’s “Essay on Man,” so I was clearly leaning in the direction of philosophy although I didn’t know it. I didn’t know anything about philosophy and had never considered taking any courses. So at my husband’s suggestion, I took a class and was hooked immediately. I loved ideas, and I thought that this was what would save mankind: using great ideas to overcome ignorance. As I said earlier, I was really idealistic.
I became certified to teach high school English, but my student teaching was enough to convince me that I didn’t want to spend my life disciplining other people’s children! I went straight to graduate school in philosophy and never looked back.
5. Where did you acquire your education?
I attended public schools in Hammond, where I grew up. Family circumstances required that I attend college and graduate school in my immediate area, so I was fortunate to live near public universities. The taxpayers of Louisiana provided me with scholarships, which enabled me to earn my B.A. in English at Southeastern, where I now work, and my M.A. in philosophy at Louisiana State University. I earned my Ph.D. in philosophy at Tulane University in New Orleans. Tulane was, and still is, the only Louisiana university to offer a Ph.D. in philosophy. Fortunately, I live only about an hour away, so I could drive to my classes and go home at night. My husband worked full-time for the state of Louisiana, but we also operated a commercial poultry farm that he inherited from his parents. We used the farm income to pay for our doctoral degrees. I am probably the only person in the history of Tulane University who financed a Ph.D. in philosophy by raising chickens.
6. What kinds of research have you conducted up to the present?
Most of my scholarly research has revolved around the issue of creationism, although I didn’t start out with that intention. Events in Louisiana — including a creationist threat to my own children’s science education — steered me in that direction. Fortunately, I was well prepared to write about creationism since my doctoral dissertation was about Sidney Hook’s philosophy of education. Hook was John Dewey’s most prominent disciple and worked closely with him, so I studied Dewey as well. They wrote extensively and insightfully about the importance of science and democracy to public education and about other, related public policy issues. These three concerns — science, democracy, and public education — were interwoven into much of their philosophical work.
I corresponded with Hook while writing my dissertation and eventually went to visit him; he helped me enormously. I learned from him that philosophers must understand the way the world outside the academy works if they want their professional work to be useful to people other than their fellow philosophers and if they want to be involved in policy issues. I have never wanted to be isolated in the “ivory tower,” producing publications that would be read only by other philosophers. I have always wanted my work to be useful to people outside my discipline. I also learned from Hook that careful attention to empirical data is essential to producing informed philosophical work. (Hook read avidly about history and science.) Finally, Hook was a master of clear, incisive analysis of other people’s ideas. Studying Sidney Hook’s work prepared me for writing about creationism.
I have also published on the subjects of philosophical and methodological naturalism, which was also one of Hook’s central concerns. Methodological naturalism is the procedural stance of the scientist, who is limited to seeking natural explanations for the natural world. Science doesn’t work when unverifiable supernatural concepts are incorporated into it. Philosophical naturalism, on the other hand, is a metaphysical view that excludes the supernatural. Scientists need not — and many do not — adopt naturalism as a personal worldview, even though they must leave the supernatural out of their work as scientists. They can be both good scientists and faithful believers as long as they respect the procedural limitations of their science and the epistemological limitations of their faith.
Creationists, however, especially the intelligent design creationists about whom I have written so much, deliberately conflate philosophical and methodological naturalism. They argue that leaving God out of scientific explanations is tantamount to personal atheism. So my concern as a researcher has been to clarify the relationship between philosophical and methodological naturalism. I argue that although philosophical naturalism rests on what we have learned about the world through the naturalistic methodology of science, methodological naturalism does not, conversely, require philosophical naturalism as a personal worldview because it does not exclude the logical possibility of the supernatural. I think that this is the most accurate and intellectually honest position to take even though I myself am no longer religious.
Finally, I have applied my research concerning creationism and naturalism to the discussion of public policy in regard to public education and the separation of church and state. These were natural extensions of my research into creationism.
7. If you currently conduct research, what form does it take?
I am not currently doing any research. My answer to this question is not what you expected, but I hope that you will print it. It illuminates what is happening across the United States to institutions whose operating budgets — hence whose students and faculty — are bearing the brunt of a conservative political philosophy that treats public universities, young people, and teachers as liabilities rather than assets. Ultimately, American society will pay a high price for this shortsightedness.
Louisiana is governed by a conservative Republican, Bobby Jindal, who treats public institutions as a liability rather than an investment in the future. In only five years, he has cut $650 million from public universities while privatizing state services and giving hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks to out-of-state companies. My university alone has absorbed $48 million in cuts since 2008. As a result, the university revoked reassigned time for faculty research, and teaching loads have increased. Despite being a tenured full professor who has published extensively in both scholarly and popular venues, I now have the teaching load of a beginning tenure-track instructor. I absolutely love teaching, but my philosophy colleague and I are currently teaching a total of nine undergraduate courses this semester alone. So my teaching load leaves me no time for research, despite the fact that I have achieved an international reputation for my work.
I am proof of the value of public schools and universities, having more than repaid the investment that my fellow citizens made in my education. Moreover, my work has been useful to people outside my discipline, which is something that I think most philosophers cannot say. The book I co-authored with scientist Paul R. Gross, Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, was a central resource for the plaintiffs’ attorneys in the first legal case involving intelligent design creationism, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005).
But because of the current political priorities in Louisiana, I have no time for research any more, despite the fact that I could still be doing productive scholarly work. On the other hand, I now have the luxury of reading books that I want to read for my own enjoyment. And my first grandchild was born recently, so I am delighted to have more time to be his grandmother!
8. If you had infinite funding and full academic freedom, what would you research?
I am fortunate to already have full academic freedom at Southeastern. The university has been wonderfully supportive of my work, despite its being more controversial than what professors typically do. I would be quite happy with just enough funding for a one-course-per-semester teaching reduction! But if I had infinite funding, I would establish a research center for finding effective ways to counteract the influence of the Religious Right — specifically, the Christian Right — in American education, culture, and government policy. That’s a tall order, I admit. However, I see the Religious Right as one of the most destructive and pernicious influences in America today. It is the force behind creationism, anti-gay bigotry, and some types of mean-spirited economic policies. If I had infinite funding, I would use it to support focused, results-oriented research by philosophers and other scholars, journalists, and policy analysts in an effort to find effective ways to get past this perennial problem in American life.
Please note: I am not saying that religion is the most pernicious influence in America. I don’t believe that. Although religion has been a divisive force throughout most of human history, it is also a fascinating and important aspect of human experience. Having once been very devout myself, I have been on both sides of the religious divide and understand both sides. But the Religious Right has infused American culture and politics with bigotry and ignorance. Counteracting its agenda has required the expenditure of both time and money by people and organizations that otherwise could have and should have been doing more productive work. So the country needs a well-integrated, long-term commitment by people who can focus exclusively on how to help the country transcend the Religious Right’s influence. Even with infinite funding and infinite academic freedom, I couldn’t do that all by myself!
9. Since you began studying Philosophy, what do you consider the controversial topics? How do you examine the controversial topics?
I think that the most controversial topics concern the theory of knowledge, or epistemology. Both historically and today, the ways in which people claim to know things have influenced everything that humans do, from founding religions to running governments. Knowledge claims also shape our moral conduct. Depending on what the answers to epistemological questions are, human beings can either benefit greatly or suffer terribly at each other’s hands.
The two most basic epistemological questions are these: (1) What truly qualifies as knowledge? and (2) How do humans acquire it? Given the fact that humans must get things done together on the basis of shared understandings of the world, nothing is more important than clarifying what it truly means to know something and creating a body of shared, publicly accessible knowledge. Actually, we already know how to do both of these things, but few people outside philosophy are either familiar with or concerned about epistemological questions. I was flabbergasted to read in Barack Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope, his insightful discussion of precisely this issue. He understands that “the best we can do is to act in accordance with those things that are possible for all of us to know, understanding that a part of what we know to be true — as individuals or communities of faith — will be true for us alone” (p. 220). We cannot build public policy on private, hence unverifiable, religious experience, even if it is a genuine epistemic state. But such epistemological awareness is unusual in anyone outside academia, much less politicians.
There are only four basic ways in which people can claim to know things: (a) supernatural revelation, (b) some form of intuition, (c) rational reflection (reason), and (d) sense experience. The first two are highly problematic because they are by definition private and unverifiable. Revelation requires the psychological influence of charismatic leaders and the power of authoritative institutions to convince people of its truth. Intuition, similarly, can be used to assert literally anything without any accountability for one’s claims. So that leaves reason — or rational reflection, which everyone can do — and sense experience, which everyone naturally has, as the only reliable sources of knowledge. All humans have the natural equipment for those. Whatever progress humanity has made during our collective history has come from those two sources.
I see the lack of understanding of epistemological issues as at least part of the reason that the Religious Right has been able to accumulate the influence that it has. (But the problem is much more complicated than that.) People such as Tony Perkins, who runs the Family Research Council, promote harmful, insidious ideas that are unsupported by any rationally defensible arguments or evidence. The beliefs that Perkins and his FRC associates promote, such as the false claim that gay people are more likely to be pedophiles, are fuelled and funded by their supporters’ uncritical acceptance of their claims.
Consequently, in some of my work I have examined the issue of how public policy — for example, concerning the teaching of evolution in public schools — is shaped (or mis-shaped) by ideas about what qualifies as knowledge.
10. How would you describe your early philosophical framework? Did it change? If so, how did it change?
I am by nature a generalist. I think that the study of philosophy is enriched by integrating data from history, science, and other disciplines into it. I never teach my students about any philosopher without first setting up the broader context in which the philosopher’s work was done. This makes philosophy much more accessible to students. So I have always been drawn to philosophers who were interdisciplinary thinkers and who made a conscious effort to make their work accessible and useful to people outside philosophy. The greatest philosophers — for example, Plato, Aristotle, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and others — addressed societal issues, and they interacted with people other than philosophers. These thinkers were broadly knowledgeable in areas other than their own disciplines. In addition to their purely philosophical work, they used their expertise to address matters of concern to their fellow citizens. This is why they are still worth studying.
So I began my formal study of philosophy with a strong attraction to whatever kind of philosophy would be useful in helping to solve “real-world” problems. The philosophers I studied who most effectively addressed such problems were the pragmatic naturalists, especially Sidney Hook and John Dewey, who understood, among other things, the importance of science and public education to democracy. They weren’t narrow specialists. I also studied some of their like-minded colleagues such as philosopher of science Ernest Nagel. Hook and Dewey’s pragmatic naturalism was a natural fit for me since I already leaned strongly in that direction. Of all the modern philosophers I have studied, their work made the most sense to me and still does. So I have not had any major shifts in my own philosophical framework.
11. In 2007, you co-authored with Dr. Paul R. Gross Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, what is the origin of the title? What does the book depict?
Our editor at Oxford University Press suggested the main title, Creationism’s Trojan Horse. Although at first I thought it was trite, it captures the essence of the intelligent design (ID) creationism movement: ID is nothing more than the most recent variant of creationism, which its proponents promote as science to gullible people. Paul and I came up with the subtitle to capture the most important aspects of the book’s focus. The book actually grew out of my research into the Discovery Institute’s “wedge strategy,” which is its plan for promoting ID. The strategy is outlined in a 1998 document entitled “The Wedge,” which was aimed at prospective donors. I was able to authenticate this document, which was leaked and posted on the Internet, and to establish that most of the strategy was being executed — with the exception of producing real science, of course. Paul, who is a distinguished scientist, did a very thorough and careful critique of the “scientific” claims of ID proponents.
The book brings together a huge amount of evidence showing that the Discovery Institute’s aims and rationale for ID are — as stated in their own words — explicitly religious. The Discovery Institute’s primary aim is to create an opening in the public mind — analogous to using a metal wedge to split a log — for the idea that the supernatural is essential to scientific explanations. They also aim to get ID into the public school science curriculum by exploiting policy-making processes.
12. You served as a Plaintiff on the first legal case involving Intelligent Design, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District, in 2005. What events preceded the case? How did the litigation proceedings conclude? What does this case entail for future legal battles of this kind?
I was so proud that my work resulted in my being called as an expert witness for the plaintiffs, all of whom were parents of children in the Dover, Pennsylvania, school system. In 2004, eleven parents sued the Dover school board in federal court for trying to present intelligent design to children as a scientific alternative to evolution. The school board members weren’t doing this because they knew anything at all about science. In fact, they were completely ignorant about the science. They simply had personal religious objections to teaching evolution and were determined to force their views into the science classrooms of Dover High School.
The litigation ended in December 2005 with a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. Judge John E. Jones III ruled that because ID is creationism, it is a religious view and therefore cannot be taught in a public school science class. He issued a permanent injunction against the school board. Even though his ruling is legally binding only in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, it has already dissuaded school boards in other parts of the country from following suit.
Whenever and wherever the next ID legal case comes up, the first thing that the presiding judge will do is read Judge Jones’ Memorandum Opinion, which is a powerful and thorough decision that he wrote with future cases in mind.
13. In 2006, you were the co-recipient with Dr. Kenneth Miller of the Public Service Award from the American Society for Cell Biology. What does this award mean to you? What further responsibilities does the award entail?
This was a very nice award from the scientific community in appreciation for the work that both Kenneth Miller and I had done to defend the teaching of science. Ken was also a Kitzmiller expert witness. We were both involved in such work even before that case. To me, the award signified the fact that I was able to successfully put my philosophical training to use for the public good, which I had always wanted to do. My work was just as important in the Kitzmiller case as that of the scientists.
As for further responsibilities, the award didn’t formally require anything. But I view my work against creationism as a civic duty, so I have continued to do it. For example, I serve on the Board of Directors of the National Center for Science Education. I would have done the same things even if I hadn’t received the award.
14. Who most influenced you? Can you recommend any seminal books/articles by them?
Keeping the list to just a few is difficult. As I said earlier, I am a generalist. But I would have to say that the philosophers whose work most influenced me are Plato, Aristotle, David Hume, John Stuart Mill, and Sidney Hook. Their influence stems from their ability to use their expertise to illuminate issues outside philosophy.
In the Republic, Platostressed philosophers’ civic obligation to their fellow citizens, who, through a public education system, provided them with the finest education available. Philosophers must therefore make a concerted effort to contribute to the public good in payment of this debt. The Republic has guided me throughout my career in this respect.
The other thinkers influenced me because of their interdisciplinary orientation to philosophy. They thought deeply and broadly about practical issues. Aristotle, for example, in his Nichomachean Ethics, offers a still-workable ethical system based on virtues of character acquired through one’s actions. He stresses the civic importance of virtuous conduct.
In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume, who was a major figure in the Scottish Enlightenment, presciently recognized the need to study human cognitive faculties empirically in order to analyze their capabilities and shortcomings. In doing that, he illuminated the epistemological deficiencies of supernaturalist religion. He also analyzed religion as a human phenomenon in The Natural History of Religion. He respected (although he was not convinced by) its more rational aspects, reflected in traditional arguments for God’s existence, while warning against its irrational manifestations such as clerical charlatans and what we now call fundamentalism. A century later, John Stuart Mill, a 19th-century thinker who embodied the best aspects of the Enlightenment, offered one of the most powerful defenses of intellectual and personal freedom in the English language in On Liberty. Everyone should read that.
No one, however, influenced me more indelibly than Hook, who was one of the most important public intellectuals of the 20th century. He wrote with a clarity and incisiveness that made the most complex ideas understandable. He avoided unnecessary philosophical jargon and never lost his ability to communicate with non-academics. I think that this stemmed from his very humble beginnings in the slums of Brooklyn.
Hook’s essays in The Quest for Being and Other Studies in Naturalism and Humanism influenced my own philosophical work. (This book is available in pdf at Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/sidneyhooktheque033567mbp.) He discussed diverse topics such as “Philosophy and Human Conduct,” “Modern Knowledge and the Concept of God,” and “Scientific Knowledge and ‘Philosophical’ Knowledge.” He was never jealous of his philosophical turf. He understood that science has deprived philosophy of most of the metaphysical territory that philosophers have considered uniquely their own and argued that philosophy is more than metaphysical pipe dreams (my term, not his!). In Philosophy and Public Policy, he states forthrightly that philosophers must take time to learn the relevant facts if they wish to contribute effectively to policy issues. This statement struck me as I was casually browsing through the book in the university library when I was in graduate school. Knowing how disconnected philosophers can be from life outside the academy, I never forgot it, especially in my work on intelligent design creationism.
15. Where do you see Philosophy going?
My answer here is shaped by the fact that, except for a few other philosophers who are involved in the creationism issue, I have actually worked more with scientists than philosophers. So my vantage point is mostly from outside the community of academic philosophers.
Concerning philosophy as a teaching discipline, I think that reputable universities will continue to see its value in helping students learn to think about major questions with which human beings are concerned. Unless a university education is reduced to little more than vocational training, philosophy will continue to be a vital part of the humanities. Young people should learn to think critically and insightfully about how to live a moral life, how to address societal issues such as social justice and equitable distribution of resources, how scientific reasoning works, and, of course, how these issues intersect with epistemological ones. Students are very interested in those things. There is also tremendous value in studying the history of philosophy. Much can still be learned from Plato and Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, etc. Good teaching — which is the most important job of any academic — can highlight the continuing relevance of the great philosophers.
I am not as optimistic about the relevance of philosophy as a research discipline. Philosophers will certainly continue to do research and publish, but much of modern philosophy, in my opinion, has become largely irrelevant to what is happening outside both the discipline and the academy. If the budgets of public universities continue to be cut, philosophers will become vulnerable unless they can demonstrate that what they do is valuable to someone other than themselves. You probably couldn’t find ten people in a hundred in the United States who can name a single working philosopher. Most of them have heard of scientists such as Stephen Hawking because of the reach and influence of their work. One can learn about scientists merely by reading Google News! But people don’t know anything about living philosophers. This is because philosophical research has become so specialized and insular that it benefits virtually no one except other philosophers who are doing the same kind of work. Most philosophers live in a very comfortable academic bubble. (That is true of academics in general, however.)
There have been historically and are currently notable exceptions. For example, Kant was concerned about political issues and directed some of his work at a broader audience than other philosophers. Currently, Phillip Kitcher writes about the intersection of science, democratic society, and politics, and he makes an effort to address issues of concern to non-philosophers. Kitcher, too, has expressed concern about the “the increasing narrowness and professionalization of academic philosophy” (http://philosophy.columbia.edu/directories/faculty/philip-kitcher). In addition, my friend and colleague Robert Pennock, a philosopher of science at Michigan State University, set the standard for addressing the problem of creationism. And there are other philosophers who are using their professional expertise to communicate with and benefit the wider world.
Certainly, someone has to do the pure, basic philosophical thinking that helps to clarify the conceptual foundations of broader, more practical questions. But if that pure, foundational work is not at some point useful to people other than philosophers themselves, there is little point to it. To the extent that academic philosophy has a future, I think that it lies in taking a more interdisciplinary approach that demonstrates the relevance of philosophy to the concerns of scholars in other disciplines and, ultimately, to the concerns of ordinary people. Otherwise, most of us philosophers could drop off the planet tomorrow and the world would neither notice nor be any worse off.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2013/10/15
1. What academic positions have you held? What academic positions do you currently hold? What is your expertise?
During my Ph.D. studies, I taught Cognitive Psychology in the Open University of Israel and Human Memory in the University of Haifa. During my post-doc, I did not teach. At present, I am a faculty member at the Technion—Israel Institute of Technology. This university is focused on science and engineering, and does not have typical social-science departments. My position is in the Faculty of Industrial Engineering & Management, which is a highly heterogeneous faculty including engineers, mathematicians, computer science researchers, finance researchers, etc. and psychologists. The group of psychologists includes three domains: marketing, organizational psychologists, and cognitive psychologists. I am in this latter category. At the undergraduate level I teach human-factors engineering, which combines my backgrounds as a system analyst in the software industry and cognitive psychology. For graduate students I give metacognition class, which is my domain of expertise.
Metacognition is a set of cognitive processes that accompany each cognitive task we perform. For example, when a student studies, beyond the transfer of information from the information source (e.g., a book, computer, or auditory source) into memory, the learning process involves regulation of the memorizing and comprehension processes. The student asks herself how well she knows each particular paragraph and decides whether to move on or to restudy it. In other words, during studying, she assesses her progress, and decides whether her progress is adequate or another learning strategy would better be applied. Alternatively, seeking help is desirable. Finally, she may consider taking a break or decide that the acquired knowledge is satisfactory for achieving her goals. Similar processes take place with facing a test. Prior to answering each question, the student considers the question’s difficulty. Whether a point exists in searching her memory for relevant knowledge or she knows too little about the solicited information. After providing an answer, she considers if the answer is good enough or more work is needed. Such knowledge assessments and regulatory decisions are metacognitive processes that take place in large variety of contexts, beyond learning. For example, when a doctor considers a diagnosis, she should consider whether she knows enough about the phenomenon or should seek more information, whether she needs additional blood tests for assuring her hypothesized diagnosis, and whether she is confident enough about appropriate medication. Similar processes take place in every profession. Take a daily example, when baking a cake, you ask yourself whether you remember all the ingredients and procedures or better consult the cookbook.
The assessment of our knowledge, progress, or success, is called “Monitoring”, and the decisions we take in light of this monitoring are called “Control” or regulatory decisions. The metacognitive research domain focuses on exposing factors and conditions that affect our monitoring differently than our actual performance – these discrepancies suggest that the monitoring processes are not always reliable. Furthermore, we better acknowledge situations where monitoring is particularly biased and others in which it is more reliable. This is important because people cannot know their actual knowledge or expected success without external feedback. Thus, they take actions in light of their subjective monitoring. If the monitoring output is biased, it is expected to mislead the regulatory decisions. For example, if the student is overconfident about her knowledge and assesses her knowledge to be adequate she would cease studying even though her knowledge is too low to achieve her goals. In one of our studies (Ackerman, Leiser, & Shpigelman, 2013), we found that undergraduate students who studied explanations how to solve very challenging problems were misled by non-informative illustrations incorporated in the explanations. They assessed their understanding to be higher for the illustrated explanations than for the plain explanations, although their actual performance was in fact lower. Their subjective assessment of comprehension was above 90% while their actual success rate was below 40%. This means they exaggerated their assessment of comprehension in about 60%. For the plain explanation versions, they exaggerated “only” in 30%. In another line of research, we showed that studying texts from the computer screen results in larger overconfidence and lower test scores than studying the same texts on paper (Ackerman & Goldsmith, 2011; Ackerman & Lauterman, 2012). In the examples above, such overconfidence may have clear undesirable outcomes like inadequate medical diagnosis or a messed-up cake. Underconfidence is not desirable as well, as it may lead people to invest too much effort in a particular item while the time could have better be used to study other materials, or for going out with friends…
2. What was your original dream? If it changed, how did it change? Furthermore, what changed it? Where did you acquire your education?
In the high school, I studied in a program, which elaborated on computer science. When I joined the Israeli army, as all Israeli boys and girls, I took part in a software development program, which involved two-year studies and four more years of service in a software development unit. I started as a team member, and later on worked as a system analyst and led a software-development team. As part of this program, we could start our Bachelor Degree in the university. I saw my future in software development, but the degree had to include an additional course. I was interested in psychology, and finally graduated in a combined degree: computer science and psychology. After this, I worked for software companies and led international teams with up to 20 people. I worked with systems that involved large databases and faced challenges that involved management of large amounts of data. After more than 10 years in this industry, I arrived at a new point in my thinking. I thought the software industry should be informed by cognitive science. The human memory system manages large amount of data with great efficiency. Thus, I thought that insights from its great data processing capabilities may inform the software industry. At that point in time, I was already a mother to three young daughters, which made studying a new world, not an easy decision Nevertheless, I decided that two years of M.A. studies might allow me to bring a fresh point of view to the software world.
As part of my search for studying about the management of the human memory system, I encountered the domain of Metacognition, and the lab in the University of Haifa, Israel, where leading researchers of this domain work. Dr. Morris Goldsmith became the supervisor for my M.A. thesis. As well, Dr. Asher Koriat, head of the lab, was a collaborator on another research project. During graduate studies, I felt astonished by intriguing research questions studied in this domain and rigorous research methods employed to address these questions. As a result, this two-year program was converted into a direct Ph.D. course. I realized that there was no way back to the industry for me. I got caught in the research world.
The metacognitive research domain evolved as part of memory research. This domain, called meta-memory, involves monitoring and decision control involved in memorization of word lists and answering knowledge questions by retrieving information from memory. I am attracted to more complex cognitive tasks, such as reading comprehension and problem solving. I learned more about these complex tasks from my post-doc supervisor, Dr. David Leiser, at the Ben-Gurion University, Israel. Now, I see metacognition as ubiquitous, but hidden behind the scene, in every task people perform. My mission is to contribute to the scientific understanding of the metacognitive processes involved in performing complex cognitive tasks and lay the grounds for developing methods for improving their quality.
3. What kinds of research have you conducted up to the present? If you currently conduct research, what form does it take?
Mainly, my studies are performed in my lab, but some occur in classrooms or over the Internet. The lab includes eight computer stations in a small room. The tasks involve learning, question answering, or problem solving. In all tasks, immediately after performing each task, e.g. solving a problem, the participant indicates how confident she is, on a scale of 0% to 100%, that her solution is correct, and then she moves on to the next item. I measure accuracy of the response, confidence, and response time. All my studies are experimental, which means that we manipulate a variable or two. In the example above, we manipulated the presence of the illustrations in the texts. This was manipulated within participants. This means that each participant studied half the texts with illustrations and half without them. Each text had a version with illustrations and a plain version. The assignment of texts with and without illustrations was random for each participant for ruling out effects of particular texts and/or illustrations on the results. In the media experiments, we manipulated the media for studying between participants – half the participants performed the entire task – learning, predicting their success at the test, and test taking – on the same media, either screen or paper. This was done to avoid attracting participants’ attention to the media, which may contaminate the results. In other studies, we compare working with and without time pressure, or manipulate motivation for success by assigning higher point value to some items than for others.
4. If you had infinite funding and full academic freedom, what would you research?
As stated earlier, I see my mission in spreading the word regarding the proneness of the subjective assessments of knowledge to numerous misleading factors in all aspects of life. The problem in this domain is that the research progresses slowly – we must be very careful and make sure that our studies are rigorous in order to draw reliable conclusions. The study domain is still young, and we know little about the processes involved in performing complex tasks. For example, what are the metacognitive processes involved in engineering work of designing a new machine? Therefore, I need many collaborators and graduate students to share my ambitious to understand better the biasing factors and think together about ways to overcome these biases. Up-to-date technologies, like virtual reality, eye tracking, fMRI, can contribute to this avenue. My dream is to see educational systems and professional development programs incorporate in every activity acknowledgement in the potential metacognitive biases and the necessity to minimize these biases for effective performance of tasks.
5. What controversial topics exist in your domain?
Examples of controversial issues in metacognition are:
- Is the metacognitive monitoring and regulation of cognitive efforts conscious or unconscious?
- Does the metacognitive monitoring only drive behavior, in a top-down fashion, or also informed by the behavior after it was done, in a bottom-up fashion?
- Is there a central monitoring mechanism with common characteristics for all cognitive tasks, or are there differences between the metacognitive processes that take place in the various tasks?
6. How would you describe your philosophical framework?
A combination of focus and openness is my secret. I realize, of course, that this sounds like an oxymoron. As mentioned above, I see metacognition everywhere and keep analyzing the world from this point of view. This is the focus side. The openness side is that I see myself as a collector and integrator of ideas more than as an inventor. I keep listening to people, seniors, and juniors. In particular, I learn a lot from discussions with students. I enjoy greatly their fresh minds and the original links they make between topics they study or from their personal life experience. This attitude brought me to major leaps in my research programs. One of my studies evolved from a private conversation with a junior (at the time) colleague who asked an intriguing “what if” question regarding the study I presented to him. Another study evolved while I was standing in a traffic jam, and watched how people get into the junction and sometimes take risks just because they are tired of waiting for the junction to clear. A collaborative study with Dr. Daniel Bernstein, from Kwantlen Polytechnic University, evolved from a short discussion during a coffee break in a conference. Yet another example is a study in which our plan failed, but my graduate student suggested a new way of looking into the results we already collected. This was then developed into a new study which provided us with highly interesting insights. From a more general perspective, failures often provide opportunities to learn something new. One of my papers in a leading journal (Thompson et al., 2013) was evolved from a failure in replicating a well-known finding. The graduate student who her very first study was failed was so disappointed that she almost left the program. However, we then considered an explanation for the failure, with the help of Dr. Valerie Thompson from Saskatoon and together came up with beautiful findings and a theoretical contribution.
7. What advice do you have for young Psychology students?
I think that the previous answer, regarding the combination of focus and openness tells the main story. Most students do not know their focus yet. Therefore, openness is the main thing, while it is clearly relevant for those who know their focus as well. I suggest benefiting from the university period much beyond the studies per se. Go to talks of guest speakers, go to other faculties if something there attracts your interest, interact with researchers from various disciplines, consider interesting questions, and search for answers. For those who consider research as their future direction, get involved in research as early and as much as possible. At the beginning, take part in experiments as a participant, and later on as a research assistant. Take courses that involve developing research proposals and conduction of pilot studies. This is the only way to understand this world and examine whether it attracts you.
8. Who most influenced you? Can you recommend any seminal books/articles?
The papers that influenced me the most were writings by Tom Nelson, Louis Narens, Janet Metcalfe, Robert Bjork, John Dunlosky, Keith Thiede, Valerie Thompson, and Asher Koriat. I recommend a recent review paper and a friendly book that summarize the domain nicely and point to its applied relevance.
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-Regulated Learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417-444.
Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc.
9. Where do you see Cognitive Psychology going?
I hope to see the cognitive psychology go beyond artificial tasks that can be generated only in the lab, into real-life tasks with larger variety than studied up until now. This requires sophistication and development of research methods that support it without compromising on rigorous research methods.
References
Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1),18-32.
Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T. (2012). Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1816-1828.
Ackerman, R., Leiser, D., & Shpigelman, M. (2013). Is comprehension of problem solutions resistant to misleading heuristic cues? Acta Psychologica, 143(1), 105-112.
Thompson, V., Prowse Turner, J., Pennycook, G., Ball, L., Brack, H., Ophir, Y., & Ackerman, R. (2013). The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency as metacognitive cues for initiating analytic thinking. Cognition, 128, 237-251.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2013/10/01
1. What academic positions have you held? What academic positions do you currently hold?
My professional academic career began at the University of Mumbai, India. Briefly, I worked as a clinical psychologist at a children’s hospital. Later, I was a lecturer at an undergraduate institution affiliated with the University of Mumbai. After completing my Ph.D. at Simon Fraser University, BC, Canada, I taught at Camosun College and University of Victoria, BC, Canada.
At present, I am a faculty member in the Psychology department of Kwantlen Polytechnic University, BC, Canada. As well, I am the Principal Investigator and Project Director for Canadian government funded Community-University Research Alliance (CURA) project. CURA is a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional, multi-partnership project involving four academic institutions, seven researchers, and eleven community agencies.
Additionally, I am actively involved as the board member and the secretary of the International Relations Committee of the Canadian Psychological Association.
2. In brief, how was your youth? How did you come to this point?
I was born and raised in Mumbai, India. My family tradition was guided by strong commitment to scholarship and spiritual pursuits. My father was a journalist, poet, writer, and later a Yoga teacher in retirement. My mother was gentle, but strong, and kept the family life stable and happy. I had strong extended family ties. I recall being surrounded by numerous cousins and visiting relatives, which provided for many happy times. I loved school. From a young age, I wanted to be an academic.
When I turned 16, I began questioning some of the traditions of life in India. I became an “atheist” much to the despair of my relatives, and surprise of my friends. However, my father provided me with a long list of books on philosophy and religions for study. The turning point was the study and practice of Yoga for over 8 years. Although practice of Yoga had been part of my family tradition, I needed to examine the philosophy of it, which appealed to my rational mind. The secular roots of Yoga provided a strong ground I was seeking to keep my mind balanced and a perspective that went beyond the immediate.
Yoga and Psychology are intertwined. Therefore, it was natural to veer in the direction of Psychology.
3. When did Psychology interest you?
Actually, my entry into Psychology was accidental. As an undergraduate student in Mumbai, India, I wanted to major in English Literature because I loved the works of classic writers and poets including Shakespeare, Jane Austin, Bronte sisters, and others. However, my English department informed me that it did not have enough students to offer the major. On this basis, they advised me to sit in any class for the first two weeks, and wait for more students to come forward to declare English Literature as their major. Of course, I was disappointed and a bit worried.
Anyway, I decided to go to a class. My friends told me about a hugely popular class taught by a popular professor. I always remember that class. There were 150 students in the classroom, no microphone, and the old professor was sitting in his chair talking very gently to a very captive audience. It was an Introductory Psychology class! There was no turning away from there! Two weeks later the English department approached me, much too late…
4. Where did you acquire your education?
I completed my Bachelor’s degree with honors in psychology and Master’s in Clinical psychology at the University of Mumbai. I then came to Canada and earned my second Master’s degree and Ph.D. in Social psychology. Yes, I switched from clinical to experimental field of psychology as I wanted to pursue basic research rather than practice in the field of psychological illnesses.
5. What kinds of research have you conducted up to the present?
I have three concurrent research tracks. One is focused on Cross-Cultural Psychology examining the issue of self, identity, and acculturation. Second pertains to Applied Social Psychology working with a network of academic scholars and community agencies targeting prevention of youth violence and gang involvement. Third is an overarching philosophical and historical examination of psychological knowledge.
6. If you currently conduct research, what form does it take?
Having worked within community-involved research for the last five years, I have decided to work only on collaborative research projects with community input, academic rigor, and a set of clear application-to-life goals.
7. You have conducted practical and applied research through AT-CURA along with researchers from your university as well as Simon Fraser University, University of Victoria, and Langara College. What is AT-CURA? What is the purpose of AT-CURA? Why do you consider unifying ‘community partners and academic experts’ through a common vision important?
Acting-Together: Community-University Research Alliance (AT-CURA) is a five-year long project (2009-2014) funded through Canadian government’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). The goal of this $1 million project is to identify protective factors that may prevent youth from violence and criminal gang involvement. Importantly, unlike most traditional academic projects, academic research is but 1/3rd of the project. The other two major arms of the project are; ongoing training/education of all involved in the project including youth, and continual knowledge dissemination using both academic and popular media.
SSHRC’s mandate for CURA projects is that academic researchers must work alongside community partners at every step of the project from day one until the conclusion of the project. I wholeheartedly embrace this ideal.
As an academic researcher, I had remained rather painfully aware of the two solitudes created by the academic and the community. Academics, especially social scientists, have carved out an ivory tower, which they parachute out of from time to time into an outside community to “collect data”. Next step is to remove any trace of the individual identity of the data contributor. This “coded data” is taken back to the ivory tower where these data pieces are examined, analysed, chopped up, decorated with charts and tables to be served on the platter of research journals, conference presentations and books – that only a handful may actually read, understand, or find relevant. Although, there is great value in “knowledge for the sake of knowledge”, creation of academic knowledge accessible only to the academic elite is unfair and meaningless. On the other side of things, the community relies on ‘common-sense wisdom’ and works on the “application” side of knowledge without the support of the evidence-based research.
The divide between the academic and the community must be bridged, such that the context is created for the cross-fertilization of knowledge. Academic rigor and community wisdom, when amalgamated, allows for meaningful contributions by the individual and collective to create a better world.
8. If you had infinite funding and full academic freedom, what would you research?
My research goal will be to move closer to the ideal possible world where groups of people from diverse cultures, nations, religions, traditions, and political ideologies live harmoniously. Yes, understating the dynamics of intergroup relations are important, especially as we are a ‘Global Village’ with increasing movements of millions of people across continents. This expands with the world coming together and becoming connected through rapidly advancing e-technology. This is our future. Our next-door neighbors will be “different”. Yet, they will be part of our shared world. If my research can make a small, humble contribution in helping build harmonious human connections, I would consider my life blessed.
9. Since you began studying Psychology, what do you consider the controversial topics? How do you examine the controversial topics?
As a social psychologist living in Canada, controversial topics to me are inter-cultural relations. Traversing the fine line between the freedom to practice one’s cultural traditions while integrating into mainstream life in Canada. It can be a challenge. Some issues such as newcomers to Canada wearing head covers (Hijab, Turbans), face covers (Niqab), body covers (Burqa), and following tradition-specific gender norms are controversial. As well, “racial profiling” is problematic.
There is no one correct way to examine these topics. However, it is my understanding that top- down imposition of “laws” make for a greater divide and discontent within the society; whereas allowing everyone an opportunity to shape laws and policies create good will and receptivity to them. Therefore, my inclination would be to involve members of the groups who might be the targets of the controversy, the policy makers, and expert researchers to work collaboratively to come up with a win-win situation.
10. How would you describe your early philosophical framework? Did it change? If so, how did it change?
As noted earlier, growing up in India, cultural and spiritual traditions dictated my world view. My cultural value’s foundation has remained strong within me. As such I believed, and continue to believe in the inherent goodness of people, and that being able to help one and all without expecting rewards and recognition is a duty (“Dharma”), and that maintaining a larger perspective on life protects one from stresses of the here & now, and keeps one humble.
These basic values have not changed. Rather personal experiences strengthened my belief in the importance of human connections and making decisions based on the larger perspective on life.
11. What advice do you have for young Psychology students?
Make career decisions wisely. Once a goal is established, give your best to every task, no matter how small, how trivial. Never be a minimalist but go beyond what is required. Learn to be a team player.
12. Who most influenced you? Can you recommend any seminal books/articles?
From my Eastern roots, I would consider Patanjali, an ancient scholar from India’s sacred tradition as the one who influenced me deeply. His seminal work “Yoga Sutras”, a compilation of Sanskrit hymns, provides a rational and secular philosophy of human nature.
From the standpoint of my Western academic life, I would pick William James as my ideal. James- the great thinker, James- the wise scholar, James – the amazing writer is an enduring source of inspiration to me. His book “Principles of Psychology”, especially the chapter on the self and consciousness is probably the best psychological discourse I have ever come across.
13. What do you hope to achieve in the near and far future with AT-CURA?
AT-CURA research findings are gradually being disseminated and it is rewarding to see these being embraced by law enforcement agencies, policy makers, and service providers. My vision for AT-CURA is to continue the good work that the project has initiated and inspired. Our academic-community collaboration is very strong today, and work needs to continue to keep it well-nurtured so it can keep growing stronger and larger. I envision that it will have a sustained existence at KPU so researchers and community partners maintain their ties and collaborate on evidence-based programs that will help our youth make right choices in life and keep our community healthy and thriving.
14. Where do you see Psychology going?
Psychology as a discipline has very unique historical foundations, and its rapid growth since the early 20th century has been non-linear and multidirectional. In light of this, concerns exist about the field “splitting” into too many branches. Psychology as a unitary discipline might be lost in future altogether. I am not sure if there is any trend to allow speculation about the disciplinary direction. I see one constant though. Given that human behavior remains dependent on its contexts – physical, social, cultural, political – which constantly keep changing, the discipline of psychology will never go out of business- although it may take on different garbs and labels.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2013/09/18
1. What positions have you held? What position do you currently hold?
I actually studied and worked in IT, as programmer and also IT-manager, for a number of years However, I loved psychology too much so I decided to do a PhD in psychology. Since my PhD graduation in 2011, I have been project manager in Uppsala for a project relating to numeracy and now a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard investigating the impact technology has on our decisions and cognition.
2. In brief, how was your youth? How did you come to this point?
I was always interested in knowledge and had a curious nature. I was undecided between IT and Psychology so I eventually studied both. Even though my training in Psychology is more extensive, I am still a computer-geek at heart, which works for me since I am interested in how technology is changing our cognition.
3. When did Psychology interest you?
I think I have always been interested in psychology. People interest and puzzle me and I love talking and hearing people’s stories so it just came naturally I guess.
4. Where did you acquire your education?
I actually got my MA in Informatics first and worked a few years in IT. Meanwhile I studied psychology at Stockholm University, Sweden, where I eventually got my PhD.
5. What kinds of research have you conducted up to the present?
I have been involved in many projects with the denominator Judgment and Decision Making. For instance how Medical Doctor’s make decisions, how voting systems impact preferences, how students choose study strategy, how information is processed and distorted in consumer situations, why we procrastinate and so on. With the years, I have more and more become interested in social psychology and HCI.
6. If you currently conduct research, what form does it take?
Being an experimental psychologist, experiments are very important to me. I often look for ideas in the real world but follow it up or investigate it in experimental settings. I think triangulating and replication is important in research so I usually try to mix different methods to study a phenomena.
7. Since you began studying psychology, what do you consider the controversial topics? How do you examine the controversial topics?
My field, Judgment and Decision making, have a few controversial topics. The one that has always interested me is whether we should rely on our gut feelings or sleep on it before making decisions. Research has consistently shown that sleeping on it is better, with a few exceptions. However, I have myself not studied this topic, mostly because I am satisfied with the answers that current research has given us regarding that topic.
8. What form of multi-/inter-disciplinary research does Psychology most need in the near future? What form of research does Psychology need in the far future?
I can only talk about cognitive and social psychology, as these are the areas I have knowledge in. Both areas are actually doing a very good interdisciplinary job. For instance, many psychologists collaborate with economists and computer scientists to study financial behaviour or how technology is affecting us.
9. If you had infinite funding, full academic freedom, and zero ethical bounds, what would you research?
I would probably still do what I do, which is studying humans. But I suppose I would have more research assistants so that I could focus more on research instead. Also, not have to spend a lot of time on writing grant proposals would probably make it easier to actually do research.
10. What advice do you have for undergraduate and graduate students? For Psychology students, what do you recommend?
Well, I can only give advice about academia. 1) If you are planning to have a career in academia, make sure that you choose a topic that you love. Academia is a tough world (but fun) where positive feedback comes seldom so what drives you have to be your passion for the topic. I cannot emphasise enough how important it is that you choose topic, or any career for that matter, based on passion and not prestige, money, and power (the last three mentioned comes naturally if you do what you are passionate about). 2) Another advice would be to network, but with those whose work you love and want to learn from. Learning from others has been the most valuable knowledge I have gathered. And start early, solid networks takes time to build. 3. Focus on your strengths rather than your weaknesses. We all have weaknesses and focusing on only them will hinder you. Besides, everyone have strengths that others don’t so use that to your advantage.
11. Who most influenced you? Can you recommend any books/articles?
This is so hard because so many people have. But those who have influenced me has been people whom, despite their accomplishments and fame, are so humble and genuine. I once emailed this extremely famous professor that I wanted to meet him. I really didn’t except this person to answer. But I even got a meeting. That inspired me immensely.
12. You co-run a blog called ‘:InDecision:’. Why did you create the blog? How do you run it? Where do you see it going?
I have always been involved in curriculum activities such as being involved in research societies because I find it so rewarding and important. At the same time, I have always felt that there is a lack of forum for early career researchers, especially in my field, to network. In addition, not everyone have the same opportunities to meet other researchers and exchange ideas. So Elina, the other girl I am running the blog with, decided to create such forum. We knew that there would be interest in such blog (we thought that surely, we are not the only ones in need of such a network). However, we did not expect it to be as well received as it was. Because of the positive feedback we received, we got more inspired and motivated to take the blog further. We actually spend a great deal of our free time on the blog but we get so much satisfaction by knowing that we are making a change in the research field. It should be added that the blog had not been possible without the help of our contributors. We have many exciting projects planned and we are getting more and more visibility for every day so I am excited about the future of the blog.
13. Where do you see Psychology going?
I am probably biased but I think psychology is one of the most important fields and should be taught in every programs (that and statistics). Today, everything that in one way or another involves humans draws conclusions from psychology. I would not be surprised if every company or state will have psychologists in their team.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2013/09/04
1. What is your current position?
I am a Resident Scholar at American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Staff Psychiatrist in a Methadone Clinic in Washington, D.C. I am also a lecturer at Yale University School of Medicine.
2. What positions have you held in your academic career?
I was an assistant professor of psychiatry at Yale University from 1988 to 1993. From 1993 to 1994, I was a Robert Wood Johnson Policy Fellow with the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee.
3. What have been your major areas of research?
I have written in academic journals on topics in psychiatry and medicine, and have published articles on cultural aspects of medicine and science in numerous magazines and journals. I am author of Drug Treatment: The Case for Coercion (AEI Press, 1999) and P.C., M.D.: How Political Correctness Is Corrupting Medicine (Basic Books, 2001). I am co-author of One Nation under Therapy (St. Martin’s Press, 2005), co-author of The Health Disparity Myth (AEI Press, 2006), editor of When Altruism Isn’t Enough – The Case for Compensating Kidney Donors (AEI Press, 2009) and, most recently, co-author of Brainwashed – The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience (Basic Books, 2013)
4. What is your most recent research?
My new book has focused on the extent to which brain science, and brain imaging in particular, can explain human behavior. For example, what can a “lit” brain region tell us about an individual’s thoughts and feelings?
There is enormous practical importance for the use of fMRIs and brain science. However, non-experts are at risk of being seduced into believing that brain science, and brain imaging in particular, can unlock the secrets of human nature. Media outlets tend to purvey information about studies of the brain in uncritical ways, which foster misimpressions of brain science’s capabilities to reveal the working of the mind.
5. You published a new book called Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience with Dr. Scott O. Lilienfield. What is the core argument of your new co-authored book?
My co-author, psychologist Dr. Scott Lilienfeld, and I talk about “losing the mind in the age of brain science.” We mean that brain-based levels of explanation are regarded as the most authentic and valued way of explaining human behavior. Sometimes this is the proper way to go (when we want to uncover the workings of the brain for clinical purposes or to achieve new insight about the mechanisms of memory, learning, emotion, and so on). Understanding people in the context of their lives — their desires, intentions, attitudes, feelings, and so on — requires that we ask them, not their brains.
To clarify, all subjective experience, from a frisson of excitement to the ache of longing, corresponds to physical events in the brain. Scientists have made great strides in reducing the organizational complexity of the brain from the intact organ to its constituent neurons, the proteins they contain, genes, and so on. Just as one obtains differing perspectives on the layout of a sprawling city while ascending in a skyscraper’s glass elevator, we can gather different insights into human behavior at different levels of analysis.
With this template, we can see how human thought and action unfold at a number of explanatory levels, working upward from the most basic elements. A major point we make in Brainwashed is that problems arise when we ascribe too much importance to the brain-based explanations and not enough to psychological or social ones.
6. You have argued against politically correct medicine. How do you define this form of medicine? How is it detrimental to the discipline? In turn, how does it corrupt Public Policy decision-making?
I refer you to my book P.C., M.D.: How Political Correctness is Corrupting Medicine.
In short, the book exposes ways in which the teaching of medicine and public health, and also its practice, is distorted by political agendas surrounding the issue of victimization – in particular, the notion that poor health of minority populations (e.g., ethnic minorities, severely mentally ill people, women) is due to social oppression. In P.C., M.D. and The Health Disparities Myth (Click for full text), for example, I show that despite insistent claims that racially biased doctors are a cause of poor minority health, there are no data to support this.
Politicized medicine (which is different than PC medicine) can come from both directions: left and the right. For example, pro-life advocates exaggerate the extent to which abortion leads to depression and misrepresent aspects of the stem cell debate.
7. Whom do you consider your biggest influences? Could you recommend any seminal or important books/articles by them?
I greatly admire James Q. Wilson and had the honor to know him through AEI, where he was the Chairman of the Academic Advisory Council. In his 1993 book, The Moral Sense, Wilson was impatient with moral relativism, especially the idea that man was primarily a product of his culture. He argued that a moral sense was part of our basic nature, rooted in evolutionary biology. However, he took issue with the over-correction to cultural determinism borne by rigid biological explanations of human behavior.
I am a fan of psychologists Steven Pinker (Blank Slate) and Timothy D. Wilson (Strangers to Ourselves).
8. What do you consider the most important point(s) in the cross-section(s) between Health Science and Public Policy?
Disability Reform and Mental Health Treatment are among the most important to me. In the case of Disability Reform, constructive ways exist to use incentives for guiding people back to the workforce or some kind of productivity. Unfortunately the system of disability entitlements, Social Security and veteran’s benefits, do not make good use of incentives to counteract the kind of learned invalidism that comes with chronic dependence upon disability payments. As for Mental Health Treatments, there are enlightened programs in use (though not widespread enough) to ensure that the most ill patients follow treatment recommendations and stay safe while living in the community. These programs entail a kind of civil commitment called ‘Assisted Outpatient Treatment’ and they require some strength of will on the part of policymakers to both enact and then enforce. For an effective example from the New York Times, click title: Program Compelling Outpatient Treatment for Mental Illness is Working
Additionally, organ shortage interests me. Today, 118,000 people await a kidney, liver, lung, or heart. Eighteen of them will die tomorrow because they could not survive the wait for a donated organ. Current law (1984 National Organ Transplant Act) demands that organs are given as “gifts,” an act of selfless generosity. A beautiful sentiment, yes; but for those without a willing loved one to donate or years to wait on an ever-growing list, altruism can be a lethal prescription. (Full disclosure: in 2006, I got a kidney from a friend. If not for her, I would have spent many miserable years on dialysis.)
The only solution is more organs. We need a regulated system in which compensation is provided by a third party (government, a charity, or insurance) to well-informed, healthy donors. Rewards such as contributions to retirement funds, tax breaks, loan repayments, tuition vouchers for children, and so on, would not attract people who might otherwise rush to donate on the promise of a large sum of instant cash in their pockets.
With private buying kept unlawful, available organs would be distributed not to the highest bidder, but to the next needy person according to a transparent algorithm. For organs that come only from deceased donors, such as hearts, or those that are less often given by loved ones, like livers and lungs, a pilot trial of government-paid or charity-financed funerals makes sense.
I went into detail here because I feel passionate about changing the law that makes it a felony for anyone to give something of value to a potential donor.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2013/08/28
1. What positions have you held in Academe?
After receiving my PhD in 2005 from the University of Michigan, I accepted a tenure-track position in the Psychology Department at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, NJ. I have been there ever since. I am currently an Associate Professor of Social Psychology.
2. In brief, how was your youth? How did you come to this point?
My youth was a bit challenging. My mother died of cancer when I was 17 and my father died of a stroke when I was 21. In some ways, academia saved me because it became my home when there was no home to return to.
3. When did Psychology interest you?
As an adolescent, I remember wanting to become a supermodel or a psychologist. I quickly became disenchanted with the idea of modeling and the unrealistic body ideals for women in the industry. No doubt my stint in modeling inspired some of my work on the danger of unrealistic body image ideals.
My true passion for psychology began as a teenager. I found myself playing the role of psychologist for my friends and family, which drew me into my present career path.
4. Where did you acquire your education?
After growing up in a small town in Cresskill, NJ, I attended Bard College on the Excellence and Equal Cost Scholarship (essentially a scholarship that allows you to pay state college prices for a private school education if you graduate in the top 10% of your high school class). At the time, Bard College was a very liberal environment full of tree-hugging liberals and high school outcasts. It suited me well. At Bard, I began conducting social psychological research with Dr. Tracie Stewart, which led me to graduate school in a joint social psychology and PhD program at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
5. What kinds of research have you conducted up to the present?
I have two lines of research. The first involves examining how sexism and the social construction of gender influence interpersonal relationship. For example, I have tackled questions such as, “How do gender role prescriptions influence sexual satisfaction?” “What are the interpersonal costs and benefits of confronting sexism” and “When do gender roles restrict men and women’s freedom to be themselves in relationships?” The second line of research involves identifying the impact of biracial identities on race, intergroup relationships, and social categorization processes. This work focuses on how racial ambiguity challenges prejudice and rigid social cognition. The core question here is “What impact does the growing biracial population have on how we think about race and the relationships between racial groups?”
6. If you currently conduct research, what form does it take?
Currently, I examine the social conditions under which racial ambiguity influences racial attitudes after interpersonal interactions. I have also begun some promising work at the intersections of gender and race to better understand the experience of women of color and the health consequences of combined gender and race-based discrimination.
7. Since you began studying psychology, what do you consider the controversial topics? How do you examine the controversial topics?
Any research that challenges the wisdom of conforming to gender norms could be considered controversial in the eyes of the public because many are resistant to scientific studies that demonstrate costs of what some consider the way men and women should behave. Because my work explores the potential costs of restrictive gender roles, I sometimes receive some resistance.
In the field of psychology, I also find it controversial to study sexuality because many do not consider sexuality research a science worthy of study despite the obvious importance of sex to virtually all aspects of psychology. As a result, not many social psychologists study sexuality but I see too much importance in sexuality research to ignore this importance facet of interpersonal connections.
At first, studying biracial identity was controversial topic because many did not consider biracial identity to be a legitimate identity. The resistance to biracial identities came from both conservative and liberal circles. In some parts of the country, there was (and continues to be) a strong backlash against interracial marriages and much early research seemed influenced by conservative racial politics. For example in the 1950s, biracial individuals were described as psychologically disturbed and criminally-minded. Even after some of these ideas were discarded, others resisted biracial identities because they felt that biracial individuals could diminish the power of minority political movements by reducing the population counts of minority populations. Others accused biracial people of trying to escape their minority identity and pass as White. So, there was a public sensitivity around biracial identity, which was only recently overcome by the large, outspoken biracial community who demanded that biracial identity be recognized as a real identity. So, studying biracial identity no longer seems controversial though there is still some backlash from racially prejudiced groups who do not approve of racial mixing.
8. How would you describe your early philosophical framework? Did it change? If so, how did it change?
Do what you love and you will live a fulfilling life. This is the philosophy that led me to my career. As for a philosophical framework for my research, I suppose one could say that I adopt a self-determination approach. That is, I think that we have two core motivations that explain a great deal about behavior—the desire to belong and connect with others and the desire to feel autonomous, free, and authentic. I still believe these are cross-culturally important motivations that can help explain social behavior.
9. If you had infinite resources and full academic freedom, what would you research?
If I had infinite resources and full academic freedom, I would utilize more international samples, purchase biomedical equipment to study the interface of the physiological body and the mind, and conduct more longitudinal studies to ascertain long-term psychological consequences. If I had infinite resources that I could use for non-research purposes, I would create programs to improve the diversity of psychology programs at the graduate and faculty levels.
10. What advice do you have for undergraduate and graduate students? For Psychology students, what do you recommend?
If you are passionate about your topic of study, work will not feel like “work”. So, pick ideas that will sustain your passion. For those who strive to join PhD programs, get involved with publishable research early in your career. Moreover, I highly recommend getting closely involved in different areas of psychology because I strongly believe that the most exciting innovations to come will be those that bridge across areas of psychology.
11. Who most influenced you?Can you recommend any books/articles?
There are several mentors who influenced my thinking and advised me along my career path (Tracie L. Stewart, Jennifer Crocker, Margaret Shih, Laurie Rudman, Abigail Stewart, James Jackson). Of course, there were also those scholars whom I have never had a chance to talk to in person but whose work has and continues to inspire me (Alice Eagly, Anne Peplau, Susan Fiske, Claude Steele, Jennifer Richeson, M. Lynne Cooper, Edward Deci, Richard Ryan). And of course, there are the intellectual pioneers of the social psychology of identity, prejudice, and stigma (Henry Tajfel, Gordon Allport, Erving Goffman) whose work laid the foundation for the research that I conduct today. Perhaps, I would recommend that people start with Gordon Allport’s Nature of Prejudice and Goffman’s book on Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity.
12. Where do you see Psychology going?
I can only answer the question of where I would like to see Psychology go. I hope that Psychology continues to bridge with other disciplines so that scientific discovery can reach its full potential. I hope that we continue to explore the links between the mind and the body. I hope that we become an even more open science so that our work is more widely distributed and we can educate the public. Also, I believe a standard of open science (e.g., data sharing) can also prevent fraudulent science.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2013/08/17
1. Where did you grow up? What was youth like for you? What effect do you feel this had on your career path?
I grew up in the Mogadishu area, where my mother and father lived. Growing up, I saw that in my society people were respecting and loving each other. Parents were educating their children to work hard, respect their elders and also to respect other children. It affected me in that I viewed society as sincere, and I felt that way myself and I was trusting of others. But, in this world today, I have come across many people who are cheating their way through life. However, because of my youth, I always believe that everyone has some good in them. That is why I always want to help even in the most difficult times.
2. Where did you acquire your education?
I studied medicine in the Soviet Union, in Kiev. When I returned to Somalia, I studied law at the University of Mogadishu.
3. Did you have a childhood hero?
My childhood hero was my grandmother, the mother of my mother. She was a wise, calm, strong, and intelligent woman. She was a natural philosopher. When I read the books of renowned philosophers today, I can find the same words that my grandmother used to tell me.
She always advised me to work hard, because after working hard, you can rest. She also said to me, “sitting is empty, but working is plenty.” When I was a young girl, she would wake me up at 4am everyday before the sun was even up. We would together pray, exercise, do chores, and prepare breakfast for the family. She taught me how to farm, how to take care of the animals. By going the extra mile and not limiting your work, you will find joy and good in life.
She also taught me to be forgiving and fair to everyone you meet. If you cheat or inflict harm onto other people, you yourself will become lost in this world. But, if you are fair and honest, you will succeed. I have kept with her words my entire life, and I am happy.
4. What was your original dream? If it changed, how did it change? Furthermore, what changed it?
When I was a child, I only wanted to satisfy my parents and make them happy. At that time, life was difficult and it was hard to get enough food for everyone in the family. But even as there were no jobs, it was raining plenty every season. People were farming, animals were eating grass, and in that way people were living. It was hard, but there was more honesty and happiness.
Then, when after my mother died, I had a dream to become a doctor. My mother died from delivery complications, and I was very sad. She was suffering right before me, but I could not do anything to support her. I felt a very deep pain. At that time many children like me also lost their mothers. So I wanted to help future generations and children to avoid the pain I felt. That was when I had the dream to become a doctor.
5. What have been your major areas of work?
While I work in healthcare, I also do work in education, agriculture, and law. Throughout my life, I have been working to fight poverty and malnutrition in Somalia. This includes doing very simple things like going to fishing and giving the children fish, which is full of protein. I founded a primary school on my land to educate the children. As a lawyer, I can understand what is wrong and what is right, and each person’s obligations in society. Every citizen has rights, and each citizen has to defend their own rights while completing their obligations to the government, society, family and children.
6. What is your most recent work?
Most recently, my Foundation has built a new library and science lab at the Waqaf-Diblawe Primary School with the help of the Global Enrichment Foundation. We have some English children books in the library, which were brought to Somalia when President Bush visited our camp in 1992. We are looking to obtain more books, start reading classes with the students, and build a reading culture in our community. We still need to get more tools for the science lab as well so that the children can learn both from the books and from the hand.
7. If you had unlimited funding and unrestricted freedom, what research/work would you pursue?
If I had unlimited funding and unrestricted freedom, I want to educate the 25,000 students who have grown up in my camp. I believe education is the key to everything. After their education, I want to create jobs for the students.
8. Not many individuals know of the situation in Somalia, and the work you do to improve the conditions there, you founded the Hawa Abdi Foundation. It has served to help those most needing assistance in Somalia. For the readers, what is the function of the Foundation? What kind of work does it do?
The Dr. Hawa Abdi Foundation works to give everyone equal rights and justice. During the civil war, times were very difficult and Somalis had to flee from constant violence. They found refuge on my land, where I provided healthcare, education, and food security to all Somalis regardless of gender, religion, clan, political affiliation. I treat everyone equally and I believe that everyone should be able to access their basic rights.
Today, we continue to do the same work in healthcare, education, and agriculture. We have the Dr. Hawa Abdi General Hospital and Training Centre, which is the only place of free healthcare in a 33-km radius. We have the Waqaf-Diblawe Primary School and a Women’s Education Centre to educate women and children. Also, I am cultivating my 400-hectare farmland to strengthen food security in the region.
Even as the war has ended now, there is still a lot of work to do in Somalia to help people rebuild their lives. We continue to receive up to 40 families a day looking for a safe place to live. We need to continue to give them access to basic rights and opportunities for jobs. That is what we do at the Foundation now.
9. Related to the previous question, what is the core message of the the Hawa Abdi Foundation. What can people in society do to help with your foundation’s work?
The core message of my Foundation is that everyone must have equal rights and justice. The people who have come under my care learn that it is important to be honest and friendly to all people. Whereas people are fighting because of clan divisions outside my camp, when they enter my camp, I tell them they cannot identify by clan. If they do, they cannot stay.
As I am fighting illiteracy, poverty, and disease, I will be happy if people in the society can help me in this. I want to educate and create jobs in fishing, farming, animal rearing, business, and healthcare. Some students of mine are now studying medicine, some are in Sweden, Turkey, Germany, Mogadishu – they all want to become doctors because they admire the profession. About ten of them will finish in the coming six years. This is the kind of future I see in Somalia.
But this takes time, and Somalia right now still needs help and capital to take-off. People in society can help through contributing the human and financial resources needed to train two generations lost to war.
10. You have received numerous awards for your work. Recently, you earned a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize and won the BET Social Humanitarian Award. What do nominations and awards like these mean to you?
I am very happy and grateful towards those who have given me these awards. It gives me the strength and self-confidence to continue to work. Sometimes it can get difficult, where it seems like everything and the world is working against me. In the Somali community, it is more difficult for recognition because people are busy, there is war going on and many people are doing destructive work rather than constructive work. That is why I get a lot of awards outside my country. When I receive an award, my spirit becomes alive again, and I can continue to do my job. I am grateful that I am still working and I still have my hope. I thank those people.
11. How would you describe your philosophical frameworks inside and outside of medicine? How have your philosophical frameworks evolved?
In my life, I always believe in equality, justice, and honesty. If you are honest and committed, you will not lose anything. There are challenges, but that is the will of the God. I find this in the Italian proverb, l’uomo propone ma dio dispone, which says that if God doesn’t allow it to be successful, it will never be.
12. Whom do you consider your biggest influences? Could you recommend any seminal or important books/articles by them?
Hilary Clinton has always given me the strength to work. When I met her and she said that I am doing the right thing, I felt that someone knows me and understands what I am doing. Socrates also has influenced me. He has said that if you want to know what it is to be a human being, you have to know yourself first. What you need, they need. What you hate, they hate. I believe that human being is one. Their needs are one and the world is one. I suggest that the world work together. If something bad happens in one corner of the world, it will spread to other corners. Things like war, disease, hunger. But if we collaborate, we can try to achieve justice, peace, and happiness. The human being is one and we have to defend each other collectively, regardless of colour and differences.
13. What do you consider the most important point(s) about your life’s work?
The most important points about my life’s work is to save a human being and care for a human being. Caring for a human being is a difficult task, you have to educate, train, and advise them. While their needs are the same, their characters differ. You have to learn to care and guide them according to their character. Some can be nervous and aggressive, while another may be patient. But even if someone has a bad character, we cannot just discard them. I have found that everyone has something good inside of them. We just need to learn to approach them in different ways.
14. What do you see as the future of the Hawa Abdi Foundation and similar humanitarian organizations aimed at helping people?
I see DHAF will be a place of pride in the future. It is something that is built by Somalis for Somalis, educating and training our people. If we continue to be honest and committed in our work, the Foundation will be like a kingdom to be continued for generations and generations.
There are many other humanitarian organizations, international ones like the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC). They have continued to operate for many years because they are committed. They make immediate decisions, knowing their purpose is to care for the human being, give life and hope. In Somalia, there are many local NGOs but many lack capital to provide for the people. They have to depend on larger and international ones.
I believe that DHAF will become sustainable and generate income from our economic work at our farm. But it will need some help to take off. After more fully developing our agriculture capacity, I believe it will become sustainable.
15. Finally, your most recent book Keeping Hope Alive: One Woman: 90,000 Lives Changed outlines a major theme in your life, perseverance. How important is perseverance for changing the world for the better?
Perseverance is very important. We have come from the medieval times to many new inventions and advancement in medicines that better the lives of everyone in the world. As mentioned before, the world is one and we cannot separate. In order to change the world for the better, we must first learn to love and respect one another, then we can work towards peace, then finally, unity in the world.
**************************
To support the Hawa Abdi Foundation’s ongoing work you can visit www.dhaf.org/donate/
**************************
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2013/08/03
1. What positions have you held? What positions do you currently hold?
Currently, I am the head of the psychology department at University of the Fraser Valley (UFV). For many years, I was the chair of the academic appeals process and also for a few years the manager of the online campus. In academe, I have been a faculty member, a sessional instructor, a graduate student, and an undergraduate student.
2. How was your youth? How did you come to this point in your academics?
That’s a hard question to answer. My ‘youth’ was quite varied, good and bad, often weird and woolly….certainly I had no plan to become a professor!
When I was in high school, I skipped out as much as I could. My parents didn’t think much of the school system, so they were always willing to write me whatever notes were required. In my immediate family, reading and thinking were important but going to school or following the ‘rules’ were not. However, my father always said I should go to university. His description of what university would be like was quite romantic as it turned out. Few people in my family went to university or college, so my aunties looked at me with great suspicion when I did finally go.
After high school, I got a job in a bank. All the staff were women, many who had been there for 30 years or more, but all the managers were men (it was the ‘80s). After I’d worked for a few months, I looked around and thought, “I can’t do this for thirty years, it’ll kill me.” I quit my job, travelled a bit, and eventually applied to the University of Victoria. Again, no real plan, but I had some friends there and I was too timid to go where I knew nobody. I’d moved many times before that, so when I got to Victoria, I looked around and thought, “Yea, I could stay here for a year.”
I decided to take a Computer Science major. It was quite different then compared to computers today. There were no ‘personal’ computers, we all worked on individual terminals that accessed a very large computer called the ‘mainframe’. We learned programming languages like Pascal, and usually first year students got the midnight shift down in the basement. I lasted about a year and a half. I used to ask a lot of questions in class, for example, ‘what are the programs for?’, ‘how will people be able to use them’, ‘can we make computers easier to use?’ The instructors and my fellow students came to hate my interruptions and questions, and I felt like the target of the Orwellian ‘2 minute hate’. Of course, I wasn’t too fond of those folks either, so it seemed like a good idea to move on.
Now I had ruled out banking, waitressing, and computer science. I was taking a number of other courses, so I decided to interview my professors about their professions. Dr. Frank Spellacy, who taught brain and behaviour, was helpful and interesting (and he and his wife took me to lunch). The study of the brain fascinated me, so I decided to try psychology. I was behind a bit, so I had to take a lot of psychology courses at once (I never did take introductory psychology). I caught up and entered the honours program, mostly because the honours seminar was led one of my favourite professors, Dr. Gordon Hobson. In turn, he found me an excellent advisor, Dr. Otfried Spreen, in clinical neuropsychology. I had no idea how lucky I was.
A few months into my honours, Dr. Hobson asked me, “You’re applying to grad school, right?” “Sure I am”, I replied, and then had to ask around to find out what ‘grad school’ was. I was convinced none of the schools would take me, so I applied to quite a few across Canada. Pretty much all of them accepted me, I got an NSERC scholarship, and decided on UWO, again with no well thought out planning and because of some bad advice!
Frankly, I was just doing what was interesting at the time and taking opportunities as they arose. I was certainly a poor student in my first two years of university, skipping any classes I found boring and spending most of my evenings dancing at blues clubs. I recognize papers written the day before the due date easily, as I wrote many papers that way myself. I have a firsthand appreciation for the possibility that students who are doing badly in classes simply have more interesting things they prefer to do and, most importantly, that it could change. Over the years, I’ve seen more than one student who has done just that, turned things around to find something they love, and watching those students graduate and go on is particularly thrilling to me.
3. How did you gain interest in psychology? Where did you acquire your education?
My father (influenced by Hemingway and Postman) used to encourage my brother and me to develop a ‘Bullshit Detector’. Psychology is built around exactly that kind of tool, which I realized once I started taking research methods and statistics courses. I felt right at home.
4. What kinds of research have you conducted up to the present?
My main graduate research at UWO was studying learning and plasticity in rats with a model not used much now called ‘kindling’ (it is still used a bit as a model for epilepsy). I also did some research on anti-epileptic drugs that block excitatory amino acid receptors and also on neural grafting. At Mount Allison University, I worked on studying memory using a water maze.
My animal research ended when I moved back to B.C. to work at the University College of the Fraser Valley in 1993. The focus at UCFV (now UFV) was on teaching, so I had little time to do research.
A few years ago I took a short sabbatical to work on changing first year psychology instruction to increase success in some groups of first year students such as mature students, students from applied areas such as social work, and First Nations students. I used what I learned in developing my own teaching of introductory psychology and in creating a peer tutor program.
My current interests are in the area of the psychology of music, specifically health related outcomes for hand drumming and singing. However, I have not made much progress since I became department head and further work will likely have to wait until I am finished!
5. If you currently conduct research, what form does it take?
Not much right now, being head of psychology uses all my available neurons.
6. Since you began studying psychology, what do you consider the controversial topics? How do you examine the controversial topics?
What do you mean by controversial?…
7. …Self-Defined controversy in your field…
Psychology is by its nature controversial.
Any subfield of psychology challenges what ‘everybody knows’, from research methods (“Correlation is not causation”) to memory to development to social psychology and so on.
If you learn to think using the tools of psychology, you will be often on the other side of marketing in all its forms, including governments, newspapers, parents, teachers…
There are many classic studies, which we go through in introductory psychology, that illustrate this point over and over.
8. …In hindsight, do they seem controversial?
My guess is that at the time, they knew they were doing something controversial, challenging ‘what everybody knows’.
9. How would you describe your philosophical frameworks inside and outside of Psychology?
Well, that ‘Bullshit Detector’ has come in handy.
I wouldn’t say I have a specific philosophical framework anymore, but I do believe in personal responsibility and in fair processes.
10. How have your philosophical frameworks evolved?
My parents raised us as Objectivists, which is based on the writing of Ayn Rand. I sometimes call myself a ‘Recovered Objectivist’. If you look at the basic principles of reasoning in Objectivism, critical thinking and personal responsibility stand out, and I have retained those. I also retain a preference for minimal government. However, I do also believe in collective actions, like taxes to pay for education and health care, which would have me thrown out of the Objectivist meeting. If they had meetings…
Until I moved to the Fraser Valley, I didn’t realize how significant being raised without religion was to my philosophy and reasoning abilities. Now that I live amongst many folks raised with religious points of view, it is strange to have to declare myself an ‘atheist’, as other places I lived that was the dominant perspective.
11. If you had unlimited funding and unrestricted freedom, what would you enjoy researching?
I don’t want unrestricted freedom to research any question, it’s a nasty idea! Ethics boards sometimes seem a bit overly restrictive but as acting ethically isn’t intuitive, you need others to look at your ideas and question your methods. Ethics are foundational to psychology research.
12. For students looking for fame, fortune, and/or utility (personal and/or social), what advice do you have for undergraduate and graduate students in Psychology?
Tolerate ambiguity.
13. Whom do you consider your biggest influences? Could you recommend any seminal or important books/articles by them?
In my early years, I was influenced by Ayn Rand, Isaac Asimov and Oscar Wilde. At grad school, I was influenced by Doreen Kimura. Her approach to thinking about function and brain structures was exceptionally instructive to me. She made a number of important observations about the quality of the data and what could be drawn from it given the limitations of the methodology of that time.
Case Vanderwolf was also a greatly influential professor in grad school. If you asked Case a question about neurophysiology or brain and behaviour, his answer was usually, “Hmmm, I don’t know.” Then he’d pause, and then tell you all the relevant research that had been done, and how it was done, and he’d demonstrate how you went about thinking about the question, and what kind of questions still needed to be asked. After this, he’d still conclude, “I don’t know”.
I recommend to all my assessment students that they read Paul Meehl’s ‘Why I don’t attend case conferences’. It’s fairly old and somewhat acerbic, but it’s a good example that you can be trained in psychology and cognitive biases, but still fail to employ them. It’s a cautionary tale, useful reading.
I also recommend Janet Shibley Hyde’s ‘The Gender Similarities Hypotheses’ and Deborah Cameron’s ‘The Myth of Mars and Venus’, both are excellent demonstrations of critical thinking.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2013/06/28
1. What is your current position at the University of Cambridge?
Professor of Experimental Physics. I am also the University’s Gender Equality Champion and a Deputy Vice Chancellor (mainly an honorary title which permits me to confer degrees)
2. Where did you grow up? What was youth like for you? What effect do you feel this had on your career path?
I was born in London. Neither of my parents had been to University, although my Grandfather had, and there was always an expectation that I would. I attended a single sex school which, probably unusually for a girls’ school of its day, had an excellent Physics teacher, something I am sure was very significant.
I had an older sister and we all lived with my maternal grandparents. My parents’ marriage broke up when I was 10 so I lived in a household of 4 women and 1 man (my grandfather). I think the most significant thing was the fact that I was always surrounded by books and with this expectation that if I wanted to go to university that I should. It was just taken for granted, particularly since I did well at school.
I was jumped up a year at school. My birthday is in May and during my secondary schooling (which is normally from 11-18) I was nearly 2 years younger than the oldest child in my year. I am sure this was significant as I didn’t fit in well with my ‘contemporaries’, probably because during adolescent such a big age gap can make a big difference. Probably this encouraged me to keep my head down and work hard, because I wasn’t going to fit in anyhow.
No one in my family were particularly interested in science, nor was it a subject I remember being discussed in a serious way. I did get taken to the Science Museum (in London) but I didn’t really connect that with my lessons at school or with any idea of a future career.
The hobbies I had were ornithology – which perhaps reflects an interest in ‘systematising’ but again, it was just what I did for fun and I didn’t connect it with anything I did at school – and music. There was a lot of music during my growing-up and as a teenager I was very involved both with singing in choirs and playing in orchestras. I played the viola and, since not many children do play this instrument, I had lots of opportunities to play with seriously musical peers. It was a major source of relaxation and also a way for me to socialise with other girls – both older and younger – given the trouble I had with fitting in with my ordinary classmates.
2. Where did you acquire your education? How did you come to the University of Cambridge?
My mother says I declared at 7 I was going to go to Cambridge University to read maths. This is probably an apocryphal story, but I think somehow I always fixed on the idea of going to Cambridge. It was where my grandfather had been after all (he read Classics there before the 1st World War), so there must have been some sense of connection. I first had Physics lessons when about 13 and seem to have known almost at once that this was what I wanted to study.
Cambridge University back then was overwhelmingly male, as none of the colleges was yet mixed. I am not sure I really thought very hard about that. One had to do a special entrance exam. I was very badly prepared for this as my school had been participating in a pilot course of study in Physics, with only about 7 schools pursuing this exam at A level. So I knew little of what others knew but lots of other stuff, particularly ‘modern’ physics. As well as an entrance exam for Cambridge, the colleges interviewed prospective students. Probably then I came across as much stronger for exactly the same reasons: I knew stuff they weren’t expecting interviewees to know. For whatever reason I was accepted by 2 colleges (there were only 3 that admitted women), and I chose to go to Girton, the college I had always had set my mind on.
3. Was Physics always ‘in the cards’ for you? Were you mathematically precocious in childhood and adolescence?
I always was highly competent at maths, but I don’t think I was precocious in the sense that I didn’t pursue it beyond the classroom in any way that I remember. I just got on with it. But physics was just something that clicked with me. I did then start reading around the subject, certainly by the time I was 16 or so, but I had no clear idea of what it might mean as the start of a career. In my day, and in my school, I got no careers advice and I simply didn’t think seriously about life beyond university. All I knew was that I wanted to study physics at university; it just seemed the logical thing to do.
4. Did you have a childhood hero?
No, I don’t think I thought in those terms at all. I had neither heroes nor heroines. Nor did I really think of gender as an issue either. I am sure that was in large part because I just didn’t really know any teenage boys – other than beyond the orchestra I played in and we simply got on with our music. When I met a bunch just before I started at university who asked me what I was going to study, their reaction for the first time told me it was odd for a girl to want to do physics. I don’t think, having been at an all-girls school, that had really crossed my mind before. There was no one to discourage me.
5. What was your original dream? If it changed, how did it change?
I also didn’t have a dream. I didn’t look ahead. If I thought about the future I just assumed that I would marry, perhaps a few years after college, and have a family. There was no expectation of a career as such. Having a career in academia was just something that happened; I never looked more than a year or two ahead. I was probably well into my 20s before I even started thinking about this. By then I was married (I got married to a mathematician during my PhD – and we’re still married!) and the complications of trying to sort out two lives to the satisfaction of both reared their heads. It is never easy.
6. What have been your major areas of research?
My field of research has constantly evolved. That is how I like it. I started off studying metals, using electron microscopy to study their internal structure. The technique of electron microscopy has remained a constant during my research career. After my first, and very unsuccessful postdoc in the USA (Cornell University) I switched to apply electron microscopy to plastics. It wasn’t till that point, after 5 years of research, that I really fell in love with it. I had an incredibly productive 2 further years in the USA and then returned to Cambridge. Over the years I have moved from the study of largely synthetic polymers to naturally occurring biopolymers including those relevant to food. I researched the internal structure of starch granules for many years, during that time building up collaborations both with industry and with plant geneticists. Then I moved on to study protein aggregation, a subject relevant both to food and to those studying many neurodegenerative diseases. I have continued to do electron microscopy, developing a technique which allows one to study samples without the dehydration usually necessary; this approach is known as environmental scanning electron microscopy and we did a lot of development work on it, analysing how to interpret images and seeing just how far we could push the technique. We also applied it to a wide variety of biological samples from bacteria to plants. This move into biological problems was also reflected in a modest research activity in cellular biophysics.
Overall the sorts of physics I do can be summed up as soft matter physics moving into biological physics. When I started working on starch, physicists doing this sort of work were regarded as very unusual. Now it is much more main-stream physics.
7. What is your most recent research?
As I say, I have moved systematically towards biological problems. The work we do on protein aggregation has implications for various neurodegenerative diseases, although I am always very careful to spell out we won’t be curing any diseases ourselves, we simply hope to provide some basic underpinning knowledge. But, as a physicist, I try to look for generalities of behaviour, particularly since we are interested in what happens when biological control is lost. In our case we typically use heat to study the response when proteins are denatured, which of course is totally non-physiological, but in the diseases of old age proteins also lose their native structures due to loss of biological control, so the parallels are fairly close.
8. If you had unlimited funding and unrestricted freedom, what research would you conduct?
I would like to be able to get much closer to biology and work in truly interdisciplinary teams on the subjects of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases.
9. There exist many cases of silence, even denigration, about the lack of women in science, especially young women. In fact, a case of speculation comes to mind on the part of an ex-President of Harvard – no less, Dr. Larry Summers, about innate average differences between men and women potentially explaining the difference of the sexes’ scientific prominence. To me, it seems silence on debating these issues exacerbates the problem. Given your involvement in advocacy for women in science, does silence exacerbate the problem? What things need doing? What message backed by data needs more advertising?
In the UK at least I don’t think silence is the issue any longer. I think many leaders appreciate the problems and are actively trying to overcome the under-representation and the lack of voice some women feel. Within UK universities we have a benchmarking scheme, the Athena Swan awards, for STEM departments which are very effective at making universities and individual departments look at both their statistics and practices, and come up with appropriate action plans. Indeed, some funders make such awards a condition. This has really changed the climate. However, there is no doubt there are still pockets of resistance, the unconsciously held views that all of us hold which stereotype people (and not just women in science) in all kinds of ways without stepping back and being objective.
We do need statistics, but we also need to recognize how much social conditioning affects every child from birth. I get fed up with being told that the statistics ‘prove’ girls don’t want to do physics, when we cannot tell much more than that boys and girls are encouraged to do different things as children, are treated differently and cultural messages are different.
10. In line with the previous question, what can people in society, without the influence of the Academy, do to help bring a new generation of women into science?
Avoid stereotyping any individual, boy or girl. Make sure that they appreciate any field is wide open to them. Encourage girls to explore their world – be it putting new washers into taps or climbing trees. Let them be brave and not be put off by being ‘nice’ or pretty. Give them solid aspirations and not just aiming at domestic virtues.
11. As an addendum to the previous two questions, can you describe the Matilda Effect to our readers?
The Matilda effect describes how women’s contributions to research are systematically undervalued and under-described. One specific example would correspond to the role Rosalind Franklin played in the discovery of the double helical structure of DNA, with Jim Watson never giving her contributions the credit they deserved. More generally, women working as part of a team may find that their names aren’t mentioned and their deeds can be attributed to others. Even when women are quite senior and leading teams you find comments being made implying such collaboration is a weakness not a strength, as it would be for a man.
12. How would you describe your philosophical frameworks inside and outside of Experimental Physics? How have your philosophical frameworks evolved?
I don’t think in these terms! What I do know is that I enjoy constantly exploring new areas, evolving from one area of research to another. A lot of the work I do is interdisciplinary. To succeed at such work one needs to be prepared to put the time into learning the language of someone else’s discipline, at least sufficiently far that you can explore the shared problem together. This can be challenging, but ultimately it is very rewarding. I am not the kind or person who likes to know everything about a small area, I prefer to take a more broad brush approach, look for connections between different areas and forge new connections. This means all the work I’ve done forms a sort of connected web, even though there may appear to be many different threads.
13. For students looking for fame, fortune, and/or utility (personal and/or social), what advice do you have for undergraduate and graduate students in Experimental Physics?
Work out what it is that you enjoy about physics. Is it simply the ability to problem solve, or getting stuck into some experimental technique or another? What motivates you – curiosity, solving some specific problem or contributing to a team effort? There can be so many reasons for pursuing physics and you have to work out what it is that you particularly enjoy. If you are seeking a fortune, then you will probably either want to do something more entrepreneurial or quantitative (eg in the financial sector), but if it is simply that you are curiosity-driven, there are many directions to head in. Physics is often described as a ‘difficult’ subject. If you are struggling it may simply be that your motivation isn’t high enough and you should choose some other path that excites you more.
14. Many assume a need for a genius level-intellect or above-average levels of mathematical facility (even in childhood) to think of a career in science. How much of this seems true? How much of this assumption seems like a myth?
You undoubtedly need to be competent at maths, but genius level is an overstatement for many parts of the field. I think it is probably more the case you need to be very logical in how you approach problems, able to think things through by breaking down a tough challenge into its component parts. You also need to be able to think in abstract terms. Physics isn’t just a case of memory work; you need to be able to understand underlying mechanisms and be able to see how to apply the mathematics and models you have learned in one situation to another, perhaps less familiar one.
15. Whom do you consider your biggest influences? Could you recommend any seminal or important books/articles by them?
Having a teacher at my school who was on top of the subject and able to answer my questions without anxiety was a great start. At university, having a ‘director of studies’ who was very supportive when I was struggling and encouraged me not to give up was also crucial. After I’d moved into research my supervisor at Cornell (Professor Ed Kramer, now of UCSB) and my head of department after I’d returned to Cambridge (Sir Sam Edwards) were also great influences on me, inspirational in the way they tackled their own research. They believed in me, believed I could follow a research career and gave me many opportunities early on that enabled me to lay down a firm foundation for my subsequent research. Finally the Nobel Prize winner Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, who was a friend of Sir Sam’s and whom I met fairly often in Cambridge, also was immensely supportive and inspirational. De Gennes wrote a number of books, of which ‘Scaling Concepts in Polymer Physics’ was probably the most important for me, even though at the time I found it very hard to understand!
16. What do you consider the most important point(s) about your line of research and work?
My research has moved from being fairly traditional for a physicist, working on conventional synthetic polymers, to working on natural materials such as starch and proteins. Initially some of my colleagues were very critical of me working on such materials, thinking they were far too messily complex to be able to do physics on them. But I persisted, applying standard physical tools and approaches to them. Ultimately I think others understood better that this was perfectly good physics. However, now much of my time is focused on issues around gender and I read a lot of sociology papers. This work is obviously not research-based. Some of it is experiential and it seems that, because I have a successful academic pedigree, people are more willing to listen to what I have to say. There are still many issues for women in science, so I am keen to use my voice to encourage others to think about their local practices and possibly prejudices.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2013/06/18
1. What is your current position?
My position is Professor of Medicine and Director of Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) Center at Columbia University.
2. What positions have you held in your academic career?
I earned the appointment of Full Professor at Rush University in Chicago (Age 39). Subsequently, the University of Chicago appointed me the Charles Arthur Weaver Professor of Cancer Research. The Department of Medicine created a Division of Myeloid Diseases, where I was first Director. I moved in 2004 to the University of Massachusetts as Director of Hematology and Oncology. They gave me the Gladys Smith Martin Chair in Oncology. I have been in New York since 2007. Presently, I direct the MDS Center at Columbia University.
3. Where did you grow up? How do you think this influenced your career direction?
I grew up in Pakistan. This greatly influenced my career and life. Post-graduate work in Science was non-existent. I entered medical school as a tangential way of becoming involved in Molecular Biology. However, once I began seeing patients, I knew that I would never give that up. This led me to the idea of doing translational research. When I felt ready to graduate medical school, it had become abundantly clear to me, even after those three years of clinical work, that if I stayed back in Pakistan, I would not be practicing translational research, but would have no choice other than to become an activist. The conditions under which an impoverished population faces disease are such that one has few other options. I felt that way. Here, I came to understand my primary duty – sincerity to my passion: Science. In a way, I took to heart the advice of Polonius to Laertes:
“This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
(Shakespeare, HAMLET, Act I, Scene III).
4. Where did you acquire your education?
Pakistan.
5. What was your original dream?
I became obsessed with ants at a very young age, maybe 4 years old. I used to lie for hours and watch them zip in and out of their little holes in long hot summer afternoons in Karachi and imagine their lives. I constructed imaginary homes for them and social lives complete with romance and all. As I grew and read about biology, I obsessed over Darwin and Freud. In fact, I obtained the first position in my pre-medical examination by scoring high during the viva part of the test, when I engaged the external examiners in a heated debate over Darwinian versus Lamarckian theories of evolution and showing why I was a die hard Darwinian at the ripe old age of 16. If I had grown up in the West, I feel confident I would be a scientist, and not a physician, but I had no way of following my dreams there. Medical School was the only option to study Biology. So I went to Medical School.
6. What have been your major areas of research?
I have focused extremely on studying the biology and pathology of myeloid malignancies since the start of my career, even before I started my Residency. This happened because I had come to the US soon after graduation from Medical School and had six months before the start of my Fellowship. I started working at Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RCPI) in Buffalo New York, where I started working with Acute Myeloid Leukemia patients. On completion of my Residency, I returned to RPCI for my Fellowship and stayed on as a faculty member for another 6 years. During this period, I had an experience with a patient who had acute myeloid leukemia (AML) which had evolved from a prior MDS or a pre-leukemia. This made me interested in MDS. As a Fellow and young Faculty member, I defined the Cell Cycle Kinetics of Myeloid Leukemia cells in vivo in both MDS and AML by developing a novel technique of studying cellular proliferation directly in patients. These studies led to a startling revelation that the low blood counts in MDS patients were not because of bone marrow failure. Rather paradoxically, the marrow was in a hyper-proliferative state. This led to the logical examination of rate of cell death and we were able to resolve the paradox by showing that the majority of hematopoietic cells in the marrow were undergoing a suicidal self-destruction by apoptosis. Further, this cell death appeared mediated by pro-inflammatory cytokines, especially tumor necrosis factor (TNF). Next, we treated MDS patients with the anti-TNF drug thalidomide, which produced complete responses in 20% patients. Thus, over a course of 10 years, we were able to develop biologic insights into the disease that translated into a novel treatment strategy.
7. What is your most recent research?
I remain completely focused on understanding the Etiology and Biology of MDS and now use the latest genomic technology to interrogate the pathology of these diseases. With the enabling technology, this whole field has become extremely productive and exciting. We are using exome sequencing, RNA Sequence and global methylation studies to carefully study large numbers of patients to identify new drug targets in MDS cells, and hopefully develop novel non-toxic therapies for these malignant diseases of the elderly.
8. If you had unlimited funding and unrestricted freedom, what research would you conduct?
My commitment is to therapy driven research. How can basic molecular research improve the outcome for my patients? I feel strongly that many effective drugs already exist to treat common cancers, but we do not know how to use them intelligently. Instead of tailoring therapy for individual patients, we blindly treat many with the same drug with the result that 20-30% patients respond. Usually, we do not know the responders.
The goal would be to match the right drug to the right patient. A goal for which we need detailed cellular signalling and molecular information. Basic concept: it seems that while multiple signalling pathways that start proliferation in normal cells, cancer cells become addicted to a particular pathway. These pathways of addiction differ between patients. It is critical to identify which pathway a particular patient’s cells are addicted to and then devise ways of interrupting it. If I had unrestricted funding, I would start a dedicated program to perform detailed genomic and methylation studies described above on every patient at diagnosis. Hopefully, this would eventually help identify the vital signalling pathways in individual patients. With this information available, the elegant concept of Synthetic Lethality can be applied where drugs or natural compounds are identified that can interrupt the particular pathway to which the cell is addicted and cause it to stop proliferating. So my dream research revolves around individualized targeted translational research. I would like to give one example here. In a recent patient, we identified a mutation that leads to over activity of the b-catenin pathway of proliferation. I was planning to treat the patient with a monoclonal antibody against TGFb, which is in trial at the MDS Center. However, it turns out that one of the checks on the b-catenin pathway is TGFb. In other words, if I had not performed whole exome sequencing on the genome, I would have treated the patient with an agent that would likely have worsened the disease by allowing the b-catenin to run amok with no checks at all. This information alone, which is the direct result of using genomics is probably life saving for the patient. In addition, we found that one possible way of interrupting the b-catenin may come from using small molecules that interrupt this pathway. Several of them being in trials in humans already, and also that Vitamin A (all trans-retinoic acid or ATRA) could do the same. In short, we saved the patient from getting a potentially harmful agent. Additionally, we may have found a perfect treatment for individualized therapy, which is a vitamin! This is my dream research if I have all the resources at my disposal.
As a second dream project requiring unlimited resources, I want to describe the Virome or viral make up of every MDS patient. The goal is to identify all endogenous and exogenous viruses that have become part of each patient’s genome and see whether any of these could have the label of causative. After all, cats regularly get MDS. In their case, the disease is because of the Feline Leukemia Virus. Practically every cat is infected with this virus, but only a handful get MDS. There must be
other co-factors involved in MDS causation. Defining the Virome would help all of this research.
9. What is your philosophical foundation? How did it change over time?
Humanism dictates the foundation of my philosophy. However, the practice and ultimate goals have undergone subtle changes over time. In my formative years, I felt more interest in dedicating myself to grander themes. For example, believing that the thinking and work of a few can change the lives of millions (penicillin is a prime example), I became consumed with a desire to find the cause and cure of cancer. Whether I would ultimately achieve it or not, at least I was ready to dedicate my life to the pursuit of this goal. With age, and one hopes, some level of maturity, the issues for me have transformed to more immediate and individual goals. Human conduct is connected by a series of incidents where one act is the result of another. This necessitated a philosophy that requires a dynamic accounting of one’s knowledge, desires, and deeds, and then to harness these in the service of humanity with humility and forbearance. In other words, instead of the grand designs of curing cancer for many, each individual patient has acquired a special place in my life and caring for their every physical, emotional, and psychosocial need has become far more important. This by no means indicates that my obsession to find the cure for cancer has lessened, but it means my focus shifted from many to one, from cancer patients to Mrs. X, Y, or Z. It is similar to Salman Rushdie saying in Midnight’s Children: “To understand one human, one has to swallow the world.” For me, the road to understanding and treating the disease is through grasping individual variations at the clinical level and caring for each patient as a special case. Of all the philosophical ideologies, humanism remains mine, but with an altered vision over time about how best to conduct myself in a manner that would be faithful to its basic principles.
10. What do you consider the controversial topics in your field? How do you examine the controversial topics? What do some in opposition to you argue? How do you respond?
In the current atmosphere of cancer research, researchers study the evolution of a cancer cell rather than its etiology. In at least a subset of patients, I have hypothesized for about two decades that MDS may begin as a viral disease. I committed a form of professional suicide by presenting very early work related to this hypothesis at an MDS Foundation meeting held 19 years ago in Prague. They have not invited me back to that meeting in the last two decades. I learnt a tremendous amount from this experience. For one thing, I became more self-critical and stringent in examining our own data. For another, I started collaboration with the top virologists in the country (Drs. Robert Gallo, Don Ganem, and Joe DeRisi). Finally, it made me more committed to finding the proof for my hypothesis. In that, instead of throwing up my arms in frustration, by persisting in our search for a virus, we are taking full advantage of next generation sequencing to identify non-human elements in the human genome and re-construct viruses from these pieces. The technology has reached a point where we are poised to unravel possible new retroviral sequences from the RNA Sequence data we have generated. This will still be only half the battle. The important study will be to prove the etiologic relationship of the pathogen to the MDS under study. This is where all the controversy creeps in again because the pathogens are often known organisms and no one is ready to believe they are the agency for causing the malignancy. Remember that to prove that helicobacter pylori was the cause of gastric ulcers, Barry Marshall had to swallow the pathogen and nurse ulcers in his own stomach before anyone would believe him! (Eventually, he got the Nobel Prize). Now we know that this bacterium is the cause of many stomach cancers. So, in my opinion, the etiologic studies remain extremely controversial and many a career has been sacrificed on the altar of virologic basis of malignancy. I nearly lost my career, but have been able to survive – thankfully. I continue my studies in the area, always trying for that moment:
“Chance will strike a prepared mind”
11. What advice do you have for young MDs?
A life without work is a life without worth, and this work should be done for the good of mankind as well as for one’s own good. Last year, I was fortunate to win the Hope Award for Cancer Research and in my acceptance speech; I gave advice to my 18 year old daughter which I wish to quote for the young MDs:
“At the risk of being a spendthrift of my own celebrity, I want to address my teenage daughter who is a sophomore at Columbia University and like her parents, plans on a career in science and medicine. You might be wondering why I have to use the 3 minutes allotted to me to do so in this room…well, as Nora Ephron once said, “When your children are teenagers, it’s important to have a dog so that someone in the house is happy to see you.” Actually, it is for two reasons…first because she is a captive audience and second because of the presence of all of you in this room and what this moment means and how indelibly what I say today may be etched on her brain. Sheherzad, as a result of several decades of experience and observation, I have narrowed down the formula for personal success to three cardinal rules: find your passion, find a mentor and then give it everything you’ve got. However, there is a different kind of success, one which many in this room epitomize. As living beings, we know that death will come inevitably, but thankfully, we do not know the hour of our death. What goes through the hearts and minds of souls who have received a diagnosis of cancer and hear the footsteps of death approaching closer every day? Theirs are the heroic stories of hardiness, ingenuity and resourcefulness. Some of us have the privilege of witnessing on a daily basis, the remarkable dignity with which they face their ongoing ordeals. You have decided to join the ranks of these privileged caregivers. As a little girl from age 3 to 8 years, you have already witnessed your father go through a losing battle with cancer. When faced with such human suffering, your qualifications, your CV or your degrees do not help. What helps is your heart, your sensitivity to feel the pain of others. On this special day, realize that you are fortunate to be in a room full of such compassionate and deeply committed individuals, realize that you will not need magic or miracles to help your patients but you will need serious scientific research and deep sensitivity to their anguish and suffering. Today, I use the honour bestowed upon me through this award to urge you to pledge that even as you will strive for excellence and follow the three rules to guarantee success in your personal life, you will never forget the dues you owe to the patients you will be caring for very soon.”
12. Whom do you consider your biggest influences? Could you recommend any seminal or important books/articles by them?
As far as my personal life is concerned, I am a reader of classics where the themes are grand, the language is noble, and the message is startlingly fresh for all times. When my husband Harvey Preisler died after a five year long battle with cancer, the way I dealt with the loss was to read (and re-read in most cases) the 100 Great Books of the Western Literary Tradition starting with Euripides and Aeschylus and working my way to Rushdie and Morrison. In this, my biggest influences have been the great authors. I feel deeply moved by poetry. My favorite poets are Shakespeare, Dante, Milton and Ghalib. I come from an oral tradition and committing poetry to memory was a given for as long as I can remember. Currently, I am memorizing the entire 33rd canto from Dante’s Paradiso during my morning runs. I feel profoundly affected by the thinking of these poets and have translated and interpreted (with my co-author Sara Goodyear) Ghalib’s Urdu poetry for our English speakers in a book, Ghalib: Epistemologies of Elegance. Among the American writers, the books of fiction I admire most are Melville’s Moby Dick and Morrison’s Beloved. Among the Europeans, it would have to be Cervantes’s Don Quixote and Dostoyevsky’s The Brother Karamazov. Finally, in non-fiction, my two favorite books are both autobiographies called The Confessions written 1000 years apart by Augustine and by Rousseau.
As far as my professional life is concerned, the biggest influence comes from patients. In particular, I had an encounter starting me on the path to dedicate my life to MDS, when I was barely 30. Here is a short accounting of that episode:
I had just finished my Fellowship in Medical Oncology at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York. A beautiful, young 32 years old woman was admitted with a diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The story she gave was rather peculiar. She had become pregnant almost two years before this admission with twins. During the pregnancy, she developed a fetish to smell gasoline. Most days of those nine months, she would go to the corner gas station, buy a dime’s worth of gasoline and smell it all day. At the end of nine months, she delivered a healthy set of twin daughters, but six months later, she was found to have low blood counts. Over time, a diagnosis of MDS was made. This was probably in some part at least, related to the toxic exposure she had experienced from smelling gasoline. In any case, there was no treatment for MDS at the time, and she only received supportive care with blood transfusions. Six months later, the disease progressed to AML and that is when she came to see us at Roswell Park.
We gave her high dose induction chemotherapy, to which she responded well and after a rather stormy course, entered a complete remission six weeks later. How sweet it was to see her going home with her lovely daughters at the end of this therapy! We then gave her three courses of standard consolidation therapy. She did well. During these repeated hospitalizations, and interim outpatient clinic visits, we became very close to each other. During each encounter, we talked to our hearts’ content, and JC shared many of her personal anxieties with me. I learned to appreciate the challenges of a schizophrenic life torn between fighting a potentially lethal illness at the ripe age of 32 while pretending to be a normal mother to 3-year old girls. At times, it felt heart breaking. At other times, the sheer force of her courage and sublimity of human spirit was brought home with incredibly graphic detail.
Courage takes many forms. There is physical courage, there is moral courage. Then there is still a higher type of courage; the courage to brave pain, to live with it, to never let others know of it and to still find joy in life; to wake up in the morning with an enthusiasm for the day ahead.
After stopping the final round of chemotherapy, JC returned to her normal life. She got caught with the daily routine of raising 3-year old twin daughters. Unfortunately, after a year and a half of remission, her leukemia relapsed, and this time around, none of our therapeutic approaches seemed to make much of a difference to her resistant leukemia. She developed a fungal infection of the lungs too. We were not able to give her any chemotherapy for fear of making the fungus spread faster. At this time, she made a wish to be admitted to the Hospital for her terminal illness as she did not want her daughters to be frightened unnecessarily. With a heavy heart, I took her in. It was instructive and astonishing to watch her face almost certain death with such unparalleled grace and equanimity. I noticed on my daily rounds was that she would be writing furiously. Finally, I mustered enough courage to ask her one day, “JC, what are you writing?” The answer she gave me changed my life forever. She said, “I am writing letters that I want my twin daughters to open on their birthdays. I have reached their twelfth. Keep me alive till I reach their twenty-first”.
Alas, we could not keep her alive for the few days she had asked for. I went home that day. I told my husband that I should study MDSs because this stage precedes the development of acute leukemia in a number of patients. Maybe, I could have saved JC, if I had treated her at the MDS stage of her disease. My idea was that the molecular and genetic lesions in frankly leukemic cell are too complicated. Perhaps, it would be better to start studying the biology of these cells at an earlier stage of the disease, say as in JC’s case when it was still MDS. If we follow the course of the disease and study serial samples, it may become possible to identify the sequence of events that convert a normal cell into a leukemic one. Another advantage of studying MDS would be that if we could effectively treat the patient at this earlier stage of the disease, then the patient would never evolve into the potentially lethal acute leukemic phase. Finally, I felt that at the MDS stage, the drugs required for treatment may not be as toxic as those needed for the acute leukemia stage. For all these reasons, back in 1984, I decided to dedicate myself to the study and treatment of MDS along with my continuing research in acute leukemias.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2013/06/10
1. Where did you acquire your education?
At the undergraduate level, at the University of Calgary. At the graduate level, at the University of British Columbia, from where I earned a Masters and Ph.D. degree in Developmental Psychology.
2. What originally interested you in psychology? In particular, what interested you about human sexuality?
Well, I acquired my degree from the department of educational psychology and special education. I applied there because I particularly wanted to work with one of the faculty, Dr. Kim Schonert-Reichl. She was doing research in socio-emotional learning and competence, and how it relates to things like psychopathology and peer relationships. That’s what I was initially interested in. In particular, I wanted to study those variables as they related to mental illness and various childhood mental disorders, and I especially wanted to work with Kim. However, well into my academic career, after many years teaching adolescent development, it came to my attention that textbook coverage of sexual development was lacking in many respects, and outright wrong (I hypothesized), in others. So I developed my first lab at Kwantlen (tentatively called a “Development Lab”) and conducted two large scale studies on sexual development among adolescents. From there, I developed an entire human sexuality course and changed the focus of my research to human sexuality.
3. What topics have you researched in your career?
As a graduate student, I was in two different research labs at UBC. One was the Socioemotional Development Lab run by Kim. We investigated things like moral reasoning, moral development, peer relationships, bullying, conduct disorder, empathy, and pro-social moral reasoning.. My masters work came out of that lab. The other lab I worked in was the Self-Regulated Learning Lab, which involved work on the self-regulated learning components of learning disabilities among children and adults. Kids and adults with learning disabilities tend to lack self-regulated learning. They tend to be unaware of their own learning difficulties. We developed some self-regulated learning strategies to help them monitor their own cognition, and their own learning styles. I was in that lab, and we did a number of studies in the local schools.
For my Doctoral Dissertation, I looked at children’s conceptions of mental illness, ‘how do children come to understand mental illness in their peers?’ They do see it – unfortunately. How do they understand its cause, its prognosis, its severity? How do they perceive these individuals in terms of friendship quality? Whether they would be good friends or bad friends, whether they would like them or not. And since leaving graduate school, and coming to Kwantlen, I have done several studies; most recently on human sexuality among adolescents and emerging adults. Things like the developmental progression of sexual events in life of adolescents and emerging adults. What do they do in their developmental progression? In other words, what they do first, what do they do next, and so on, and whether these series of events predict their level of promiscuity and level of unusual sexual activities. I also did another study on the predictors – I do a lot of regression research – of infidelity as measured by the big five personality variables.
4. What areas are you currently researching?
I have a couple of things on the go. Right now in my human sexuality lab we are looking at changes to current trends in exotic dance. We have two directions in which we are going. If you look at the popular media, you have lately seen a lot of exotic dance put out there as normative behavior. A person can take pole dancing classes. A person can learn how to lap dance, provide a lap dance. Popular culture is trending towards putting lap dancing and pole dancing out as a good means for aerobic exercise. Some researchers have coined the term `stripper chic`, which is the new culture of empowerment for exotic dancers. Given that, we hypothesize that there has been a shift. Traditionally, exotic dance has been stigmatized in the literature. Much literature has come out of the field of sociology, which results in a tendency towards female liberalism. Female exotic dancers have been viewed largely as victims. But we have a different take on that. While admittedly many exotic dancers have been victimized, we are putting forth the argument that exotic dancing can actually be sexually liberating. That exotic dancers are earning legitimate capital gain. They are providing a legitimate service, and with the general trend toward what is called `stripper chic, it may be changing not just societal views, but the views among exotic dancers too. The view of their own stigma; that their personal identity is viewed more positively. Also, we are going to look at predictors (regression is my thing!) of things like psychopathology, self-esteem, and standard measures of restrictive or permissive sexuality. We hypothesize that there will be no difference between the average population – Kwantlen students – and exotic dancers.
The other study that we are looking at is the enmeshment of gender identity with sexual orientation. There is considerable anecdote, even research, that people confuse sexual orientation with gender identity. For instance, there is a perception that if someone is gay, this person must not be gender normed; the perception that gay men are feminine and that lesbian women are masculine. We plan to tease this enmeshment apart by having participants evaluate the degree to which they think a gay person would be suitable for a job description that is exceptionally masculine or feminine. Of course, we think gay men will be viewed as less competent and that lesbian women will be viewed as more competent in a traditionally masculine job and visa versa.
5. What epistemologies, methodologies, and tools do you use for your research?
Almost all of my research is cross-sectional. I have not conducted any longitudinal designs, as many trained in developmental psychology do. Most of my research is quasi-experimental in nature that does not involve any manipulation of variables for the most part, but only to examine variables as they exist in cross-sections of the population. Two exceptions to this general trend; the study recently done in my lab on the confounding of gender and sexual orientation, and work with my honours student on sexual paraphilia. These were both experimental designs.
6. With your expertise, what do you consider the most controversial findings in psychology? What do you consider some of the implications of these findings?
Well, I cannot speak to the whole field, of course. However, if I were to speak generally I would look back at my introductory psychology classes and cover a broad range of topics. Generally, I would say, probably, in issues to this day of consciousness. How to know what consciousness is? How to measure it? These are still problematic for psychologists and philosophers. I would say, in my particular field, some of the big issues are things like causes of sexual orientation, and at a deeper level whether we should be even asking such questions. Such questions are biased, as we do not ask about the causes of heterosexual orientation. Being straight is presumed status quo. I would say, in my field, this area counts as one of the biggest of controversy.
There is also controversy around certain sexual disorders. In particular, hyper-sexuality and gender identity disorder as disorder. Both of these are in considerable debate as to whether they should be included or not in the DSM. I do not believe that either of those should be included, personally, from the research that I have read. I think they simply represent variations in human sexuality, which is exceptionally varied. I have difficulty reconciling many sexual disorders in the DSM, because they suggest there is a normative amount of desire; that there is a normative amount and that anything more or less than that is pathological. I consider human behavior much too varied, especially human sexual behaviour, to say, “Oh, this is the appropriate amount of sex, and any more than this, or less than this, is pathological.” I have some difficulty with that.
In the developmental field, again there is controversy relating to the DSM, particularly, what constitutes developmental psychopathology? What is considered appropriate behavior for children? Determining whether a children’s behavior is pathological hinges on the adult’s perception of the behavior, and so it is the parents or teachers that go to a psychologist or physician and say, “My child is ill.” The child rarely goes into the doctor and says, “I think there’s something wrong with me.” You don’t see that, right? There are disorders in the DSM for children that are debatable. Take for example, a new one that was under consideration, I think it was to be called temper-tantrum reaction disorder or something like that, being proposed for the DSM-5. It is based on parent’s reports of children having unreasonable and excessive temper tantrums; in other words, more than the norm! I am not suggesting that there are no mental illnesses among kids. I simply mean that the DSM has expanded to the point where much “normative” behaviour is designated pathological if the parameters are not exactly right. I think those are the biggest debates in the field of psychology that are of most interest to me.
7. If you restructure, or at least reframe, the study of sexuality, how would you do it?
Well, that is a tough question. I think this links somewhat to my earlier comments about pathology. I am teaching human sexuality now. The last several chapters are about things wrong in sexuality. Commercial sex, prostitution, exotic dance are wrong. Selling sex is wrong. Then, there are the sections of sexual dysfunction, like hyper-sexuality and hypo-sexuality, and how these are ‘disorder’. And then next week it is paraphilia; exhibitionism, fetishism, BDSM, etc. And it is all so structured like, “Wow, look how wacky everyone is…” Even the chapter on gender identity that I did last week was all about why would people want to transition from male to female? What is with these people? Look how these people are different? The science is set around pointing out what is presumed to be “normal”. Some textbooks are grey because they call these topics ‘sexual variations,’ but the implication is the same; that there is something somewhat wrong about it all. I do not like that. I do not teach my class that way. I am very liberal in my class encourage tolerance of these differences. There is nothing wrong with these differences. So, I would re-structure our science in how we pathologize everything, make everything seem like it is abnormal. I do not like that. While I appreciate that there IS pathology, I often believe much of the stress and stigma associated with pathology comes from the fact that we pathologize!
8. If you had unlimited funding, what would you research?
Unlimited funding? If I had unlimited funding, I would get two different pieces of equipment. One, I would get a penile plethysmograph, which measures tumescence of the genital organs for males. Two, I would get a vaginal photoplethysmograph, which is a measure of vasocongestion. They are both measures of physiological arousal. In sexuality research, the field is burdened by the social-desirability bias. People are going to say what they believe other people want to hear. Take for example the standard question, this is just an example, but take the standard question, “How many sexual partners have you had?” Men tend to overestimate their number of sexual partners and women tend to underestimate their number of sexual partners. The truth is somewhere in between. It is hard to measure things like sexual arousal based on self-report. And that is all the kind of data that I have been primarily working with; questionnaires, self-reports, survey data. If I had unlimited funding, I would buy those pieces of equipment and hidden camera equipment to conduct observational research in labs.
If I had unlimited funds, I would also want an fMRI machine. It would be amazing to see what happens in the brain during orgasm. Is it diffuse or localized? I would put technology on my side if I had unlimited funding. Although I have asked the university for a vaginal photoplethysmograph and a penile plethysmograph, there is so far no such luck in getting this equipment.
9. When you entered academia, you likely had a certain philosophical framework for understanding the world. How have your philosophical views changed over time to the present?
Well, there is no single salient point, right. I mean, as a professor, the only thing I want my students to take away from my class is – if you forget everything about theories, facts, and numbers – the most important thing that every student should take away is how to think critically – how to be a critical consumer of information. That is the most relevant thing in psychology. The knowledge we have about the brain, its desire to explain cause and to do that via making connections that are probably superfluous, they are not real – and I want students to be critical consumers of information because psychological information is everywhere. It is in the news, on the radio, on the television. If you cannot be a critical consumer of information, you are in trouble. Not everyone has a critical thinking style, which is why I consider it extremely important for people to be critical consumers.
10. What advice would you give to undergraduate psychology students aiming for a work, career, and general interest in psychology?
Good grades are important, but they will only get you so far. If you want a career in psychology, you need more than an undergraduate degree. That is my advice. Grades will help you get into graduate school, absolutely. But, back to my regression models, there are many predictors of success in graduate school. Grades are only one path – grades will put you into the competitive pool of graduate school. Yet, you will have more chances of getting into graduate school with strong letters of reference. Grades will provide your letter writer with something solid to comment on about you. However, that is where it stops. My advice for people in psychology is A) apply to graduate school and B) get in good with faculty. Join a committee. Join their lab. Participate in research. Do something in some way to make yourself known to them because that is the only way they will be able to write you a letter of reference that says something besides, “This is a good student in class and they have a good grade point average.” That is all that most professors could say with only grades to recommend you. Letters of reference go a long, long way.
11. Who have been the biggest influences on you? What books or articles characterize their viewpoint well?
God, I do not even know. This is a tough one. I do not even know, honestly. I would put my supervisor Dr. Kim Schonert-Reichl right up there. She is exceptionally well-published and a fabulous speaker. And she knows how to conduct research. She really taught me how to be a researcher and a critical thinker. I remember once that she told me about a study she was designing. She had developed a program evaluation for a well-known socioemotional development program called “Roots of Empathy”. The initial results were promising. Data suggested that kids exposed to the program had less classroom problem behavior, participated less in bullying, and displayed greater social competence and prosocial behavior. I remember Kim saying to me one day, “Look, the data indicates that bullying is decreasing and social competence is increasing. This is fabulous, but so flawed.” I wasn’t sure what she meant. She said, “Well, the bullying behaviors are decreasing and the social competencies are increasing, but compared to what? How do we know whether the behavior of all kids becomes better as the year progresses?” Now, it seems obvious. There was no control group! No baseline! Kim incorporated a control group into her subsequent evaluations of the program. It seems so obvious, but you have to be a sharp researcher to be able to recognize that flaw. That is critical thinking. That is just one of the many intelligent things that Kim has said since I have known her. She is just a solid researcher and really knows her stuff. She is well published and just recently made full professor. I feel like she has influenced many of my ways of doing and thinking about things. Even outside of being her student, when I first designed the human sexuality course – and I had not been her student for years, though we speak regularly – I told her about it and she suggested that I include some statement in my course outline about the topics discussed in the course bringing up difficult issues for some people. She is always thinking ahead. She said, “You may want to tell people that if they have difficulty with the material than they should be referred to see someone.” She is very thoughtful. She is always trying to help me be more thoughtful that way too. Some of the fundamentals of conducting research with kids she has introduced to me. Some basic stuff – this is how to treat your participants. This is how you ensure your participants are going to be willing to participate in your study. That the participants understand anonymity and confidentiality, and that they understand their contribution and why it is important. That is what I do with all of my studies now. That is how I relay the importance of my studies to all of my participants. I think she has been profoundly impactful on the way I conduct research, as well as how I run my class. She always made her classes relevant; she always brought the material around, emphasized how should we be studying this particular topic. Why we should be studying this particular topic. She took it away from the theoretical and brought it down into the relevant, the practical applications. And thanks to her, I have always tried to be that way too. That is my style with my own students. Even the way I write articles have been influenced by her writing style, the way that I mark papers, the way I make suggestions in comments These are just some examples of someone who has been immensely influential.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Aislinn Hunter, PhD (In-Progress): Instructor of Creative Writing at Kwantlen Polytechnic University
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2013/06/05
1. What positions have you held? What position do you currently hold?
I am currently a faculty member in the Creative Writing department at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, but I tend to teach part-time (in one semester) so that I can write more than four months a year. This has allowed me to take on writer-in-residence positions at other universities (Memorial University in St. John’s Newfoundland, Lancaster University in England, and Macquarie University in Australia) and to do freelance or contract work that interests me. It’s also afforded me time to undertake a PhD. Before coming to Kwantlen I taught creative writing as a sessional instructor at The University of Victoria and before that I worked on a contract-basis as a broadcaster and producer at CBC Radio and as a researcher at the National Film Board of Canada.
2. In brief, how was your youth? How did you come to this point in your academics?
My family was above middle-class economically but I didn’t grow up in what I’d now call a ‘culturally rich’ environment. (My friend’s parents owned an art gallery and they used to wake their kids up by blaring classical music – I remember feeling completely envious of their arty world.) My mom, who was a nurse, took a few university classes in psychology and sociology when I was growing up and her excitement and what she brought home from those classes helped cultivate my enthusiasm for learning. When I was old enough to express my leanings she enrolled me in dance classes and supported my interest in theatre. I was an inconsistent high school student (A’s in the arts, D’s in maths and sciences) but an amazing day-dreamer. At sixteen I dropped out of high school (where I was miserable) and at seventeen I moved on my own to Dublin, Ireland and got a job in a pub. A few crucial years followed: in them I had the freedom to discover what excited me – for example, I remember being obsessed with the material residue of the past which seemed to be everywhere in Ireland. At twenty-one I was accepted at the University of Victoria as a ‘mature’ student and I fell in love with art history and creative writing. In second year I unexpectedly received a small bursary, the Patti Barker Award for Writing, and it was a life-changing moment – I’d never been recognized for excellence before. I think that award gave me a new way to identify who I was and what I could do. An MFA in Creative Writing followed and then three book publications and then an MSc in Writing and Cultural Politics, and now I’m almost through my PhD in English Literature at Edinburgh. I’ve received a lot of encouragement in the form of academic awards along the way and I’ve worked hard. Still I think any success I’ve had has a lot to do with that old adage: do what you love and the rest will follow.
3. How did you gain interest in Creative Writing? Where did you acquire your education?
I was involved in theatre until I was 18 or so and had always been a bit of a scribbler, but I didn’t formally arrive at writing until I took an introductory creative writing class at The University of Victoria when I was twenty-one. That year Patrick Lane walked into the classroom, opened a book, read a poem by Gwendolyn MacEwan and made me, in one fell swoop, want to be a poet; made me want to know something the way a poet knows it, and to be able to say that back to others in the same way that MacEwan did. Patrick was around fifty then and a Governor General Award-winning poet with, I believe, a high school education. Still, in one year he taught me more than any other writer or professor about writing and about what it might mean to be a writer in the world. My soon-to-be-husband was like that too: a kind of Renaissance man with no formal post-secondary education, but incredibly, incredibly intelligent. He taught me, mostly by example, how to be a critical thinker. Any success I’ve had in my formal education (an MFA at The University of British Columbia and an MSc at The University of Edinburgh) owes something to these two men and the wonderful mentors inside and outside academia who have followed them.
4. You have written five books. What form has your creative expression taken over time?
I work in a variety of genres so generally the topic or the material dictates the form – something will generally ‘feel’ like content for a poem or for an essay or fodder for something more involved like a novel. I am obsessed by the past (as both a construct and as a site of historical events) and by how we engage with it (and it with us) and so that is always at the centre of my creative, and I suppose, my academic work.
5. Most recently, you have worked on your PhD at the University of Edinburgh. What is the basis of it?
I’m looking at resonance and beloved objects in Victorian culture, and asking why certain objects appear again and again in Victorian writers’ museum collections. It’s ‘thing theory’ so to speak (I’m asserting that certain ‘things’ are more fit for the task of acting as remembrancers than others) with a narrative through-line in that I am also looking at how, in life-writing and literature, we tend to describe the way an object presences the absent beloved for us. It’s quite a fascinating topic and intersects with some of the themes in my new novel.
6. Since you began in writing, what do you consider the controversial books or poems? Why do you consider them controversial?
I had to think a lot about this question because I don’t think I’m considered controversial at all (in relation to my work in the Canadian literary landscape). I am quite an earnest writer, a meliorist, and that effects, I suppose, how much I’m willing to discombobulate or challenge the reader. That said I think that there’s a slightly controversial position hovering thematically under a lot of my work (academic and literary) – ideas around how we humans presume too much agency for ourselves when things and events are actively shaping us all the time. I’m also interested in extended mind theory and in how we cognize the world through limiting ontologies (i.e. the depth ontology in Western culture where we forefront the concept of the ‘inner being’). The most deliberately provocative work I’ve done has been in the essay form. I wrote a piece on why writers shouldn’t do reviews for The Quill and Quire (an unpopular position) and a piece on the impossibility of competition amongst poets for Arc Magazine.
7. How do you describe your philosophical understanding of the art of Creative Writing?
I once said to a second-year creative writing class at The University of Victoria that “to be a writer one needs to procure wisdom, knowledge or wonder.” I said it wanting to be challenged but no one so much as raised an eyebrow or a hand.
8. How has it changed?
Well, given that I sort of believed what I said to that class a decade ago (though I remain open to revision) I’d have to say that my understanding of what is required of a writer or ‘writing’ hasn’t changed: I believe you need something of use to say, or an ability to create a sense of wonder in another, and craft in order to do so in a way that locates and dislocates the reader simultaneously, adds to what they had when they entered into the conversation with your work. But the literary landscape has changed significantly in the last few years, in part because what’s valued drives the market. Information is highly valued now (the kind of ‘information’ that’s arguably different from wisdom or knowledge) as is escapism, and so there’s a commerce in that; digestibility matters too, and that means that what gets written and what sells, what is ‘successful’ changes. I still tend to differentiate between classes of literature which is probably an old-fashioned thing to do in the age of the blog-turned-film-turned-novel.
9. What advice do you have for undergraduate and graduate students in Creative Writing?
Fail, fail better. Take risks. Remember that rejection makes you stronger.
10. Whom do you consider your biggest influences? Could you recommend any seminal or important books/poems by them?
I think the first time I felt as a reader that I was in the hands of a master writer was reading the Irish writer Dermot Healy. He’s widely considered a writer’s writer because you can marvel at his craft even as you’re set adrift in his narrative or poetic worlds. I especially love A Goat’s Song which is a novel and What The Hammer (poems) but all of his work has taught me something, and he innovates every time when a lot of writers would be content to repeat their successes. Anne Carson, Jan Zwicky and Carolyn Forché (all poets) make me think ‘why bother’ – they’ve already said so much so perfectly – but they also inspire me to keep at it. Alice Munro inspires me on numerous levels. It’s not that I want to write like her but I am in awe of her craft and her tenacity. She makes me aspire to be a better writer, to try to be great at it.
11. What poem has most influenced you?
TS Eliot’s Four Quartets. I don’t actually have an academic’s handling of it, but it sends me off in a new direction with every reading and I think his thinking about time in it is perfectly complex: ‘Time present and time past / Are both perhaps present in time future, / And time future contained in time past…’. It’s directly influenced a lot of my work.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2013/05/14
1. What positions have you held in Academe? What position do you currently hold?
I am currently a faculty member at Kwantlen Polytechnic Universtiy (KPU). My past positions include typical graduate student work like research and teaching assistantships and also lecturer positions at both the University of Victoria and Simon Fraser University. My position immediately prior to starting at KPU was as a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada post-doctoral research fellow at Simon Fraser University.
2. How did you come to this point in your academics?
I arrived at this point in my career by serendipity. It would have been convenient if I always knew what I wanted to do and I simply executed my plan – that is not how my career evolved. Rather, I followed my interests, kept an open mind, and talked with people (all sorts). That process gave me a realistic understanding of what different career paths looked like and it also opened doors for me. My good luck led me to my career as a psychology faculty member.
3. How did you gain interest in psychology? Where did you acquire your education?
I asked a lot of “whys’ and “hows” growing up and being an inherently social person it was very natural for me to apply that curiosity to people. Although I pursued a number of interests in my undergraduate schooling, at a certain point psychology felt more right than the other subjects I was studying. Once I selected psychology I never looked back.
My university education began at the University of Victoria, then to Saint Mary’s University in Halifax to acquire a MSc. in Industrial/Organizational psychology, and then back to the University of Victoria for my Ph.D. in experimental psychology. My education was not as continuous as my brief description above would suggest. I took opportunities during these years to work, travel and ultimately cultivate experiences and a sense of self outside of the institutions I was studying in.
4. What kinds of research have you conducted up to the present? If you currently conduct research, what form does it take?
I enjoy research. My past and present research merges the areas of forensic and occupational health psychology. Although my interests are diverse, the core of my research pursuits is the understanding of how: (i) people assess one another and (ii) we might reduce bias and/or maintain accuracy in people’s assessments of situations, information, and individuals. I typically pursue these core interests in the applied areas of eyewitness memory and investigator decision making to an adverse event (industrial incident or forensic).
Historically my research on investigator decision making has explored ways to minimize confirmation bias in industrial investigation. People who investigate industrial events are typically foremen, supervisors or health and safety professionals of the organization in which the accident occurred. The contextual knowledge that comes with familiarity with the work environment can result in biased decision making as investigators may seek information that supports their preconceived notions. The eyewitness to an industrial or criminal event is equally as important a member of the investigative dyad as the investigator. Hundreds of studies tell us that eyewitness memory is fragile, malleable, and susceptible to forgetting, even in optimal conditions. I study factors that may lead to inaccurate witness recall post-event and/or factors that can help maintain the quality and quantity of a witness’s information. In collaboration with others, I have researched: the effects of witness fatigue and misinformation, access to memory of a central instance of a repeated event, post-event information on investigator and witness identification evaluations, and psychologically-based incident report forms.
5. Since you began studying psychology, what do you consider the controversial topics? How do you examine the controversial topics?
There are many areas of controversy in psychology but the areas that directly relate to my research are: how we as researchers try to ensure we are drawing reliable and valid findings from our studies, the role of personal responsibility (i.e., human error) in event causation, and the influence of post-event suggestions on memory (my co-contributor to this In-sight issue, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, is likely a better candidate to tackle the implications of this last topic).
To address the first issue in the above list, because I am aware of the possibility of spurious results I take small steps to try to minimize error in my reporting of results, e.g., replicate when I can, use large sample sizes when possible, show restraint when talking about the implications of my findings. The other controversial area that I mention above is the role of personal responsibility in event causation. People’s views regarding human error can fall on a continuum from “the event was caused by a rogue employee who made an inappropriate decision” all the way to “there is no such thing as human error, all inappropriate worker action is a result of latent failures within the system.” A great deal of time has been spent discussing the most productive viewpoint to enhance safety. This controversy touches my research because the view of human behaviour taken by the investigating officer/organization may have implications regarding how information is sought and interpreted during an investigation, as well as, what the organization will do with the investigative findings.
Last, one area that I do not study but I follow closely is deception detection. This is a fascinating area that has evolved rapidly over the last few years. Researchers are pursuing different features of deception such as emotion and cognitive load to try and generate effective tools to enhance detection e.g., asking for the narrative in reverse order, asking about unanticipated features of the event, the strategic use of evidence or the emotion based microexpression research. This is a fun area of study that is always interesting to read about.
6. If you had unlimited funding and unrestricted freedom, what would you enjoy researching?
Well if there was really no constraints (and we could ensure no consequences for the people participating) I would move my research into a more externally valid framework. That is, I would expose people to high stakes situations and manipulate their physiological and psychological state to see how these factors affect their recall and decision making. It is hard to find research done in high resolution environments but a fairly recent collaboration of note is Loftus’s and Morgan III who used military recruits in survival school as their participants.
7. For students looking for fame, fortune, and/or utility (personal and/or social), what advice do you have for undergraduate and graduate students in Psychology?
I am hesitant to answer this question as I have neither fame nor fortune and my utility is likely up for debate (just kidding). My personal experience has taught me a few general principles that worked well for me: first, do your homework so you have a good understanding of the scope of what it is you are considering, second, talk with people and find out the pros and cons of any given situation/position, third, be open to feedback – it is rarely intended to insult rather it is usually offered as a means to help you grow, and last, get hands on experience when you can. If you have a career in mind, talk to people who hire for that job and find out exactly what they require as this will enable you to target your education and experiences more effectively.
8. Whom do you consider your biggest influences? Could you recommend any seminal or important books/articles by them?
The people who influenced me the most were the people I worked directly with during my graduate training, Dr.’s Elizabeth Brimacombe, Stephen Lindsay, Don Read, and Veronica Stinson. Each one of these academics modeled a unique approach to study, research, and networking and from each relationship I took valuable lessons. On a purely scholarly note I would say that the most influential author for me over the years has been Daniel Kahneman. His work encouraged me to think in depth about how we synthesize information and this ultimately helped me script my dissertation research. I hear Kahneman’s recent book, “Thinking Fast and Slow,” is very enjoyable and accessible reading (which I look forward to getting to when my busy first year of teaching is behind me!). The other authors I watch with interest tend to be more applied researchers, to name just a few, Elizabeth Loftus, Saul Kassin, Christian Meissner, Dan Ariely, Itiel Dror, Garry Wells, and Aldert Vrij.
9. You may consider many areas of Psychology important for academics and non-academics. Even so, whether one or many points, what do you consider the most important point(s) of Psychology as a discipline?
Humans are a marvel – we habituate but then adapt with lightning speed. We are frugal with our allocation of resources yet act with close to optimal performance with little (or no) executive effort. In psychology we recognize that the complex nature of people cannot be studied using only one perspective, we use a biopsychosocial approach and this is our strength. This multifaceted approach not only broadens our understanding of human behaviour from within psychology but facilitates collaboration with researchers from other disciplines (e.g., medicine, cultural anthropology). Being open to fresh perspectives and approaches may ultimately provide us with new and exciting understandings into human behaviour.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2013/04/22
1. What is your current position at the University of California, Irvine?
My title is Distinguished Professor. My main appointments are in a couple departments. One is Psychology and Social Behaviour. Another is Criminology, Law, and Society. Then, I am also Professor of Law.
2. Where did you grow up? What was youth like for you? What effect do you feel this had on your career path?
I grew up in Los Angeles, not very far from UCLA.
I would say it was peppered with tragedies. My mother drowned when I was 14 and my brothers were 12 and 9. A few years later, our house burned down, and we had to live somewhere else while it was being rebuilt. Through all of this, I managed to keep studying and got into college.
Well, I feel a little like it contributed to my workaholic ways. You know, just keep working, working, working, and feeling a sense of accomplishment. Then, distract yourself from painful thoughts. Since I do not do psychotherapy that is just an armchair self-analysis.
3. Where did you acquire your education?
I went to college at UCLA. UCLA was close by to where I lived. UCLA was probably not the greatest idea since I lived about a half-mile away, and I ended up living at home. I graduated from UCLA and then ended up going to Stanford for Graduate School. I got my PhD in Psychology from Stanford.
4. What was your original dream?
At some point because I had a double major in mathematics and psychology, I thought I might teach mathematics. Something like high school or junior high, but that is not what I ended up doing. I don’t know if I had a dream. I just kept on with school, until I had a PhD and became an assistant professor.
5. How did you gain an interest in Mathematical Psychology?In Chapter 3 of Do Justice and Let the Sky Fall, Dr. Geoffrey Loftus recounts your hemming skirts and keeping familial correspondence up to date during your Graduate School training at Stanford. When did you realize Experimental Psychology was the new dream for you?
I did that because I was bored with mathematical psychology. I later happily discovered memory, ha! It’s what ultimately I would get a little more passionate about. I ended up going to Graduate School in mathematical psychology because I thought that combining my two majors in what would be a perfect field. I was not in the end taken by it. I did other things while listening to, in one ear, the talks, or presentations that were being made.
6. You have published 22 books and over 500 articles. You continue to publish new research on an ongoing basis. What have been your major areas of research?
Well, most generally it is human memory. More specifically, I studied eyewitness testimony for a long time. I studied people’s memory for crime and accidents, and other complex events that tend to be legally relevant. Even within that area, I studied how memories can change as a result of new information that we are exposed to. I did hundreds of experiments studying everything you would want to know about memory distortion in that kind of context. In the 1990s, when I started to get interested in what would be called ‘The Memory Wars,’ the debate about psychotherapy and whether some subset of psychotherapists were using highly suggestive procedures that were getting patients to create entirely false memories. I, with my collaborators and students, established a paradigm for studying the development of what we would later call, in a paper with Bernstein, Rich False Memories. Not just changing a detail here and there in memory, but actually applying people with suggestions so that they would develop these complete false memories.
7. Your research did not have immediate acceptance among professionals. In fact, it attracted much anger, which spilt over to you. In particular, what research set the controversy? What became the controversy? How did this come to a resolution?
I would take us back to around 1990, when I was confronted with an opportunity to consult on my very first repressed memory case. A case where someone was claiming repressed memory. It was a murder case where a man named George Franklin was being prosecuted for murdering a little girl twenty years earlier. The only evidence against him was the claim of his adult daughter that she had witnessed the murder when she was 8 years old and had repressed the memory for 20 years, and now the memory was back. It was in the context of that case that I began to scour the literature of what was the evidence for this kind of repression. She was claiming that she had repressed her memory of the murder. That she had repressed her memory for years of sexual abuse that the father had supposedly perpetrated on her. I could really find no credible scientific support for the idea that memory works this way. That you could take years of brutalization, banish it into the unconscious, and be completely unaware of it by some process that is beyond ordinary forgetting – and that you could remember these experiences completely accurately later on. And so I began to ask, “Well, if these memories aren’t real, (If there is no credible support for the idea that memory works this way) where could these memories have come from?” I began to dig through literature, and examples, ultimately court cases, and would discover that some of these memories were being created by highly suggestive psychotherapy procedures. When I began to speak out about this issue, then people began to get mad, and for those who got mad, this was something for whom repression was one of their treasured beliefs. The repressed memory therapists and the patients they influenced.
Early in my interest in memory distortion, I was thinking about legal cases. In fact, my earliest experiments were designed to map onto what happens when a witness sees an accident or a crime, and then is later exposed to some newer information about that experience, e.g. talks to other witnesses, is questioned in a leading or suggestive fashion, or sees media coverage about an event, my research modeled after that real-world situation.
Some things have happened in the law. In the eyewitness cases, because of many, many psychologists’ work, some jurisdictions have revised the way they handle eyewitness evidence in a case. Some courts have suggested that, and recognized the scientific work by devising new legal standards for handling eyewitness evidence. That’s been a change, and a fairly recent change. And then in the repressed memory cases, I think some jurisdictions have recognized now that this whole claim of massive repression is highly controversial at best. Some courts have ruled that it is too controversial for the cases to go forward. You know, one day we may prove that repression exists. It has not been proven. It is my opinion that we should not be throwing people in prison based on an unproven theory.
8. Subsequently, you took the role of expert witness in a number of important, controversial, and intriguing court cases. What are some of the court cases? Can you describe some of the more memorable moments with individuals involved in them?
Many of these cases involve people no one has ever heard of, of course, I have worked, and consulted, on some famous cases involving people like Michael Jackson, Martha Stewart, and Scooter Libby – a politician in the United States. I think some of the more memorable ones are people looked at accused of crimes convicted based on somebody’s memory when these people are either definitely innocent or probably innocent.
I think a memorable one was a man named Steve Titus, who was charged with rape based on the testimony of an eyewitness who somehow in the course of being interviewed went from not being particularly certain to being completely certain it was Steve. Steve Titus was convicted. Ultimately, he was able to get a journalist to show that another man committed these crimes. So Titus was freed, but he was very, very bitter. He had lost his job. He lost his fiancé. He lost his reputation. He lost his savings. He filed a lawsuit against the police and just as that case was about to go to trial, he woke up one morning and doubled over in pain and died of a stress related heart attack at 35. That is one of the saddest cases I have ever encountered.
If you want to write about one up in Canada, you might write about the teacher Michael Kliman, who, based on claims of repressed memory, had to go through three trials up in Vancouver before he was freed. I would bet my house the man is innocent.
9. What is your most recent research?
I started a line of work with Dan Bernstein and a couple of Graduate Students. We were looking at the repercussions of having a false memory. If I plant a false memory in your mind, does it have consequences? Does it affect your later thoughts, or intentions, or behaviours?
We started by trying to convince people they had gotten sick as children by eating certain foods. We succeeded in persuading people that they got sick eating hard-boiled eggs and dill pickles, and we did it with a fattening food, namely strawberry ice cream. Then, we showed that it could effect, not only what people thought they wanted to eat when they went to a party, but what they actually ate when you put food in front of them. Bernstein has gone on with some other collaborators to do further experiments on how it effects eating behavior. Most recently we have published a paper with collaborators showing these kind of suggestive manipulations work not just with food, but also can work with alcohol. We can plant false memories that you got sick drinking vodka and you don’t want to drink vodka as much.
That’s one line of continuing work.
For instance, in Asparagus: A Love Story, we described a study that showed that you could plant not only a getting sick memory that people then want to avoid. You could also plant a warm, fuzzy memory for a healthy food, and then people want to eat it more.
10. If you had unlimited funding and unrestricted freedom, what research would you conduct?
I am not sure if I want to conduct it, but with unlimited funding and no worry about ethics, ha! You could maybe do the kind of experiment to explore whether massive repression really occurs or it doesn’t. Where you could be able to expose people to prolonged brutalization, and really get a chance to study them thoroughly, but ethical concerns would prohibit that kind of study.
11. Currently, you are on the executive council for the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal – or CSI for short. What role do you play on the executive council? What is the core message of CSI?
I am a fellow of the CSI. Periodically, I give talks at various conferences that the organization holds or I might write something for the Skeptical Inquirer. But I am so busy with so many organizations that I don’t play a large role in the executive council. I mean, other people may have been providing more input to what to bring to the conferences or activities that the organization might engage in, but I am on so many committees and boards that I am spread a little too thin to spend too much time at one.
It’s an organization of people that are pro-science, against pseudo-science and flimflam. Trying to expose efforts to manipulate people into believing or thinking things that might be dangerous, harmful, or untrue.
12. Since you began studying psychology, what do you consider the controversial topics in Psychology? How do you examine the controversial topics in Psychology?
That is a big question, and I do not get into all of them. I’ve got my own little area in memory and memory distortion. I know a lot about the science of memory and lay beliefs about memory. I sort of tend to focus my efforts there. There are many controversial areas that one could look at, but you are going to have to find a different expert to talk about some of the other ones. A related one to the one I care about is using facilitated communication with autistic kids. There is controversy about vaccinations. I don’t think it is particularly controversial. There is controversy about the human contribution to climate change. I don’t think there is much of a controversy. You can find a few people out of the mainstream.
13. How would you describe your philosophical frameworks inside and outside of Psychology? How have your philosophical frameworks evolved?
I would say one of the things, and this is one of the great things about training in psychology, even if you do not go on to teach psychology or even to be a psychologist in your professional life. It teaches you a way of thinking. It teaches you to be thinking about, “What is the evidence for any claim that somebody might try to fob off on you?” We know not just how to ask, what is the evidence? But really, what exactly is the evidence? What kind of study was done? Was it an experimental study? Where you and say something about causation. It is it just correlational? Was there a control group? How well was it done? Is the sample size sufficient? What were the statistical results? We know how to think about evidence. That is one of the gifts that experimental psychology, the study of psychology, research methods in psychology, has given to people who have taken the time to expose themselves to it.
14. For students looking for fame, fortune, and/or utility (personal and/or social), what advice do you have for undergraduate and graduate students in Psychology?
It certainly helps if you can find some research to get involved in. As an undergraduate or graduate student, find some interesting research to get involved in. If you can feel a little passion about it, it can keep your motivation up to keep working hard. I think it is very helpful for students to try to work with faculty members, where you are working on something the faculty member is interested in, and hopefully with a faculty member is generous about publications with students. Having scientific research under your belt can open doors for you. It can get you into Graduate School. It opens doors to jobs. It can open doors to advancement in your field. Anything that you can do to beef up that aspect of your experience is bound to be helpful.
Once you get that under your belt, you might want to get something in a magazine or a journal.
15. You have earned numerous awards, but the AAAS award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility seems most relevant to me. In your acceptance speech you state, “We live in perilous times for science…and in order for scientists to preserve their freedoms they have a responsibility…to bring our science to the public arena and to speak out as forcefully as we can against even the most cherished beliefs that reflect unsubstantiated myths.” I quote this in an interview with Dr. Daniel Bernstein and ask, “How important do you see criticizing ‘unsubstantiated myths’ in ‘perilous times’ for Science?” He says, “I think that this is excellent advice. Science has a responsibility to “give back” to the communities and cultures that invest in it. Scientists can and should correct myths whenever the opportunity arises.” Can you expand on this idea of scientific responsibility to society?
You know, I think he put it beautifully. Not everyone has to do everything, I think collectively we can all contribute to giving back to the society that supported the scientific work. Some people are going to be good at getting the experiments done and published in journals, and they’re uncomfortable speaking to the press or speaking in the context of legal cases. Other people are comfortable doing that. Some people are not comfortable writing for lay audiences. They only want to write for concise scientific journals. Collectively, I think there is something of a responsibility in an ideal world for people to want to give back.
16. Whom do you consider your biggest influences? Could you recommend any seminal or important books/articles by them?
Back in Graduate School, I had a professor that I did some research with on semantic memory that really taught me how to be an experimental psychologist. To be able to design a study with him, conduct and gather the data, analyze the data, and write up a publication. That was a great benefit for me. That collaboration was with a social psychologist named Jonathan Freedman. That was an important influence in terms of turning me into an independent experimental psychologist. I would say, in terms of people that I have never met whose work has probably set the stage for the tradition in which I work, Bartlett from England who was famous for his work on reconstructive memory. I see my work in the tradition of reconstructive memory. He was an important forefather.
If people want to read about memory distortion, I think they may want to read something more recent. I have a book by Brainerd and Reyna. It is rather advanced, but it is called The Science of False Memory. It is sort of everything you would ever want to know about false memories up to 2005 or whenever that book was published. For your readers, if they wanted something easy and fun for reading, I would recommend The Memory Doctor in Slate.com written by Will Saletan. That will give you a small slice of memory research. If you want more, you could probably read The Science of False Memory.
17. What do you consider the most important point(s) of Psychology as a discipline? In particular, what do you consider the most important point about cognitive psychology?
I do not think I want to go there. (Laughs) There are just too many. I have just been focused on the study of memory. I think the study memory distortion is an important area because of its practical and theoretical implications. I think some recent work in a completely different area has to do with learning and memory, in a classroom or an educational setting. The work that shows that if you test people, they learn better than if you just ask them to study again. All these findings on testing effects are interesting and we will see more work in that area.
This of course has many people interested in memory and neuroscience, and brain imaging. It is not something I do, unless I am collaborating with someone who does, but we will see where that will lead. It is certainly the subject of a lot of current research.
18. Three years ago, I informally asked Dr. Anthony Greenwald, “Where do you see Psychology going?” He said the frontier lies in cognitive psychology and neuroscience. However, a first generation of researchers, like the first round of soldiers marching out of the trenches, will fall – making all the necessary mistakes. After that point, the next generation of researchers will have learned from those mistakes to make deep progress. In the same stream of thought three years later, “Where do you see Psychology going?”
That is interesting because he has been quite successful with the implicit association test and all kinds of ramifications in uses of it, but he does not seem to be going in a neuroscience direction. However, he is a smart guy, whose speculation I would invest in.
People are enamored with this neuroimaging stuff. I do see a lot more research. I was about to say progress, but I do not know yet. The neuroscience of cognitive psychology, there has been a lot of discussion in our interdisciplinary teams, people seem to be enamored with the idea that if you bring together people from all different types of perspectives and fields, then you can come together to tackle problems. Will we see more of that – more funding of those type of enterprises? More research, more publications, involving these large interdisciplinary teams. It is a speculation, but it is an educated one given how enamored people seem to be of this notion.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2013/02/08
1. How did you gain interest in psychology? To date, where have you acquired education?
I was first interested in Psychology in high school, but I knew that I wasn’t interested in counselling as a profession and, like many, I didn’t really realize that Psychology involved much more than counselling. In 2004, I looked for a career change. I decided to attend an information session on the Bachelor of Applied Arts in Psychology and the whole world of applied and experimental psychology was opened up to me. I could see how I could pursue Psychology, but also leverage my experience working with technology. Before that, I felt held back by the idea of “starting from scratch”, but when I realized that I could build off of my past experiences, rather than leave them behind altogether, returning to school to pursue a BA didn’t seem quite so over whelming.
I received my Associate of Arts and my Bachelor of Applied Arts (Hons) from Kwantlen Polytechnic University. I am currently working towards a PhD at Ohio State University. I will receive my MA in Psychology in December 2012. I’m also working on a Master’s of Public Health in Health Behavior and Health Promotion which I’ll receive in May of 2013. If things continue as planned, I should be finished my PhD in May of 2015.
While I was still working I also completed a couple of programs that helped to further my telecommunications career. I received a certificate in Telecommunications Management from Vancouver Community College and a Data Network Administration certificate from Langara College.
2. What did you pursue prior to your interest in Psychology?
I spent 12 years working in telecommunications. I started in a Call Center, providing bilingual (French/English) customer service for long distance customers. From there, I started night school to move ahead and ended in management positions at companies like Bell Canada, Telus, and Best Buy Canada.
3. What kind of research did you pursue as an undergraduate student?
I worked in Dr. Bernstein’s Lab for two and a half years studying various aspects of social cognition. The B.A.A. at Kwantlen allows you to experience a lot of hands-on research. I was able to pursue projects in many different domains, which helped to refine my interest and led to my honours project – studying the effects of perceptual fluency on risk perceptions. More broadly, I became interested in how our judgments and decisions, and subsequently our behavior, are influenced not just by pertinent information, but erroneous sources that “rationally” should not affect our behavior.
4. What have you specialized in at Ohio State University? What do you currently research as a graduate student?
Officially, my specialty is Quantitative Psychology but my focus is in Judgment and Decision Making, which is grouped together with Quantitative Psychology at Ohio State University. What that means is that my required coursework is mostly in stats, while I pursue my own interests/research. I’m in the CAIDe (Cognitive and Affective Influences on Decision making) working with Ellen Peters. My main interest is in Medical Decision Making and I have been studying how we can manipulate attention to improve health decisions. One of the ways to measure attention is through eye movements. Therefore, much of my data is collected using eye tracking equipment.
5. Since you began studying psychology, what controversial topics seem pertinent to you? How do you examine the controversial topic?
To be honest, I am not terribly concerned with controversial topics. I am much more interested in the application of psychology to improve people’s lives. For example, how can we change the way that information is presented so that it actually changes behavior? In my area of research, the biggest controversy that I perceive is the ability to use what we learn to impact people’s behavior, specifically their health related behaviors. The question is, “where do you draw the line between libertarianism (free choice) and paternalism (influencing people to do what you think is best)?” We want to construct an environment that leads to people making the best choice, but who decides what is the best option? As a scientist, my interest is predominantly in how I can affect behavior, but I also need to consider the ethics of using my knowledge in a way that might impede free choice, as well as consider any unintended consequences of any intervention I might construct.
6. How would you describe your philosophical framework for understanding psychology?
In general, I am a pragmatist. I am open to using any reliable methodology that allows me to answer the questions I want to ask. I ask questions with a pragmatic nature. In that, they have a clear application with the intention to improve or “fix” a real life problem.
7. If you had sufficient funding for any topic of research, what would you like to research?
I am in the enviable position to have the necessary resources available to conduct the research most interesting to me at this time. Later on in my career, I hope to apply my training in psychology and public health to conduct research in order to develop public policies and programs that can successfully improve people’s health. We focus so much of our attention on disease, but the major causes of death and disease are due to health related behaviors (e.g., tobacco use, over eating). I would like to continue to research ways to help people improve their negative and positive health behaviors.
8. What advice do you have for undergraduate students intending to pursue graduate-level studies and research?
The most important thing is start early. Get involved in as much research as possible, go to as many conferences, and if possible present. Start studying for the GRE early; it took me at least 100 hours of preparation. There are dozens of reference books that will tell you what you need to do to get into grad school. Read them because they are mostly correct. The thing that cannot be stressed enough is the importance of selecting an advisor. This is true in undergrad for your honours thesis, but it is critical for graduate school. In a sense, I was lucky when applying to graduate schools; I did not have a clear understanding which schools were good, bad, or average – particularly the American schools. Specifically, I focused on finding people I was interested in working with rather than schools I wanted to go to. I contacted all of the people I wanted to work with via email, phone, and in person where possible. When it comes to the selection process, as much as they are interviewing you, you need to interview them to make sure you can work with them for the next five plus years. Regardless of how great a program, student, or advisor is, if the fit is not right, everyone loses. Even at Ohio State, where the competition to get in is fierce and the faculty are amazing, I have peers who are stagnating, partially due to mismatch with their advisor and, as a result, a number of them have left the program. I am lucky in that my advisor and I have very similar interests and we work well together. It has made all the difference in my research productivity.
One final note, if you do choose to go to grad school you need to prepare yourself for a big change in perspective. Overnight you go from being one of the top students to being decidedly average, and if you don’t feel stupid on a regular basis, you’re probably doing something wrong and aren’t being challenged sufficiently. It gets better, but there will always be someone who is smarter, progressing faster and publishing more than you. You’ll need to make sure you don’t compare yourself to others and focus on challenging yourself based on your own goals (and those of your advisor).
9. What individuals have influenced your thinking the most?
Except for the obvious choices of my advisors, I think I am too green to name someone who has influenced my thinking most with respect to psychology. I will have to get back to you on that. I will say that I have been enormously influenced by various mentors and teachers throughout my life. When I think of the trajectory my life has taken, and try to pinpoint a single thing that has enabled me to pursue my goals, what is most salient to me is the impact that my second grade learning assistance teacher had while helping me to improve my reading skills. I
was told, in no uncertain terms, that I was not allowed to use the phrase “I can’t” ever again, followed by frequent reinforcement over the span of a year. Looking back through the lens of my psychology training, I am certain that banning “I can’t” at such an early age had a much greater effect than simply changing my vocabulary. Asking the question “how do I,” rather than immediately saying “I can’t,” led to small successes that grew over time and helped me to develop a strong sense of personal agency, that has impacted every aspect of my life including how I approach my education and research.
10. If you have any books to recommend for people, what would you recommend as seminal/influential/required reading?
For a general overview of judgment and decision-making, the Blackwell handbook is quite good. It is a collection of chapters written by leading experts in various topics within judgment and decision-making.
The Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making. Eds Derek Koehler & Nigel Harvey, 2007
Heuristics and Biases is another collection of papers by various researchers, but it focuses on intuitive judgments, which is to particular interest to me.
Heuristics and Biases, The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Eds Gilovich, Griffin & Kahneman, 2002
A couple of more commercial books that deal with intuitive decision making that I really enjoyed:
Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking. Malcolm Gladwell 2007
Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. Thayler & Sunstein 2009
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2012/12/09
What positions have you held with Kwantlen? What work have you performed here?
I have been a faculty member with Kwantlen’s department of Psychology for approximately 15 years, teaching and conducting applied research in an area known as Human Factor’s Psychology. During that time I have been involved in a number of department and institutional initiatives.
A little over 10 years ago I headed a committee responsible for developing the first applied academic degree, namely the Bachelor of Applied Arts in Psychology (BAA). This degree focused on workplace psychology, community service, research methods, and data analysis. The BAA was designed to provide employability skills including those necessary for further graduate training. Later I headed a committee that initiated Kwantlen’s Office of Research and Scholarship and our current Institutional Research Ethics Board (IRB). From 2008 to 2011, I served as Department Chair for Psychology, during which time our first formal program review and strategic plan were completed. Currently I serve on Kwantlen’s IRB and on the Senate Task Force for Academic Rank and Advancement.
How did you gain interest in Psychology? Where have you acquired your education?
I became seriously interested in Psychology while completing a Masters Degree in Environmental Studies at York University in Toronto. Prior to studying at York I completed an Honours BA at the university of Prince Edward Island with a double major in Philosophy and English. In secondary school I was enrolled in a pre-engineering program.
At York, I studied with Dr. Daniel Cappon, a physician who investigated human behaviour and health in the context of the built environment, architectural design and building interiors. While completing this degree, I was a teaching assistant for a professor in the Psychology department, who conducted Human Factors research, and was later introduced to Dr. Barry Fowler a Psychologist who worked in this same area with the School of Exercise and Sports Science. Dr. Fowler specialized in extreme environments and human performance. My doctoral work with him examined cognitive impairment associated with deep sea diving – inert nitrogen narcosis. My comprehensive area focused on biological rhythms and shiftwork. As part of my doctoral studies, I was employed as a research assistant and helped manage some of Dr. Fowler’s research contracts with Defence Canada.
Following my Ph.D., I was awarded a Post Doctoral Research Fellowship, funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council (NSERC). In this capacity, I became further involved with Defence Canada for 2 years studying spatial disorientation effects associated with pilots training on flight simulators.
Where have you gone to work prior to joining Kwantlen.
In 1989, following my Post Doc, I began work as a Defence Scientist at the Defence and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine (DCIEM) in Toronto. DCIEM is a Human Factors Lab and in this position I was engaged in a number of projects concerned with the performance of military personnel in a variety of extreme and unusual operational environments. Here, I developed considerable expertise in Environmental and Human Factors Psychology.
After approximately 7 years I left Defence Canada and moved to Vancouver to take a job with Hughes Aircraft as a Human Engineer, helping to redesign Canada’s air traffic control systems. The project was called the Canadian Automated Air Traffic Control System (CATS) and focused largely on workstation and computer interface design and large scale evaluations. As CATS neared completion, I was hired by BC Research Inc. (BCRI) as a Senior Ergonomist. At BCRI I was involved with several Coast Guard and US Army projects, again focused on performance in extreme operational settings. In 1997, I moved to Kwantlen to help teach in what was to become a new Applied Psychology Program.
What kinds of research have you conducted up to the present? If you currently conduct research, what form does it take?
In addition to the work I’ve already described, I have had a number of Honours students at Kwantlen and have supervised their theses in areas including Post Traumatic Stress in firefighters; computer interface evaluation with online learning; GPS integration in aircraft cockpits, and, most recently, hazard recognition training with coastal tree fallers – the most at risk profession in North America for accidents and fatalities. Currently I am helping WorkSafeBC looking at the use of 3D degraded imagery in hazard recognition training.
Since you began studying psychology, what controversial issues seem pertinent to you?
Working in applied research, I have seen several instances of people’s and organization’s agendas getting intertwined with how information is collected and reported. I learned that ‘politics and science’ can frequently become intertwined. As a researcher, I firmly believe that we need to be very cautious of such influences and that we should strive to be as objective as possible, regardless of research outcomes. In my view, the best approach is to let the science speak for itself.
How would you describe your philosophical framework for understanding psychology? Have your philosophical frameworks changed over time to the present?
I suppose I would say that I try my best to strive for a philosophical perspective that is broad, all inclusive, and as objective ‘as possible’. Human Factors research utilizes a systems approach in trying to understand the complex relationships between human beings, their behaviour, the tools they use and the environmental contexts in which they work and live. These relationships are the result of a multitude of variables interacting. Identifying relevant variables, their relative contributions to system output, and how they coexist dynamically, I believe is the key to really beginning to understand how things work. However, developing this kind of perspective is ongoing and rooted in accepting that we must continuously change how we look at things. Science in itself is but one system of comprehension, founded on assumptions which have their own logic and reality. I am intrigued when modern physicists argue that what we used to consider inarguable realities, such as time and causation, may in fact be mere mental constructs – lenses through which we view the world and ourselves in it. That James Lovelock, the reputed NASA scientist, in his mid-nineties decided we need to re-think everything and consider earth is one living organism is indicative of the value of fostering ever changing and broader perspectives. The universe and understanding what’s in it and how it works may be out of reach for mere human cognitive capacity. But the privilege of being able to contemplate such matters is a gift beyond compare. Perhaps the Taoists had it right when they said that as soon as you begin to use language to differentiate thought, real comprehension becomes impossible. In answering your last question – “have your philosophical frameworks changed over time” – absolutely – and I am excited by the prospect that they will continue to do so!
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2012/11/10
1. What positions have you held at Kwantlen? What work have you performed here?
I have been an instructor of Psychology since 2005, when I began working at Kwantlen. In addition, I have sat on various departmental and university-wide committees while at Kwantlen.
2. Where have you worked prior to Kwantlen?
After I graduated from Simon Fraser University with my Ph.D., I was a Postdoc from 2001 to 2004 at the University of Washington. I started working at Kwantlen in 2005, and for the first year at Kwantlen, I was a visiting assistant professor at the University of Washington,
3. How did you gain interest in Psychology? Where did you acquire your education?
I was always interested in Psychology. I was the go-to person when I was young for friends’ troubles. I was always the mediator for relationships going askew because I never managed to have lasting romantic relationships of my own. When I was young, I took a real interest in the Clinical aspects of Psychology, the areas that tend to be of most interest to people. Later, I started taking an interest in the non-Clinical aspects of Psychology.
My undergraduate degree was from the University of California Berkeley. Following this, I did a Master’s degree at Brock University in Ontario. Then, I did my PhD at Simon Fraser University, and finished a Postdoc at the University of Washington. That is all of my Post-Secondary education.
4. What kinds of research have you conducted up to the present? If you currently conduct research, what form does it take?
That would take a long time to answer. I will give you very broad-brush strokes. I started doing work in sleep and dreams as an undergraduate student. I continued that work as a Masters student. I did my undergraduate and master’s work on sleep and dreams. While a Masters Student, I became interested in the cognitive effects of mild traumatic head injury. I continued that work when I started my Ph.D., but that was not the subject matter of my PhD. My Ph.D. work was on memory. More specifically, I studied how people make mistakes when thinking about the past. During my post-doc, I studied cognitive biases – or how people err in their cognition. I continue to pursue this work now.
5. Other institutions in Canada host more research-activities. Where would you like to see research move forward in Kwantlen?
I would like to see Kwantlen embrace a research culture without being bogged down with the treadmill mentality of chasing publications for tenure, and that is a fine balance to strike because it is hard to get people interested in research if that is not part of their job. I would like to see Kwantlen develop more of a research culture by offering and attending research talks and colloquia. Exposure to research will stimulate discussion about research. Currently, most conversations at Kwantlen center on teaching. This makes sense, after all, because Kwantlen is primarily a teaching institution.
6. Since you began studying Psychology, what controversial topics seem pertinent to you? How do you examine the controversial topics?
I think the first controversial topic that I really sank my teeth into was mild traumatic brain injury, which came from my own experience of skiing into a tree while a senior in High School. I had other head knocks growing up playing sports. I was just very interested in how these experiences affect someone’s cognition over the long term. The prevailing wisdom in 1993 was that people recover almost entirely from these head knocks within a short period, typically within 3 months. I did not believe that. I also did not believe that researchers were using the right tasks to elicit long-term cognitive deficits associated with mild head injury. Therefore, I took a controversial stance and argued, along with others, that these injuries possibly never resolved completely. I thought that if you smack your head hard enough that you have to stop what you are doing because you are dizzy, disoriented, or unconscious, you will have subtle residual deficits for the rest of your life. It does not mean everybody will have these deficits after a mild head injury. Instead, it means that when compared to individuals who have not bonked their heads, those who have sustained mild head injuries, will perform worse on highly demanding cognitive tasks years after the injuries. I think the tide is changing, and more people are open to this possibility.
When I was an undergraduate student, I studied dreams too, which was controversial by its very nature. While working on my post-doc much later, I got interested in False Memory. A highly controversial topic. I worked on this topic with Elizabeth Loftus, who served as a kind of lightning rod in this controversy. Beth showed me how to navigate controversy. In addition, while doing my Postdoc, I got interested in doing Hindsight Bias and Theory of Mind. Theory of Mind is the understanding that other minds are different from one’s. The prevailing wisdom in the developmental psychological field is that by the age of four and a half or five, children develop a theory of mind. It is as if a ‘light bulb’ goes on inside the child’s head. You not only understand that other minds are different from your own but that other people can hold mistaken beliefs about the world. Once you have this mature theory of mind, it is not something that extinguishes. But the acquisition of theory of mind is regarded by many as all or none – you have it or you do not. Very few things in psychology or in the world at large are all or none. With the exception of neurons, which either fire or do not fire, I can’t think of other examples of all-or-none constructs. I remember that in graduate school I was taking a seminar course on neuroscience. One of my colleagues in the program was doing his presentation on gender differences in the brain. He had racked his own brain for hours in preparation for his presentation and he had come into the presentation without any sleep. He came to class dishevelled the morning of his presentation. He said something to the following effect: “It occurred to me a few hours ago. The problem with this field is that gender is not discrete. It is continuous. It is not a categorical variable. Moreover, the reason that this field is so fucked up is that people refuse to appreciate the nuances of continuity. Instead, they want to slot you into this gender or that gender. Then, they look for differences in the brain. Well guess what folks, these differences are very difficult to detect on a consistent basis.” This was a deep insight. As I said, with respect to Theory of Mind, most people believe that it is categorical, you have it or you don’t. I am trying to show that it is not categorical. This is a controversial topic in a controversial field.
7. If you had sufficient funding for any topic, what would you research?
Exactly what I am studying now: Hindsight Bias, Theory of Mind, and False Memories.
8. Many assume scientists and social scientists to have ‘Eureka’ moments, where they discover some fundamental process about nature in an instant. Yet, the truth of research comes from the rarely heard story of the scientist or social scientist assiduously working for years in the laboratory, and finding clues to fundamental processes in nature. How do you conduct research? What do you consider your methodology for coming to new ideas, developing research hypotheses based off them, and designing experiments and requisite materials for said ideas?
I do not know. I do not think that I am very organized about it. I pursue questions that are interesting to me. Sometimes I wonder if I am interested in too many questions. Something will occur to me and I think it is a good question. I talk to colleagues, and they sometimes agree that it is a good question. Sometimes, they disagree and tell me that it is not a good question. If I think that a question is worth pursuing with an experiment or set of experiments, then I will set out to design the simplest experiment(s) to answer that question. Very few questions can be answered with a single experiment. I start with an experiment that can answer part of the question. As I delve more deeply into the question, I realize that I am signing onto years of experiments to answer the question more fully. I speak here only for myself. Many questions I choose to ask will not have ready answers, and I know that they will take years to answer. I probably choose hard questions intentionally. Who wants to answer easy questions? I find that boring. In fact, in research, I do not think I have answered fully any question I have asked. However, I am not alone. I do not think Psychology fully answers the questions it asks. Psychology is too variable. It is too multifaceted, and it is too fraught with interactions. We try to simplify things as much as possible so that we can do our experiments and talk about the nature of behaviour as if we understand it. Moreover, the busiest we ever seem to get in an experiment is a 3-way interaction. Really, folks? We are studying human nature and behaviour after all. Thus, it is unlikely that we will derive a satisfactory explanation from a 2-way interaction or a 3-way interaction. Our answers will probably require a 100-way interaction. We are years away from answering even the most fundamental questions regarding human behaviour precisely because those answers require extremely complex interactions. Perhaps we ask hard questions in Psychology because we do not want to answer those questions quickly. We want a good set of questions that we can pursue long into the future.
9. For students looking for fame, fortune, and/or utility (personal and/or social), what advice do you have for undergraduate and graduate students in Psychology?
As much as possible and widely. Do not be afraid to ask difficult questions. Do not be discouraged by people’s attempts to tell you that you are wrong. In the end, it is not so much about who is right or wrong, but about sticking to your guns and pursuing your questions, being open to criticism and feedback, valuing criticism and feedback, incorporating it into your pursuit, and adjusting your pursuit accordingly. That said, I remember reading an article some years ago in the APA monitor, the magazine of the American Psychological Association. The person who wrote it was a long-time cognitive psychologist. He had supervised some of the most influential cognitive psychologists working today. His advice was that it is just as important to have a good question that you can pursue for a long time, but that it is also important to be able to give up if the question is intractable. If you are pursuing a question that does not seem to be yielding at all, then it is time adjust your question, potentially ditch it and find a new question that does yield.
10. Whom do you consider your biggest intellectual influences? Could you recommend any seminal or important books by them?
Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I took a course as an undergraduate with George Lakoff, who is a modern Whorfian and a linguist. Lakoff believes that our language and metaphor dictate the way we think rather than vice versa. This idea turns cognition on its head. It is not so much the way we think that dictates the way we speak, but the way we speak that dictates the way we think. The course was on metaphor, and the course was pivotal in shaping my interests. This course taught me to ask big questions, and to embrace controversy. In this class, we read “Metaphors We Live by”, Lakoff and Mark Johnson. Great book. Also as an undergraduate, I read Freud’s Interpretations of Dreams in my second year, when I took a directed study with my undergraduate supervisor Arnie Leiman. More than Freud, Arnie Leiman sparked my intellectual curiosity. Leiman was incredibly well read and once told me that, “When you cease to be well-informed, you become an asshole.” He was describing academia and beyond. If you want to be a responsible academic or world citizen, you should be well informed. This reminds me of Bob Dylan’s great line in a Hard Rain’s Gonna Fall, “I’ll know my song well before I start singing.” Other intellectual influences? During my PhD, I worked with two really smart people: Vito Modigliani and Bruce Whittlesea. During my post-doctoral work, I had the great fortune of working with Elizabeth Loftus, whose “Eyewitness Testimony” profoundly shaped the way we interview witnesses and view their testimony in legal cases. In addition, during my post-doc, I worked with Geoff Loftus and Andy Meltzoff who have both had huge impacts on psychology and my intellectual development. Other great academic works: Vygotsky’s Language and Thought and Mind in Society. Works of Fiction: Brothers Karamazov by Fyodr Dostoevsky. I once read or heard, but have not verified that Freud called Dostoevsky the greatest Psychologist. I think writers of fiction have a finger on the pulse of human nature and human behavior, and psychologists often overlook this fact.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2012/11/03
1. Where did you acquire your undergraduate education? Where do you conduct your graduate studies?
I graduated with a BA Honours in Psychology from Kwantlen Polytechnic University. I recently began my Masters in the Forensic Psychology Program.
2. Where did you work prior to researching in Psychology?
I had various jobs. I was a farmer, a sign-maker: my most recent job was at a Casino.
3. You worked in a cognition lab with Dr. Daniel Bernstein. How did you become part of his lab?
There were two reasons. Mainly, I was interested in going to graduate school, but I felt unsure of how to get there. As well, I received good advice from the current Chair of Psychology at Kwantlen, Dr. Wayne Podrouzek. He suggested if I wanted to go to graduate school, I should acquire some research experience. I had taken memory with Danny and really learned a lot while enjoying the experience. I thought he was a friendly and approachable person.
4. How would you describe your experience working in a Psychology Lab? What positive and negative parts come with managing a lab?
I would describe the experience almost entirely positive: necessary to go to graduate school, and probably a big component of my education. I have recently realized that a lot of my education that is relevant did not come from the classroom alone, even though I really enjoyed my classes, learned a lot, and appreciated the instructors. However, there comes a point where you are so proficient at learning material in a textbook that you need a new experience, such as a lab setting with all concomitant experience. It brought me out of my comfort zone. It gave me all of the skills that I needed for graduate school. I can only recommend it for anyone wanting to go to graduate school specifically in Psychology. Additionally, I think it prepares people for graduate school in general because of the workload. Managing a lab of 12 people really took a large amount of time: scheduling the studies, trying to get rooms for the studies, keeping track of everyone for their studies, overseeing data entry, ethics applications, and contacts with people in the research office. Even though, it was challenging and time-consuming at times, it probably, in terms of graduate school, was the most valuable experience I had at the undergraduate level.
5. What kinds of research have you conducted up to the present? For your graduate studies, what research do you conduct?
Up until I graduated from Kwantlen, my research mainly focused on perspective taking, different cognitive biases, theory of mind, theory of mind deficits, individual differences in perspective taking, and a lifespan approach to theory of mind. As well, I did a bunch of hindsight bias research with Danny and worked on one of his false memory studies. I acquired a fairly well rounded experience, in terms of research, but most of it looked at perspective taking. My research now looks at perceptions of child witness credibility. In particular, I look at how adolescents are perceived in legal settings. I try to incorporate what I learned at the undergraduate level. I look at the way certain biases and stereotypes influence decisions, when people are dealing with children and adolescents. Although, my undergraduate research has influenced or transferred to some degree I have taken a slightly different path.
6. With your expertise, what topic(s) seem most controversial to you? How do you examine these topic(s)?
Maybe not controversial, but in my area because Judges do not like to talk about the way their decisions are determined and jurors are prohibited from talking about the deliberation process, my research is limited. It could be considered controversial because it is different from the American system. Jurors are allowed to discuss the process, making the system more transparent in a sense. Although, I understand the reasons for why jurors are prohibited from discussing the deliberation process in Canada, it makes my research difficult. I end up having to do many mock juror designs, which could be criticized. Many people might question the ecological validity of that type of research. However, I use university participants, as many of us do. I try to argue that certain cognitive processes are inherent to all human beings. So, we can look at university participants and how they make a decision in a certain area, or if presented with a certain scenario. Some of that will transfer to a juror or even a judge. I believe that judges are better trained than the average person is, but some of these biases will be inherent to the fact that they are human.
7. How would you describe the evolution of your philosophical framework?
My philosophical framework, I would say that my philosophical framework has evolved even since I entered graduate school. I am still a strong believer in things that can be measured empirically. I subscribe to the empirical model, especially that model of acquiring knowledge. Taking Law courses and looking at the operation of the legal system, I have begun to understand certain questions cannot be understood in the lab. I am beginning to gain a broad perspective on how to best answer questions in different areas. I have acquired a better appreciation for other approaches to knowledge. I have gained some practical experience in court and feel there are some questions we simply do not have the answers for, and we cannot necessarily find them using measurement and experimental design. From this, I have gained an appreciation for people that simply spend a great deal of time thinking and debating the hard questions.
There are certain things where we never know what ground truth is. However, even though I have an appreciation for debate or discourse that attempts to get at questions that do not, or appear to not, have an answer, it does not mean we cannot move closer to the truth through replication and good methodology. We can move towards the direction where we become more confident with those results. Of course, we have to be open to the fact that we could have been wrong. Having good methodology and replicating studies will increase our confidence in those questions that seem difficult to answer. Sometimes it is really more of a philosophical question such as “What is a natural human right? What are human rights?” these sorts of question can only be debated and not measured, as far as I am concerned. However, so many questions can be measured. It is about getting the right study, asking the right questions, gathering the information and bit by bit we get closer to learning the answers.
8. If you had sufficient funding, what would you most enjoy researching?
I am notoriously bad for being interested in too many areas. If I had unlimited amount of funds, I would probably, staying in my own area, travel to different countries and observe different legal systems. I would talk to jurors that I am allowed to talk to, and do decision-making research. I would compare the different country’s legal systems, and their different approaches. These are important questions. I consider how we treat people in the legal system from the time they are arrested to the time they are acquitted or convicted says a lot about our society as a whole, and looking even to our most direct neighbours there is a good deal of difference. It is evident in the standard of living and the quality of life for the citizens. I would love to do a kind of thing that’s international – it seems somewhat idealistic, but you have given me unlimited funding – I would like to do an international comparison of different legal procedures and look at which ones seem to have the best outcomes, and the least consequences. I think the treatment in some countries in some areas less than humane and there is a lot of room for improvement, just through the legal system, e.g. through prosecution, conviction, acquittal, wrongful convictions, how people are dealt with in the community, how people are released and rehabilitated in the community.
9. For students looking for fame, fortune, and/or utility (personal and/or social), what advice do you have for undergraduate students aiming for jobs/careers in Psychology?
For students looking for fame, write a good ‘catchy’ book, because you will not become famous doing the hard-core science: being an experimental psychologist. Some do, but much of your hard work and time will be spent in front of a computer. I do not think it is about being famous. One of the things I have learned over the past couple years is a lot of my time is spent writing…alone- writing for myself and not really for other people. It is something you do because you are simply motivated. You will not have that constant positive reinforcement, especially those looking to become famous. If you are lucky, I think you can become a successful psychologist. Yet, I truly think those who become famous are rare. I suspect for the most part an academic career, in experimental psychology, means spending a number of hours in solitude in your room, office, or lab with your own ideas…But there will always be time for fun……..at conferences.
10. Whom do you consider your biggest influences? Could you recommend any seminal or important books by them?
I tend not to have famous people as influences. I tend to look up to people who I have contact with on a regular basis. Those are the people that I consider my role models. Obviously, my current supervisor. I think she is a great fit for me. I have a great deal of respect for her. She is a very hard worker. She knows a lot about the area and is very dedicated. She is someone I consider a role model and has a lot of influence in my current life. Of course, Dr. Danny Bernstein is perhaps the most influential in my undergraduate career. He pushed me to work harder than I ever imagined. If it were not for him, I would not even know what I could do. In addition, he helped me become a better writer, which is a difficult skill to improve on once you begin to get A’s on all of your papers. Working with him really improved my skills. I am grateful to the entire Psychology department because it is a good set of instructors. I find, probably across my lifetime and especially in my time at Kwantlen and SFU, teachers have had the greatest influence. So, I can only recommend two books because I do not really read many books, unless they are assigned to me: the Road and the Count of Monte Cristo. Although, if you are like me, and kind of a crier, then you might not want to read the Road. The only famous person that has really influenced me is Camus. I do not even really know why, but I think his viewpoints or writings during World War II are moving. If I was to pick a famous person, it would be Camus, and the book would be the Plague or perhaps the Outsider – not the Outsiders – but the Outsider. I did not read the French version of either, and I will admit to that, but the Plague would probably be my favourite.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2012/10/28
1. Why did you start studying psychology? Where have you acquired your education?
I took an intro course in first year and loved it. I received my BA (Honours) Psychology from Kwantlen, with a minor in philosophy, and ended up getting a certificate in language studies (4 courses of German) after I graduated.
2. You published a paper with Dr. Elizabeth Loftus & Dr. Daniel Bernstein in 2011 entitled The False Memory Diet: False Memories Alter Food Preferences. What did you find in this research?
This particular publication gathered work that had already been done—largely by Danny (Bernstein et al., 2005), professor Loftus, Dr. Alan Scoboria (U. of Windsor), Geraerts (et al., 2008), and Laney (et al., 2008). The general theme was applying false memories to food experiences. Loftus’ famous work on false memories found that people’s memories for events, including videos, could be manipulated by wording. For example, subjects watched a video of a car accident and were asked to rate how fast the car was going. When the questions used loaded words such as “smashed” rather than “hit,” subject gave higher speed ratings. Memories can clearly be altered.
Entire memories can even be fabricated. The thesis of the book chapter was that implanting entirely false memories could change people’s food preferences and eating behaviour. Through various experiments, the aforementioned authors discovered that people can develop false memories about foods, such as getting sick from a particular food (e.g., egg salad sandwich), or liking the food as a child (e.g., asparagus). People are more likely to develop false memories for uncommonly eaten foods, such as ice-cream, and less likely to develop them for common foods, such as cookies. This makes evolutionary sense; humans are wildly omnivorous—we can eat almost anything, meaning we often encountered novel foods and needed to learn quickly if that food was poisonous. Thus, we can more easily develop aversion to novel food. In contrast, it is difficult to convince us that familiar foods that we have eaten for years suddenly turned poisonous and made us sick.
There are some commonly eaten foods, however, which are amenable to false memories. These are foods that contain naturally more “disgusting” (easily spoiled, or smell rotten) components, such as yogurt (dairy spoils) and eggs (which naturally smell of sulphur). This also makes sense in evolutionary terms. Although, pickles are also among that list, which is a bit mystifying.
Most interestingly, and to the point, they found that with false memories came corresponding attitudinal and behavioural changes. In one study, half the subjects developed the belief that they loved asparagus when they first tried it. A week later, the experimenters emailed the subject asking them to come into the lab, and pick what foods they wanted to eat; they ranked a list of sandwiches and vegetables by what they preferred. Thirty-four percent of the subjects in the Love Asparagus group indicated that they wanted asparagus. This suggests that false food memories influence preferences and behaviour. In another study, subjects were told that they got sick from egg salad as a child. Thirty-five percent falsely believed that this happened. Different types of sandwiches were offered at a later session, including egg salad. There was also a follow-up four months later, disguised as an unrelated taste-test. Participants were told that the food was going to be thrown out and that they could eat as much as they wanted. Those who erroneously believed they got sick from egg salad were less likely than others to eat egg sandwiches, both shortly after and four months after receiving false feedback. They also gave lower appearance and flavour ratings to egg.
I was not involved in the original experiments. My part was on researching applications for other health issues and disease. This focused on the “false memory diet,” suggested and coined by Danny and Loftus. It’s highly controversial idea, suggesting the implantation of false memories in order to manipulate diet choices. Nevertheless, it could be useful for neo-phobia (fear of trying new foods, which often results in restricted vegetable and fruit intake) and obesity. Ideally, the false memory diet would help people eat more healthy foods and fewer unhealthy ones—including alcohol.
Unfortunately, an average of merely 23% of subjects developed false food memories. So even if a false memory diet were to catch on, it would have a small market. Moreover, it’s unclear exactly who would benefit in the first place. Then there are obvious ethical concerns. First, you’re implanting fabricated memories. Second, a false memory diet could exacerbate eating disorders. That said, just as how the same medication brand may be good for one but harmful to another, false memory diets could still be helpful for some people.
Relevant references:
Bernstein DM, Laney C, Morris EK, Loftus EF. Soc Cognition. 2005a;23:11–34.
Bernstein DM, Laney C, Morris EK, Loftus EF. P Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005b;102:13724–31.
Bernstein DM, Godfrey R, Loftus EF. In: Markman KD, Klein WMP, Suhr JA, editors. The handbook of imagination
and mental simulation. New York: Psychology Press; 2009. p. 89–112.
Geraerts E, Bernstein DM, Merckelbach H, Linders C, Raymaekers L, Loftus EF. Psychol Sci. 2008;19:749–753.
Laney C, Morris EK, Bernstein DM, Wakefeld BM, Loftus EF. Exp Psychol. 2008a;55:291–300.
Laney C, Kaasa S, Morris EK, Berkowitz SR, Bernstein DM, Loftus EF. Psychol Res. 2008b;72:362–75.
Laney C, Bowman-Fowler N, Nelson KJ, Bernstein DM, Loftus EF. Acta Psychol. 2008c;129:190–7.
Scoboria A, Mazzoni G, Kirsch I, Relyea M. Appl Cognit Psychol. 2004;18:791–807.
Scoboria A, Mazznoi G, Jarry J. Acta Psychol. 2008;128:304–9
3. You entered an emerging field co-founded by Dr. Patricia Churchland called ‘Neurophilosophy’. Can you describe the field?
Neurophilosophy is the study of consciousness in philosophy that draws heavily on (cognitive) neuroscience and related sciences. My supervisor, Dr. Kathleen Akins, gives an excellent detailed description on her website:
“‘Neurophilosophy’ is an interdisciplinary field at the intersection of philosophy and the neurosciences. In neurophilosophy, we attempt to understand how various traditional, long-standing problems about the nature of the mind and the world can be resolved (or at least nudged towards resolution) by current findings within the neurosciences. In this group, we use current research within neurophysiology, neuropsychology, neurethology and psychophysics in order to understand the nature of perception, cognition, consciousness, the emotions and mental representation in general.”
(Please excuse the lack of APA style citation for the sake of ease).
I understand that ideally, there would be a 2-way dialogue between the disciplines—neuroscience informs philosophy, and philosophy can help guide neuroscience through testable hypotheses. Though I do not know how often, philosophers actually affect contemporary psychological sciences.
Neurophilosophy can be confused with philosophy of neuroscience, but they are distinct. The latter belongs to philosophy of science, and studies the foundations of neuroscience and its methods (see Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP]). SEP gives the following examples; philosophy of neuroscience might ask about different conceptions of representation and how they are employed in neuroscience. In contrast, neurophilosophy might examine how neurological disorders affect our view of a unified self.
4. Why did you choose it for graduate studies?
Because it is sexy. I wanted to get at the root of consciousness—specifically the neural correlates– and felt as though cognitive and perceptual psychology mostly tap around the periphery. I wanted to get at the heart, and figured that it would be either cognitive neuroscience or philosophy that would get me there.
Anyhow, I emailed Dr. Christoff Koch (Biology department, but famous for his work on the neural correlates of consciousness with Dr. Francis Crick) for advice on what was required to get into CalTech program. He was very amiable and responded soon after, advising a strong background in math, physics, chemistry, and/or bio. At least a minor in one of them would be preferable. Bummer. I was at the time, willing to go back and get the requisite background, but my lack of quantitative aptitude would continue to be a hindrance (I did well in psychological stats, but struggled horribly with calculus). I didn’t feel like I would thrive in the hard sciences environment. That’s certainly not to say that philosophers don’t make good quantitative people! Often it’s quite the opposite—for example, many physics undergrads with a thirst for the nature of reality (metaphysics) end up in philosophy. This comes from a professor of mine, Dr. Holly Anderson, who has a BA in physics.
Aside from the quant conundrum, I still loved philosophy. A previous PHIL professor, Dr. Colin Ruloff, finally helped convince me that philosophy was a sweet route. He had been telling me for years that I should go into philosophy, but I kept saying, “No, I like philosophy, but I want to do Psychology. I want the empirical side of things.” Well, in neurophilosophy, you get both. Colin pointed out that Dennett and Churchland (both prominent neurophilosophers) visit neuro labs and talk to the scientists. That sounded good to me. I mulled everything over and decided that I would go philosophy.
5. What topic(s) seem unsettled and controversial in neurophilosophy? If any, how do you analyze the topic(s)?
Take your pick. The nature of representations, unity of self, colour vision, inverted spectrum, sensory modalities, perception of time, emotions, social cognition… Neurophilosophy is still a toddler—a really smart toddler, mind you. It’s an open field out there. (Ha, stupid pun.)
Analyzing the topics is a challenge, at least for someone who’s not used to coming at a problem from two different disciplines. Take the following illustration: I am taking this fall (2012), appropriately called “Neurophilosophy.” For our projects, we pick a topic that traverses both philosophy of mind and neuroscience (surprise!). We look at the literature in both fields, and then synthesize them. So there are two components in neurophilosophy; analyzing the issue from both sides, and then synthesizing the sides. I do not know if it is all like this, but looking at some other pieces of neurophilosophy (e.g., the Churchlands, Akins), it seems to be a similar sort of process. I would recommend the piece, “What is it like to be boring and myopic?” where Kathleen describes in detail a bats echolocation system and surmises that through bat physiology and neuroscience we can indeed know what it’s like for a bat to be a bat (Akins, 1993).
6. You probably had philosophical assumptions prior to entering university. How have your philosophical views changed over time to the present?
I would say so. I now realize that philosophers can (and often do) object to assumptions that I’ve carried over from psychology. For example, I thought that it was a pretty easy answer as to whether there are moral truths; namely, “no, there aren’t any.” After all, morality evolved. If it evolved, then it’s superfluous to posit moral truths that exist objectively and independently of moral/social creatures. Now I realize, after working on the third version of a final paper for a meta-ethics class, that this question is not so easy to answer. There are many smart people arguing for moral realism, and they can make quite convincing cases. I was questioning my view (as I should be). Now, my view on morality is basically the same as it was (I don’t think there are moral truths), but it took more reasoning than I expected. In sum, I am slowly learning that sometimes what seems most obvious actually takes a good solid argument to establish.
In addition, I thought that science could answer every question, though now I am not so sure. Science can’t tell us what we should do; it only describes how things are. Science doesn’t tell us exactly what an explanation is, or how much you must explain for an adequate explanation. For example, if a 4-year-old asks, “Why does that thing float?” Their parent could answer “because it’s a boat and boats float.” In other words, for a child, learning that something belongs to a category with a particular property is sufficient for an explanation. Obviously, the same is not true for a physicist. They probably want a detailed causal story. But are laws sufficient? They seem rather empty, merely describing rules. And what exactly is causation? Is it a mechanism with consistent, identifiable parts? Is it what you get when you intervening on variables to control them? Again, it comes down to defining what exactly an explanation is. That is where philosophy comes in.
Lastly, I used to assume that the scientific method was independent of philosophy, thank you very much. Now I’ve changed my mind. The “artful” component of experimental design seems to be a philosophical exercise, for example. It’s the juice that gets the scientific method up and running. Or consider that when we construct operational definitions, we’re stipulating them. We’re picking out things in the world and identifying them. For example, perhaps “happiness” is X amount of endorphins or being paid more than $60 K a year. Of course we draw on past empirical work to help us along, but how and why we choose particular operational definitions, I argue, are at least partly philosophical. Reason marries science and philosophy.
In short, my previous assumption that science was all and Everything Forever has been overturned. Philosophy, it seems, helps us address questions that science, strictly speaking, cannot—what we should do, what explanations are, or how to design an experiment.
7. What advice do you have for undergraduate students in psychology intending to pursue graduate-level study?
Take time to figure out what you really want to do. Talk to many people in different disciplines, professors and students included; when you are prospecting potential supervisors, ask their students what their relationship with the prof is like, because your supervisor is someone you are going to be in close contact with for 2-7 years. Apply for a Tri-Council Scholarship. The process is a… challenge, but it’s rad if you get it. (Food!)
Ask yourself if you willing to spend another 2-9 years getting a degree, that might not get you the job you want? Also, if you don’t like travelling, academia probably isn’t the place for you; if you pursue academic work, you’ll go wherever the schools are and wherever the job is. Psychology and philosophy are overflowing with masters and doctorates, and there are very few jobs out there. For example, if you get a PhD from one of the top 50 philosophy programs, you might have a 25% chance of actually getting a career as a philosopher. And don’t expect the career to happen right away. Many have to wait a number of years before they get an untenured job as a sessional, with no health benefits and unstable work. It’s a damn tough market. That said; if your dream is to be a psychologist or philosopher, do not give up on it quite yet. Even though it’s tough to get into, there is still a job market. I hear it is slightly better for psychology.
Of course, you should read Scott Jacobsen’s blog.
8. Who influenced your intellectual development the most? Have they written any noteworthy books/articles that characterize their views well?
At the risk of sounding cliché, my professors at Kwantlen played important roles. Certain profs stand out clearly; in Intro Psychology I brought up some sketchy “evidence” from a book for some weird claim about consciousness; Jocelyn Lymburner asked to see the book’s references. That has stuck in my mind for eight years now. Wayne Podrouzek also punched some of the dumb out of me. He pushed me to really think about morality, consciousness, pseudo science, and personal issues. I used to think I had substantially different sensations and perceptions than others–Rick LeGrand challenged my interpretation, suggesting that perhaps I pay attention to those things more, and that because I share the human physiology, it’s likely that others (can) have similar experiences. Danny Bernstein drilled better writing skills into me (any errors I’ve made here are thanks to my neglecting his advice). I’m convinced that the 15 rounds of editing on one manuscript gave me my wicked score on the GRE’s analytic writing section. Overall, the most valuable thing that I got out of my degree was a radical shift in how I look at the world. I used to have unsubstantiated “New-Age” beliefs (ghosts, psychic powers, etc.). Now I have the training to scrutinize such claims and realize that either there is no evidence, or “evidence” from studies that usually had shitty methodology. It took most of my degree (and the professors) to get there, and the rest to hone my skills.
Outside of Kwantlen, I’ve been particular touched by the “4 horsemen,” Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. These four to me are paragons of critical thinking applied to religious dogma (find them on YouTube to see what I mean. I recommend Harris’ (audio) books “End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation.” Harris’ succinct, eloquent style is ear-candy; I recommend Harris’ (audio) books “End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation” His book, presumptuously entitled “Consciousness Explained,” is an eye-opening read for anyone interested in blind sight, split-brain phenomenon, illusions of time, 1st person science of consciousness, and I host of other related issues.
On the topic of colour vision and its pervasive use in philosophical thought-experiments, Kathleen Akins has moved me. She and Dr. Martin Hahn (SFU) are currently coming out with a tome on colour vision. Colour is not the basic property philosophers and others often think it is; chromatic information (hue / wavelength, brightness, and saturation) are each processed for multiple different functions, such as motion detection, object identification, and distinguishing surface properties from atmospheric ones (e.g., looking at obnoxious blue pants in a yellow-lit store looks different than under sunlight, but we compare the pants to colours of other objects to figure out what the colour of the pants actually are).
On a totally different vein, my interest in physics have led me to David Bohm’s “The Implicate Order,” where he discusses a notion based on quantum mechanics that events, not objects, are basic units of reality. In the first third of the book, he even suggests a verb-based language to reflect this—a rather philosophical endeavour for a physicist! He later argues that the universe is something like a hologram, with information about the whole existing in every part.
Of course, no dilettante of physics would be complete without Stephen Hawking, the god of black holes. His book “A Brief History of Time” is a pleasant-to-read, comprehensive overview of physics, starting with some of its philosophical roots (Aristotle), and discussing the evolution of physics, including, of course, our theoretical knowledge of black holes. I fell in love with those mysterious things in grade four, and owe much of the satisfaction—and sparking—of my curiosity to Hawking. Could black holes really lead to other universes? Is that where half of my socks have gone?
Coming back to Earth, dish-washing has become a mental adventure; the dishes feel solid, but are actually mostly empty space interlaced with collapsing probabilities—or something to that effect. (Thank you string theorist Brian Greene, for your description of quantum mechanics). When you are exposed to these ideas, you look at your environment and think, Holy shit, this is awesome. And then you wonder how a physical thing like your brain could produce all these fantastic experiences. And then you pursue something like neurophilosophy.
How has physics for lay people influenced my intellectual development? (1) By giving me mental stimulation, satisfying and provoking my curiosity in the nature of reality, and (2) by showing me that this is the value of science brought to the public. I think that science has a duty to share its findings with the public, and these authors have demonstrably (and admirably) fulfilled that duty. I think the same is true of all academic disciplines; access to what the Ivory Tower is finding can enhance the life quality of the (interested) public. At least, it did for me. And considering the public funds our work, it’s important to give information back to them. In this way, every academic author of books (that I have read) for the common person has affected me.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2012/10/02
1. Where did you acquire your education?
I did my education all over. I went to grade school at various schools in Powell River, Greater Vancouver, and Calgary, including three alternative schools: the Oxford House of Knowledge (an extremely unpretentious place that happened to be on Oxford Street), the Ideal School (which didn’t quite live up to its name but was a big step up from conventional schools), and, in Calgary, the Alternative High School.
I received a B.Sc. in biology at UBC in 1983. Then, after some years of drift, I went back to school in 1988 and studied psychology at Concordia University in Montreal (though I spent a visiting year at Albert Ludwigs Universität in Freiburg, Germany), got my B.A. in psychology in 1992, then spent the next ten years doing my graduate work at SFU.
2. Why did you pursue that field of study? How did psychology interest to you?
I originally intended to be a clinician. I was working in a home for the mentally handicapped in 1988, and was quite burned out, but thought the work was important and wanted to pursue it at a higher level. I thought clinical psychology was the field for me. Of course, that didn’t quite work out.
3. What topics have you researched in your career?
I have researched only a restricted range of topics in my empirical research career. As an undergraduate, I was looking at belief in the paranormal. As a masters student I tried to develop a relatively nonreactive measure of prejudice, then as a doctoral student, I stayed in the area of prejudice, but tried to study whether people use gossip as a technique to incite prejudice in others. Once I started teaching full time, I could only do one project a year, but have looked at things like beliefs about the nature of evil, predictors of people’s car purchase decisions (this was in an environmental context), a couple of studies on system justification theory. My last several studies have had a very striking tendency to produce null results.
4. What areas are you currently researching?
If I can ever get it up and running, I hope to conduct a study on the relationship between narcissism and political attitudes. It’ll be a correlational study, and I’ll probably toss in a whole bunch of variables in the hopes of finding something.
5. How do you engage in research? What methodologies do you employ?
My methodology tends to be very straightforward, either simple correlational studies or experimental studies with just one or two variables manipulated. Most of the time this is done using simple paper-and-pencil measures, but sometimes I’ll do something a little fancier in an attempt to assess implicit cognition.
6. Within the field of psychology, what do you consider the most controversial topics? How do you examine the debates pertaining to these topics?
If one takes “controversial” to mean that everyone has a very strong opinion about the issue, and the opinions aren’t all the same, I would have to say that number one is still the status of psychoanalysis. A determined minority of psychologists still considers Freud half a step below God, a majority seem to think of him as some deluded anti-empirical megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur and no data, and not many psychologists sit on the fence about this. I may be one of them, though. The number of issues on which Freud may have been right is slowly growing in my mind, and I’m not quite as ready to dismiss him as I once was. To be honest, I barely examine this issue at all, though. Just in a few isolated moments I think “Hey! Freud may’ve been right about that!”
Another debate of the same ilk concerns the status of evolutionary thinking in psychology. Relatively few academic psychologists actually deny that human evolution has occurred. The issue is more whether the fact of our having evolved actually furnishes significant insights into current human psychology. This is a thorny issue that I do have to deal with on a fairly regular basis, and I must confess that my strategy here is to read the arguments on both sides, and then come to an informed decision based largely on intuition.
The most troubling argument I have heard goes something like this: “Evolutionary psychology promotes patriarchy.” I don’t think it does; at least, there are a number of feminist evolutionary psychologists out there, one of whom I know personally. Furthermore, having taught evolutionary psychology, I’ve gotten the impression that there is almost no other point of view so very good at making a lot of typical male dominance behaviours look completely ridiculous. Nevertheless, I must admit that, when I go to evolutionary psychology conferences, I do get the impression that the typical evolutionary psychologist is somewhat to the political right of the typical non-evolutionary psychologist.
What disturbs me about the argument though, is the idea that an idea should be suppressed if it has negative consequences, even if it happens to be true. I feel ambivalent about this idea, but tend to think that suppressing potentially true ideas is, if not always wrong, at least almost always wrong. The quest for truth is what got me into academic life in the first place, and I find the idea that we should hide the truth distasteful and potentially destructive.
A third controversy that doesn’t so much play out within psychology but instead between psychologists and other fields in the humanities and social sciences is whether there is such a thing as human nature at all. Most psychologists who are not behaviourists will answer this in the affirmative, but some learning theorists and many anthropologists and sociologists will contend that human behaviour is almost infinitely plastic, and that those who seek to find an enduring core to human nature will find nothing but sand. Given the large number of cross-cultural universals we have found that also seem to be thoroughly anchored in individual human development, I find the idea of an infinitely plastic human nature odd and contrary to all evidence I am aware of. This is not a dispute I spend a lot of time on; I’ve never yet heard a decent argument from the infinite plasticity camp, and so I consider it a big waste of time.
Please note that I am note contending that there is no plasticity; clearly there is. Learning takes place, cultures differ, and the brain rewires itself under certain circumstances. My objection is only to the idea that these processes are so all-encompassing that there is no longer an unchanging core that is resistant to these processes.
7. What do you consider the conventional epistemological framework in psychology?
This is of course hard to summarize in a few words, since we teach whole courses on epistemology to our undergraduates (though we call them “research methods” and “statistics”), and then make our graduate students study more epistemology. So it’s a complicated topic.
Despite this complexity, I may be able to point to a few basic assumptions. First, we tend to assume that there is no great mystery about what people do, only about why they do it. Hence, relatively little energy goes into purely descriptive work, whereas a tremendous amount goes into elucidating the causes of those simple, taken-for-granted behaviours. Thus, we may say that the goal of psychology is to attempt to explain human behaviour in terms of chains, or more likely webs, of cause and effect linkages.
A second mainstream assumption, one not shared by many environmental psychologists, is that these causes have the potential to be isolated from each other. That is, although all competent psychologists (and many incompetent ones as well) are aware that in many everyday situations a large number of causes may be operating at the same time, that it is nevertheless a viable analytical strategy to assume that this complex causal web can be usefully broken up into a number of simple, measurable causes, each of which can be experimented upon or otherwise examined individually.
A third mainstream assumption is that psychological propensities are relatively stable entities that do not change from time to time and place to place. You can see this if you look at the verb tenses in an APA-style article. The description of what was done in the experiment is written in the past tense, indicating (very properly) that the experiment was conducted in the past. The interpretation of the results, however, is written in the simple present indicating that the particular results obtained in the past was a particular manifestation of a broad, general, enduring core of human propensities. Please note that I endorsed the idea of an enduring human nature a few paragraphs back, so I don’t necessarily think this assumption is wrong (though I do think many psychologists’ lists of enduring human propensities are too long, and that a lot of psychological findings are the product of ephemeral culturally and historically situated propensities).
8. If you could restructure the epistemological foundation of psychology, how would you do it? Furthermore, how would you reframe the approach to that foundation?
I think the approach described above has some huge successes to its credit, so I certainly don’t want to see it scrapped or seriously revamped. What I would like to see is greater pluralism in epistemology, a recognition that we don’t really know what that psychological knowledge is, and that we should therefore be tolerant of a fairly wide range of epistemological approaches.
There’s a great section near the end of Kurt Danziger’s Constructing the Subject where Danziger points out that two basic classes of factors go into any psychological finding. One, of course, is the “real” world telling us how it works. The other is social factors (what some people might call artifacts) derived from the way the investigative situation has been set up and interpreted. Looking at any given psychological investigation or even any given psychological research program, it’s not clear how much, if any, of the core finding is “true” rather than a product of the investigative situation. However, if a bunch of people with very different epistemologies that have led them to set up very different investigative situations and interpret them using very different concepts and processes of reasoning nevertheless investigate the same approximate issue and come to the same basic conclusions, then it seems likely that the social factors largely cancel each other out and that that agreed-upon finding is derived from some fairly fundamental feature of the way the world works.
I always thought that this was a cool idea, but it only works if psychology comprises a wide variety of vibrant research programs based on a variety of very different epistemological foundations. A second prerequisite for this to work is that there have to be psychologists willing to look at work from all these different paradigms without to much prejudice to the effect that psychologists working in such-and-such a tradition are not “real” psychologists.
9. If you had unlimited funding, what would you research?
I’m not sure unlimited funding would change the general topics of my research all that much, but it would make the scope of the research projects much greater, and if the funding included course releases, I might also do more than one project a year.
My number one area of interest is summarized by the title of a paper I presented 11 years ago, “If everyone’s an environmentalist, why are SUVs selling so well?” There is a big disconnect between people’s stated concern for environmental issues and what they actually do, and I would love to explore that a little more. The question of discrepancies between attitudes and behaviours has been around since at least the 1930s and LaPiere, but in this applied context, there’s a lot more still to learn.
The other area I would love to research a little more is the study of trust, cynicism, and political participation. One of the most frightening trends I’ve seen lately is for young people to disengage from politics more or less completely, to the point where many people (not just the young) know nothing about what the politicians are up to in their name, and then either don’t vote or vote from a position of near total ignorance. The more widespread this becomes, the less politicians are held to account, with the result that the lying, corrupt scumbag politicians who turn people off politics in the first place find it easier to rise to the top without even having to pretend to be decent human beings. A better understanding of why this is happening would be a great thing.
10. What do you consider the most salient point for people to understand about psychology in light of your background, research, and current perspective?
I’m not sure there is a salient core truth about psychology that I can impart. Psychology is a sprawling multi-tentacle monster with no obvious centre and very few widely shared premises. As I indicated above, I consider this a good thing, and maybe would even like to see it become more like this.
After saying that, I have to admit that pluralism makes me a little uncomfortable. I went into psychology thinking that there were a relatively small number of core truths about human nature. That those truths were discoverable, and that psychology either had found or would soon find the way to get at those truths. The truth about human nature would lead to a technology of human nature, which would make the solution of a large number of problems with psychological roots a much more straightforward matter than it currently is. I find it much harder to believe in this now, for two reasons. First, I seriously doubt that psychology is on track to discover many such truths. Second, to the extent that we do have a technology of human behavior, the people who use it are not concerned citizens trying to solve human problems, but rather rich people trying to get richer and powerful people trying to get more powerful. For example, advertisers use a technology of behaviour to induce people to buy goods they don’t need with money they don’t have, which is all right, I guess. However, in the process the advertisers incidentally persuade many people that buying things is the primary route to happiness. We have data suggesting that this is an astonishingly pernicious belief to hold.
11. As you observe academics pursue their careers in search of fame, fortune, and/or utility (personal and/or societal), what course do you recommend for amateur academics? If you perceive pitfalls or benefits in particular reasons for and types of an academic career, can you bring some of these to the fore?
There are a bunch of different people who fall under the heading of amateur academics, and I think different things will bring them utility.
First, there are those who are in the academic world more or less by accident, perhaps even against their will. They`re living at home, and their parents will kick them out unless they either get a job or go to school. So they go to school. Or they`re on their own, but the economy`s bad, so they get student loans and study for a while.
I have a lot of sympathy for people in this situation. I have ‘been there, done that’. As an instructor, I often don`t like having people like this in my class, because their palpable boredom drags down the rest of the class, but I usually manage to avoid blaming them for it. I do have advice for such people: pretend you care. It`s not as good as really caring, of course, but it`s better than simmering in ennui and resentment for four years.
A second group, unfortunately much smaller, is motivated primarily by curiosity. These people don`t need advice. They`re in the right place, their appetite for new information will be satisfied as in almost no other environment, and all they have to do is follow their natural proclivities in order to succeed.
A third group, overlapping with the second, is the glory seekers. They hope to make a name for themselves by making some sort of big discovery, etc. My advice here is more complicated. First, if you`re part of this group, you`d better also be part of the second group, or you`re not going to make it. The process of discovery is so demanding of time and energy that if you don`t enjoy the actual process, you`re not going to get anywhere. Second, I`ve discovered that freedom is overrated.
Let me explain that remark. I`ve discovered that in graduate school, there are two sorts of academic supervisors. One type has a highly active research program on the go, with lots of graduate students and research assistants working on various components of that program. When the new graduate student comes, their range of freedom is severely limited: do they want to plug into this part of the program or that part? The second type of supervisor, for one reason or another, does not have a program of research which the student can plug into. They therefore give the student a great degree of freedom to do what they want. This has the advantage that the student can pursue their true interests, but also the disadvantage that the student gets relatively little guidance, and endlessly seems to be reinventing the wheel. This is a lot of fun for students in the second group, the highly curious, but a bit of a handicap for students in the third group, the glory-seekers, because productivity is likely to be low throughout graduate school and may remain low in their academic career.
12. Who have been the biggest intellectual influences on you?
When looking back on who has exerted the biggest influence on my thinking, it`s remarkable how few are psychologists. My move into social psychology in the early 1990s was inspired by Shelley Taylor, but the longer I stay in the field, the less I actually draw on her ideas. The two books I have read in the last 10 years that have influenced me the most have been Jared Diamond`s Collapse and Robert Putnam`s Making Democracy Work. I`ve traditionally been a big fan of Wittgenstein, though that influence is also waning. Probably the single psychologist who has changed my thinking the most in the last little while is Philip Tetlock with his Expert Political Judgment, which really revitalized my uneasy endorsement of pluralism.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2012/09/22
1. Where did you acquire your education? How did you become interested in Psychology?
My first two years were completed at Kwantlen, back when Kwantlen first separated from Douglas college and was a series of trailers on 140th street. I was a mature student (relatively speaking) and wanted a way out of the boring job I was in. From Kwantlen I went onto UBC to complete my BA in Psychology (was tied for the governor’s general award at Kwantlen, GPA), but lost the award to another student because a few of my courses I had completed were taken at Cap College. At UBC I went on to complete an MA in Counselling Psychology, and I recently completed a PhD through an interdisciplinary faculty in education, the Centre for Cross Faculty Inquiry, which was a more sensible choice for me than a PhD in Counselling Psychology since my research interests had long since strayed from psychotherapy. My advisor though was the same advisor for my Phd as was for my MA, from Counselling Psychology.
2. What topics have you researched in your career?
My Master’s degree looked at the influence of divorce on adolescents – this was in the 1980’s and there actually wasn’t a lot of research at the time on that topic.
3. You recently earned your PhD. What did you research? How do the results extend into larger society?
My research looked at how young adults who describe themselves as spiritual but not religious, assess and critically reflect upon their spiritual beliefs. The research questions were twofold: what were young adults’ beliefs, and secondly, how did they critically reflect upon them. The second research question utilized King and Kitchener’s reflective judgment model to interpret and assess participants’ beliefs.
How do the results extend into the larger society? We found that participants scored at about the norm for their age and education level, but having said that, were alarmed at how participants’ beliefs seemed tentative and were not grounded into their personal philosophies. Hanan Alexander (2002) points out that “today’s spiritual seekers experience their moral intuitions as fragmented and ungrounded” (p. x) and comments that part of a spiritual exploration is asking big questions, meaning of life questions, the type of questions that typically include pondering the nature of goodness. These sorts of questions, and the answers we decide for ourselves, seem particularly relevant for young adults since one’s idea of the nature of goodness can guide both their career and relationship choices. It’s possible then that the kind of spiritual seeking that appears to be so common these days, without some type of intellectual support, inquiry, etc. may be one piece that contributes to the higher rate of depression and anxiety that we see in young adults today. There’s no doubt that institutional religion is no longer a source of undisputed guidance and meaning, more and more people tend to pick and choose their favourite religious pieces, but how effectively can we integrate those pieces into a larger personal philosophy that coheres, has integrity and can provide an authentic source of guidance for ourselves?
4. Other than the social domain, where would you like to take your research?
Well, I suppose the main thrust of my research is that I hope individuals will entertain the idea that one’s epistemological stance bears examination, and that the ideas and personal philosophies we hold outside of the academic world warrant just as much critical examination as the topics we prepare for in an examination. Maybe even more, because, if spiritual beliefs tend to include a notion of what is goodness, then this is a foundational belief that can only benefit from close scrutiny in order to make that belief a lived experience.
5. What do you consider the most controversial research in psychology? How do you examine this research?
In Psychology, hmm – I think actually I’d point to work in Philosophy and its influence on Psychology as a more significant source of controversy, particularly the work by post-modern theorists such as Foucault and Derrida. They’re changing the nature of language and core social concepts – and that’s powerfully influential. Foucault argued that the Social Sciences were the most influential academic area because it is the Social Sciences that produce and institute our cultural ideals, for better or for worse.
6. How have your philosophical views changed over time – in and out of psychology?
I’ve changed from a simple naïve realist to someone who is much more open to ontological possibilities I never would have considered in my thirties. I remain convinced that the method of science is the most powerful epistemological tool available to us, but wonder whether this method may evolve as well, and sometimes ponder whether there are possible realities that the human mind simply has yet to evolve the capacity to comprehend.
I’m also interested in Jonathan Haidt’s (2012) research – who points out that Psychology has solidly been influenced by a rationalist perspective from the time of Plato on – there is a direct line of influence to Piaget and Kohlberg. He argues that so much of human processing is non-rational – and we rationalists overlook this at our peril. My research falls squarely into a rationalist perspective; King and Kitchener were influenced by William Perry, who was influenced by Kohlberg, who was influenced by Piaget. There are researchers who propose a personal epistemology that is more embodied, intuitive, and perhaps I’ve overlooked the importance of this given my rationalist bias.
7. What advice would you give to undergraduate and graduate students aiming for a career in psychology?
Consider what your specific goal is, and if it includes working as a psychotherapist, make sure that you have had lots of opportunities to work in that kind of capacity before you commit. Not everyone is ideally suited to working with other people’s painful experiences, and psychological change is a slow process, successes are measured out in teaspoons.
8. What books, article, and/or people have most influenced your intellectual development?
I quite admire Jonathan Haidt – his book The Righteous Mind (2012) is a timely read given the polarization politically that is so dominant these days.
I admire Charles Taylor’s scholarship and ability to integrate diverse perspectives: A Secular Age (2007) and Sources of the Self (1989).
Foucault’s Madness and Civilization
Richard Rorty and Gianni Vattimo: The Future of Religion, argue a kind of post-modern update of religion, their ideas were brand new for me.
I still like Freud’s Civilization and its Discontents
9. What do you consider the take-home message of your research?
Know thyself? Perhaps not in the true Platonic tradition, but at least Jungian, and while we are blessed to live in multicultural times where the internet exposes us to lots of different perspectives, whatever ideals we choose we need to make our own, and that’s best achieved through the hard work of critical inquiry as well ensuring that our beliefs also become our lived experience.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2012/08/07
1. What is your current position in the Psychology Faculty?
I’m currently full time faculty and chair of the department.
2. Where did you acquire your education? What did you pursue in your studies?
I did my undergrad work in Nova Scotia at Mount St. Vincent U, although there is (was) an interuniversity agreement there where many courses can be taken at Dalhousie, Saint Mary’s, or the Mount and simply count at the other universities, so I took many courses at the other schools. At Dal and SMU I did quite a bit of philosophy and religious studies, some bio at Dal, some behavioural stuff at SMU, etc. It’s actually quite a good system. All the universities are within about a ½ hour drive of each other, offer diverse courses, and there are a minimum of administrative obstacles.
I got edjamacated ‘cause I was working with children and teenagers with the equivalent of the Ministry of Children and Families and the Provincial Attorney General (with teens who had been incarcerated) in Alberta and realized that to have more influence I would need some university education (I had obtained a diploma). Mt. St. Vincent had one of Canada’s only two programs for working with children (Bachelor of Child Studies – BCS) and so I sent back there to pick up that credential.
3. What originally interested you in Psychology? If your interest evolved, how did your interest change over time to the present?
As part of the BCS, we were required to complete a substantial number of bio and psych courses, and I became interested in psychology, subtype developmental psychology, specifically child language development. I completed my BCS, then did a BSc Honours in Psych (minors in Math/Stats and Biology), and started a Masters in Education (I picked this up in my last year of my Honours as extra courses) and completed all the coursework but not the project. I was subsequently awarded an NSERC, and some other money, and was accepted into the MA at Simon Fraser, so abandoned my MEd to come out here. I kind of wish I had finished the MEd now – but I really just didn’t see the necessity at the time. Because of its emphasis on counselling and testing I could have used it to become registered in BC – it would have opened some doors. Can’t y’all just seem me as a therapist? Hmmm, that’s scary.
At any rate, I originally went to SFU because it was supposed to get some equipment to do acoustical analyses of language (which at the time was about a $60K piece of equipment called a Sonograph, and today you can do the same thing with an A-D board that costs less than $100), and I had done my Honours Project on “An acoustical analysis of pre-lexical child utterances in pragmatically constrained contexts” (or something like that and wanted to continue that work.) However, the equipment fell through, so I switch to perception. I did my MA thesis in perception on the question of the order of visual processing (what do you process first, the global scene and then analyze for the bits, or the bits first and then synthesize them into the whole scene: the Global-Local question).
I began my PhD in perception, but then met Dr. Bruce Whittlesea, and became interested in memory theory, so I switched to that area and completed my PhD in his lab. I did my dissertation on Repetition Blindness in Rapid Serial Visual Presentation Lists (an examination of the phenomenon that you tend not to see repetitions of words in quickly presented word lists).
Since my PhD I have become interested in how the blind spot gets filled in, subjective contours, retrieval induced forgetting, and for a brief time, the science underlying neuropsych testing.
4. Since your time as an undergraduate student, what are the major changes in the curriculum? What has changed regarding the conventional ideas?
Wow, that’s a hard one – so much has happened in so many areas. When I started as an undergrad (back when dinosaurs roamed the earth with people), the areas then are usually considered the “core” areas now. These included methods, stats, measurement theory, bio, social, developmental, cognitive, and behavioural in the experimental areas, and testing, abnormal, and therapy in the clinical areas. We had rat labs in intro – every student got two rats and we ran experiments on the rats and wrote the experiments up in the lab books (something like doing chem labs. Then we got to kill them). Consciousness was not discussed – that was akin to studying magic. Evolutionary Psych did not exist (although its precursor, sociobiology did). Although Kuhn had published his controversial book “The structure of scientific revolutions”, his ideas were discussed but, I think, not taken to heart by most scientists. Later, with other philosophers of science (e.g., Feyerabend, Lakoff), publishing works that in some ways augmented his, our assumptions and views of even methodologies changed. Of course, change your assumptions, change your methods, and you change your field. Things loosened up considerably. Areas of enquiry and the acceptable methods and what could count as reasonable data become much more encompassing, and thus new areas of psychology emerged. We certainly didn’t have courses on sex, for example, or prejudice, cultural, gender (other than straight up sex differences, other aspects of that field would have been taught in “Women’s Studies”), and the list goes ever on.
When I attended university there were upper level specialty courses in Psycholinguistics (Chomsky) – a brilliant, complex theory of language (particularly, syntax and transformations, and semantics), Piaget and Vygotsky, behaviour, modification (applied behavior analysis), parallel and distributed processing, and other things that are now of historical interest, but at the time were all the rage.
5. Many students graduating with a Psychology degree will not pursue careers in Psychology. What are your thoughts on this?
That’s great – I think society needs people who have broad understanding of the principles of psychology in a wide variety of positions. Psychologists tend to be quite well trained in methodology and stats, and this certainly enhances their ability to think about things methodological – certainly one of the pillars of good critical thinking.
Perhaps some of those folks with a good educational underpinning in critical thinking could go into politics? That would be awesome. It would be good to have some folks in government who can actually think.
Psychology interfaces well with Law: Again, the methodological and thinking skills can be brought to bear.
6. Kwantlen is attempting to expand that research on campus. What are the current attempts to expand research on campus? What is the progress of those attempts?
I know there is a real push to expand research at Kwantlen. Outside of Psych I’m afraid I’m not very knowledgeable about what’s going on. However, in the psych department we have many faculty who have active research programs, within Kwantlen and in collaborating with other universities and agencies. Several have international reputations. Given the level of funding, and our workload in teaching and service, I am pretty impressed at the level of research many of faculty in psych are managing.
7. If Kwantlen provided incentives via funding (grants), would you be interested in conducting research at Kwantlen?
Grants might be nice – along with time release for doing research. However, in my case, a lot of what I need is tech support. Many of the kinds of experiments I want to do require substantial expertise in programming and integrating output from different technologies. I haven’t done any programming in over 20 years now, and everything has changed (and what I did then was on MAC), and I don’t really have the inclination to take a year or two to learn to do it well. I have quite a few (I think) fairly good ideas for studies, but without substantial tech support, I’m afraid, I won’t be the one to be doing them.
And, I’m getting a tad long in the tooth to retool for a substantial research career. It would likely take me 1-2 years to get up to speed in a new area, and that pretty much puts me at retirement age. So, I just like doing what I think is interesting “stuff|” with like-minded students, at a very pedestrian pace.
8. To you, what are the most controversial areas of Psychology? Why do you (and your colleagues) consider them controversial? What are your personal views on them?
Lol – that’s a good one. I certainly won’t speak for my colleagues because I often play in the sandbox pretty much by myself.
Put 6 psychologists in a room and have them discuss any topic and you’ll get at least 7 positions. Except for perhaps bio, some descriptive developmental, low end sensation (which is pretty much bio), some social, and some behavioural, most areas of psych are pretty controversial, although there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of controversy – we just choose to ignore the difficulties and bung on ahead. And, for the most part, it doesn’t matter too much – we live in our little bubbles and every once in a while something we do becomes useful, and the rest of the time it doesn’t matter too much and it’s an excellent theoretical and intellectual exercise. Even in things like method and stats, there are different opinions on what is appropriate and why and how things should be interpreted, and so on. Don’t get me wrong, I think that in the long run what we do will become incredibly important, when we get to a certain point and it becomes integrated. All of it contributes to that corpus of knowledge, and even if wrong is very important. We learn most, I think, when we find we are wrong in interesting ways – and that really does entail controversy.
Where I get my knickers in a twist is when what we do has real implications for real people, and we are less than totally rigorous. I remember the “repressed memory” debacle, in which folks were sent to jail on the basis of testimony by psychologists. It turned out to be, what word am I looking for here, ah right, “crap”, and it ruined people’s lives. That has now turned from the repressed/false memory debate into the “dissociative identity disorder” debate. That is pretty controversial (at least in some circles).
And how about the “facilitated communication” debacle (there was, perhaps is still, even an Institute for Facilitated Communication at Syracuse, NY) – again, folks lives were ruined. Now, as before, psychologists fixed that through continued study (although not before being hired by a lawyer to see if it “really” worked), but much damage had been done. But that was a few years ago, and we tend to forget our past errors.
Another area that doesn’t seem to get much controversy, but perhaps should, is the use of certain measure of psychopathy. They are, as I understand it, being used outside of the parameters in which they were developed, and people’s lives are being profoundly affected by them. One girl (17 I think) was declared a Dangerous Offender and put in prison indefinitely based on misdemeanour crimes and her score on “the” checklist and the testimony of some “psychologist” or other. This was subsequently overturned in the Supreme Court of Canada, but again, damage had been done. What I find controversial is, where was the psychological community in expressing outrage over this travesty? Let me guess, the same as we usually hear from the Department of Foreign Affairs, “working quietly behind the scenes”.
The problem with Psychology is the same problem we have with Medicine and biochemistry, just worse. Very few people understand it, and it is complicated stuff (which is why I don’t understand why most folks think psych is some kind of a bird discipline that anyone and his dog could do). Psychologists are human, they want to have their moment in the sun, and money, and they say stuff and people believe it – without trying to critically evaluate it, and often in the absence of the ability to critically evaluate it. Sometimes it makes no difference. Whether memory is a series of stages or structures or is a set of differentially instantiable processes based on some form of information harmonic in the current circumstance is a very interesting question but is not likely to affect too many folks’ lives in the immediate future. So if people ignore the debate and believe one thing or the other makes little difference. However, the same cannot be said for so many other areas.
So, I guess that I think that much of psych is controversial. But that’s not a bad thing – it’s just that we should acknowledge that much of it is controversial not take ourselves too seriously. We are young, some 130 years old. Much of Physics is controversial as well – is the speed of light the limit of particle movement in the universe outside of the movement of the universe itself? (Although this result seems to be the result of a loose cable connection). Are there bosons? We speak of mass and gravity, but what the hell are they? Do causes always precede effects? What is the nature of time? Lots of debates = controversy. That is the stuff of science.
9. What do you consider the prevailing philosophical foundation of Psychology? If you differ, what is your personal philosophical framework?
Wow – you know how to pick your questions.
First, I don’t think there is ONE philosophical foundation in psychology any more. We are all linked by our methodologies – but even those are much more diverse than before. Not too many years ago, anything that remotely smelled like qualitative methodology was looked at askance by most experimental psychologists. Now, in our own department, we find there are several faculty using these methods, and the rest of us still associate with them, if begrudgingly… (Ok, joke).
Some years ago most of us would likely have identified as some variant of positivist, but now I suspect that, again, it’s much more diverse, and many might identify as cognitive relativists. I don’t even know how many of us would identify as ontological objectivists (philosophical realists) anymore. Actually, this is an interesting question, and I could see an honours project in some variant of this issue.
So, if we’re looking for the kinds of underpinning that really links us altogether I guess (hope) it would be some lip service to the general tenets of “science” and empiricism (although I have to wonder, when in our ethics – provided to us by the tricouncil guidelines, developed by “scientists” – we are to ensure the “spiritual” safety of our subjects – whatever that is: I just want some variant of quasi-objective measure of “spiritual well-being”). Perhaps there are more Cartesian Dualists out there than I would have thought. (Still the issue of measurement, though). There is no specific set of methods on which we all agree, no set of criteria to which we hold ourselves – but perhaps a Wittgensteinian language-game understanding of the word “science” is broadly descriptive, and perhaps good enough.
10. To you, who are the most influential Psychologists? Why are they the most influential to you?
I wish I were better read in psychology so I could better answer this question. I have great admiration for Skinner. I think he got the short end of the stick in evaluation of his debate with Chomsky (who I think is likely one of the brightest puppies to walk, crawl, or slither on the earth today – although I have always disagreed with virtually all of his psychology – considered “state of the art” when I was going to university: psycholinguistics, the pre-eminence of syntax, the existence of a language acquisition device, etc.). I think that Skinner’s contribution to psychology has been undervalued, and that much of his work may well reincarnate later in our history. I really liked the “tightness” of Skinner’s work: methodologically sounds, often insightful while being atheoretic, clever. I think he was a bit of an idealist and I don’t think his idea of Walden 2 would ever fly, but an interesting idea. I got an appreciation of Skinner’s work when I studied under one of his grads, Ron vanHouten.
I was also quite influenced by Vygotsky’s work “Thought and Language.” In particular he has helped shape my understanding of the relationships between thought, language, semiotics, and pragmatics, in a developmental context.
Of course, there are many psychologists in my own areas that have influenced my thinking. My advisor, Bruce Whittlesea, is certainly one of these. You cannot work closely with someone for a few years without walking away influenced. There are also big names – Tulving, Jacoby, etc. I tend to think about human processing in “Transfer Appropriate Processing” terms (a la, Bransford, Franks, Morris, & Stein). However, someone who is not so well known, Paul Kolers (Procedures of Mind, Mechanisms of Mind) has most influenced me in terms of thinking about theories of the types of processing that occur in mind. And Gibson’s notion of affordances always haunts my thought when I bend it to thought and action.
A number of philosophers; Carnap (logical positivism), Quine (ontological relativism and the underdetermination of theories), Popper (falsificationism), Nagel (philosophy of science, antireductionism re consciousness), Putnam (excellent discourses on reductionism and functionalism), and other philosophers of science (such as Russell) have probably had more influence on my thought about the nature of theories (in particular, cognitive theories) than psychologists. It’s kind of the difference between methods and substantive areas. The method is paramount; the understanding of the substantive area follows from the understanding of the method.
So, the short answer is: gee, I don’t know. It’s all pretty much a swirl.
11. Finally, many Psychology students are interested to know, do you know anyone famous within Psychology?
I’ve met several, and spoken with them, but I would not say that I “know” them. We would not even count as acquaintances, although quite a few are nice and say “hi” to me at conferences.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HawkeyeAssociates.Ca
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2021/06/26
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson is a Registered Doctoral Psychologist with expertise in Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, and Human Resource Development. He earned qualifications in Social Work too. Duly note, he has five postsecondary degrees, of which 3 are undergraduate level. His research interests include memes as applied to self-knowledge, the evolution of religion and spirituality, the aboriginal self’s structure, residential school syndrome, prior learning recognition and assessment, and the treatment of attention deficit disorder and suicide ideation. In addition, he works in anxiety and trauma, addictions, and psycho-educational assessment, and relationship, family, and group counselling.
Here we talk about the web of life.Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You characterize life as a web. New weaves added while others removed or changed in the web of life. To a more general point, why does psychological writing rely so heavily on metaphor? Does this reflect, in a way, the amount known while the huge amount not known about the human mind’s dynamics while also the importance of immediate conveyance in meaning in spite of it? Do psychotherapy and counselling amount to controlled-environment, systematic rituals for clients with therapists?Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: Metaphor is a kind of mental scaffolding that allows us to explore new concepts using more established, well understood ones. Metaphor predominates in psychology because it is a new science playing catch-up. We might blame Rene Descartes and his Faustian bargain with the Roman Catholic Church for this. Cartesian dualism held that the natural world could be understood by science and reason, but the mind or soul could only be understood from divine revelation. This dualism likely contributed to Descartes avoiding the censorship and imprisonment faced by his contemporary, Galileo, but the notion that the study of mind was beyond the ken of science set back psychology by about 200 years.In the newspaper column you cited I said each of us builds a mental structure of significant others that supports our self definition as a person. This structure can be compared to a spider’s web with each foundational thread representing a significant other. When a foundational person dies, our mental web collapses and we must re-weave it in accordance with this new reality. Such a metaphor is useful in understanding the purpose and task of grieving, but it is not as useful in understanding who we are in other contexts. In mapping the self more recently (Robertson, 2016; Robertson and McFadden, 2018), I have shown that who we are is more than the relationships we have established. I have also shown how complexes of memes that initially exist outside our selves can appropriate our resources after becoming attached (mind virus; woke virus). Metaphor helps us to understanding new phenomena by scaffolding new information on concepts that are already understood, but we need to be cognizant of the probability that the new phenomena also differ from the metaphoric concept in some ways. While mind viruses are like physical viruses in that they can only propagate from inside a host, as non-physical agents they avoid the limitations of proximity required by their natural world cousins.With respect to your second question, I hope that psychologists do not descend to prescribing set piece rituals. While I believe that we as human beings benefit from ritual, and we may suggest clients consider enacting a meaningful ritual in a given situation, it would be unethical to prescribe any specific ritual. Grieving, in this example, is not the ritual; it is the culturally mandated practices associated with grieving that are ritualized. Psychologists need to be able to transcend such practices. For example, I have helped individuals who have been unable, for psychological reasons, to attend funerals of loved one by assisting them to identify individualized alternatives. Our project is to transcend both ritual and culture where necessary for the well-being of the individual by helping our clients choose from menus of new possibilities.Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Robertson.
References
Robertson, L. H. (2016). Self-Mapping in Counselling: Using Memetic Maps to Enhance Client Reflectivity and Therapeutic Efficacy. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 50(3), 332-347.Robertson, L. H. (2017). The infected self: Revisiting the metaphor of the mind virus. Theory & Psychology, 27(3): 354-368.Robertson, L.H., & McFadden, R.C. (2018). Graphing the Self: An Application of Graph Theory to Memetic Self-mapping in Psycotherapy. International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1), 34-58. doi: 10.17583/rimcis.2018.3078Citation: Robertson, L. H. (2021). Year of the virus: Understanding the contagion effects of wokism. In-sight, 26(B). Retrieved from https://in-sightjournal.com/2021/02/22/wokism/
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HawkeyeAssociates.Ca
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2021/06/04
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson is a Registered Doctoral Psychologist with expertise in Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, and Human Resource Development. He earned qualifications in Social Work too. Duly note, he has five postsecondary degrees, of which 3 are undergraduate level. His research interests include memes as applied to self-knowledge, the evolution of religion and spirituality, the aboriginal self’s structure, residential school syndrome, prior learning recognition and assessment, and the treatment of attention deficit disorder and suicide ideation. In addition, he works in anxiety and trauma, addictions, and psycho-educational assessment, and relationship, family, and group counselling.
Here we talk about self-esteem, psychology, old articles, and socio-psychological phenomena.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We have commented briefly on “The Age of Psychology,” “Epidemic of Low Self-Esteem,” “Crazy Making in Our Communities,” “schizophrenia,” “From Lloydminster to Lenningrad,” and religious fundamentalism. It has been a small bit since the commentary. What are some developments on the views there for you?
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: You certainly delved into my personal ancient history for this question, Scott. “The Age of Psychology” was the first column I wrote prior to the millennium for the now defunct newspaper The Northerner. My intent was to show how pervasive applied psychology is in our lives, for both good and ill. I do not think that has fundamentally changed in the intervening decades. You have actually linked six articles I wrote from that era, and I am guessing that you see them connected in some way. I think they all relate to how we interpret the world, creating and maintaining our worldviews.
My views on the “epidemic” of self-esteem have become more nuanced since I wrote that article. While low self-esteem continues to be an issue often confronted by counselling psychologists, and I continue to recommend that parents find the good and positive in their children, the “epidemic” label has led people to become afraid of giving balanced and constructive feedback. This has resulted in a disconnect between subjective and objective reality. For example, U.S. students typically score higher on measures of mathematical self-concept as compared to Chinese students but the Chinese students score higher on measures of mathematical achievement. The result is that many U.S. Americans do not know what they do not know, but they think they are doing just fine – not cognisant that they are being outclassed by the Chinese.
In North America we have witnessed grade inflation to maintain student self-esteem. In an example of this, I case-conferenced with a teacher to discuss reading problems with his adult upgrading class in a northern community college. “But they all have marks in language arts above 80%,” I said. “I know,” he replied, “I helped them get good marks by reading the questions to them and by helping them with their answers”
The teacher said that about a third of his students were functionally illiterate, and he wanted to know what he could do to help them. I suggested he could begin by giving honest feedback. Students need to know their strengths and weaknesses so that they can dedicate their efforts to overcoming those weaknesses. This unfortunate teacher sensed that for these students it was already too late – that they did not have the skills to handle such constructive feedback.
The flip-side of the over-zealous application of the self-esteem movement is mental fragility. Students have been taught that they can be whatever they want to be, but the self that is then created is fragile. Sooner or later reality impinges on illusions. We now have the word “micro-aggression” to describe and defend against that experience. When someone, usually inadvertently, says or does something to challenge a fragile worldview, the fragile self at the core is taught to feel the experience as a micro-aggression. Lashing out with defensive anger and hatred, they demand apologies, community censorship, even firings. If these demands are met they feel vindicated with their fragile selves affirmed.
The other four articles you referenced, Scott, all have to do with how people create and enforce dysfunctional realities. “Crazy making” describes a woman who, after being convinced by an abusive family and community that she was crazy, began displaying symptoms of schizophrenia. “Schizophrenia” describes a common reverse process – people who actually suffer from the disease refusing to take their medication because they believe that they no longer have the condition. “Lloydminster to Leningrad” describes the ways two racists, separated by distance and time, held on to their anti-Semitic beliefs in the face of evidence. “Fundamentalism” describes how a religious congregation attempted to shut down La Ronge’s only bookstore for carrying the wrong kind of books.
As a society we made considerable progress in combating racism, supporting people with mental health problems, and in promoting free speech and the diversity of ideas. I fear a new dark age where society is being re-racialized through identity politics, gaslighting is occurring at a societal scale to challenge our ability to think objectively, and authors and academics are being “de-platformed” so their ideas cannot be heard.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HawkeyeAssociates.Ca
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/04/16
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson is a Registered Doctoral Psychologist with expertise in Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, and Human Resource Development. He earned qualifications in Social Work too. Duly note, he has five postsecondary degrees, of which 3 are undergraduate level. His research interests include memes as applied to self-knowledge, the evolution of religion and spirituality, the aboriginal self’s structure, residential school syndrome, prior learning recognition and assessment, and the treatment of attention deficit disorder and suicide ideation. In addition, he works in anxiety and trauma, addictions, and psycho-educational assessment, and relationship, family, and group counselling.
Our guest today is Teela Robertson, M.C., who earned a B.A. in Psychology from MacEwan University and an M.C. in Counselling Psychology from Athabasca University. She has been a Board Member of the Center to End All Sexual Exploitation (CEASE), and a Transitional Support Worker through the E4C Youth Housing Program. Now, she is a Registered Provisional Psychologist with a non-profit community agency.
Here we talk about religion and individuality, innervation of beliefs into professional practice, empowerment, and more.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Lloyd, in “Ask Dr. Robertson (and Teela) 14 — Adlered with Eclecticism: A Confidence of Riches,” you stated, “There is a tension between psychology and religion that is often not recognized and is even less often addressed, and that tension stems from conflicting worldviews.” How does religion undermine “client individuality, empowerment, and self-actualization”?
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: In my new book The Evolved Self that will be coming out September 15, I discuss how the “modern self” capable of individual volitional planning is a cultural artefact that evolved prior to the “Axial Age” when most of the great religions of the world came into being. I make the argument that religion was effectively a way to keep the individualism inherent in having a self in check, to keep the collectivism of humans as social animals paramount. Traditionally, Christians have been taught that the self is wicked and must be denied. Buddhists proclaim that the self is the source of all suffering and they proclaim a doctrine of “no-self.” Confucian teaching subjugates the self to the family and tradition. The word “Islam” means “submission” or “surrender.” Although, it came later in mankind’s cultural evolution; its roots are in traditional Judaism. In each case, the self is something to be given up in favour of a reality defined by the dogma and leaders of the religion. This places those leaders in the role of defining the will of the collectivity.
Contrary to Foucault’s teaching, the self did not come in to being with the European Enlightenment. What the Enlightenment did was proclaim that the notion of objective reality that could be discerned by the individual was a good thing, instead of fearing the individual self, the Enlightenment embraced it. This led to an outpouring of ideas and objective inquiry, and the scientific revolution it spawned is still on-going today.
Psychology came late to the scientific revolution, in part because it was actively repressed by religions, more so than other fields of objective inquiry. All psychotherapies start from the premise of the client as an individual with unique experiences, interpretations and social relations. The client is then empowered to make changes to themselves in keeping with those experiences, interpretations and social relationships. The very act of empowerment supports the ability of the person as an individual to make such decisions. Positive Psychologists, in particular, have come under criticism for undermining collective societies. What do they do that is so undermining? They ask the client what is meaningful for him or herself and they ask what would make them happy.
Jacobsen: Teela, you said, “When the beliefs of the psychologist and client do not align, we not only have to be aware of where our biases come in, but also the limits to our knowledge about the client’s belief system.” What is an example of this innervation of the beliefs and biases of the counselling psychologist in practice? A hypothetical case extrapolation from practical experience would suffice, too.
Teela Robertson, M.C.: An example of this might be a similar situation to what my dad described in our last interview where a therapist has taken a course on a culture, let’s say North American Aboriginal people, and believes they now have good understanding and make assumptions based on what they have learned. Engaging in this type of practice negates the individuality of lived experiences as well as aspects unique to each community. To further this example, let’s say the therapist is an atheist and the client is a devout practicing Christian, the therapist has a role to try and be aware of any assumptions they hold about the client’s culture and beliefs and differences between them and the client. In this case, a therapist rejecting a client’s use of prayer or church simply due to a belief. It is a fable and ineffective would not be helpful if it would damage the rapport built with the client. On a cultural front, a therapist assuming an Aboriginal client should turn to traditional healing, or connect with elders without knowing how that client feels about and connects with their own culture could be damaging. I have found in practice it is best to ask clients what things mean to them and to hear about their practices before inserting assumptions and interpretations.
Jacobsen: Teela, why does Canadian culture teach men to refuse showing ‘weak’ emotions, including the aforementioned sadness or anxiety, or even to name the feelings?
Teela Robertson, M.C.: The societal failure to teach men it is acceptable and normal to have and express the full range of emotions seems to come from times past. It can be demonstrated in statements many, even women, have heard growing up such as “stop crying”, “man up”, “I’ll give you something to cry about”. These statements are all telling children it is not acceptable to feel and express their emotions. In turn, children may come to believe it is wrong for them to cry. That to be a man they need to be tough and that means not crying. Instead, anger becomes a more acceptable emotion to show and those deeper emotions come out looking like anger. I don’t know that I have a good answer to why this has been taught.
Jacobsen: Lloyd, what is the impact of Male Stigma, as preliminarily researched by you, on the full expressive range of the emotions of men?
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: One of the common experiences of men in my stigma study was that when they attempted to express their negative emotions about how they were abused by the justice system, child welfare agencies, employers and even neighbours who assumed men are perpetrators and women are victims. They were told by feminists, both male and female, to “man up” or “be a man.” The message is clear. Men are asked to share their emotions, with the suggestion that they are unwell if they don’t, but they can only share those emotions which are acceptable to the prevailing ideology. This put them in a double bind — they were blamed for not sharing their emotions and they were blamed when they did.
Jacobsen: Lloyd, following from the last query, how are young and old, men and women, and so on, culpable for this prevention of the full flourishing of men’s emotional lives in Canadian society?
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: The repression of emotions in men is very old indeed. Male circumcision was practiced by numerous ancient societies as a rite of passage. Boys had to bear the pain without crying to become a man. The practice also taught the new men submission to the collectivity in a way that made them good warriors. Curiously, we still do not commonly refer to the practice of circumcision as “male genital mutilation.”
In a different interview, I talked about my experiences as a youth growing up in the industrial town of Lloydminster. I talked about how men knowingly kept jobs that they knew were dangerous to their health and well-being because they needed to support their families. Even today men predominate in jobs that are dangerous, unhealthy or involve a lot of travel. And if they get paid more for working in these jobs, then there is talk about a “gender wage gap.” Men are expected to take these jobs without complaint and, apparently, to not be paid extra for the privilege. Yes, we as a society are still just as culpable for repressing male emotions as we always have been. The problem with that repression is that it sometimes comes out anyway, as anger.
Jacobsen: Teela, following from the previous question, how does this impact the emotional, social, and even, potentially, intellectual growth of men in Canada?
Teela Robertson, M.C.: It seems to me many people, not only men, end up struggling to show and communicate emotions whether theirs or someone else’s. This can be damaging in relationships where one might feel they should not express emotions, and that their feelings are not being heard or validated. If we do not know how to express our emotions, we may instead be fighting them and trying to keep them down. We may also feel uncomfortable with others’ emotions and end up sending a message that they cannot express emotions to us, which in turn hurts emotional closeness in relationships. Rather than simply disappearing the negative emotion may fester and each seemingly small pain adds to the point the emotion boils over and can not be hidden. This can be dangerous depending how the emotion erupts, for instance, it could be in the form of physical violence, or a verbal assault.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Robertson and Teela.
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: You’re welcome Scott. My pleasure.
Teela Robertson, M.C.: You are welcome.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HawkeyeAssociates.Ca
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/12/25
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson is a Registered Doctoral Psychologist with expertise in Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, and Human Resource Development. He earned qualifications in Social Work too. Duly note, he has five postsecondary degrees, of which 3 are undergraduate level. His research interests include memes as applied to self-knowledge, the evolution of religion and spirituality, the aboriginal self’s structure, residential school syndrome, prior learning recognition and assessment, and the treatment of attention deficit disorder and suicide ideation. In addition, he works in anxiety and trauma, addictions, and psycho-educational assessment, and relationship, family, and group counselling.
Here we talk about advertising and marketing.
*Listing of previous sessions with links at the end of the interview.*
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You spoke on advertising and marketing deluging our consciousnesses throughout or modern lives. How can education and individual initiative, and conscientious, protect against some of these negative forces?
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: If you think that advertising is about announcing new products, then you are vulnerable. Advertising is rarely about announcing a new product, and even when it is, it is about pushing your buttons to buy that product. We think we are freely choosing a product or service, but as I have argued previously free will is largely an illusion (see: Free Will), and can only be exercised in a limited way by having objective knowledge of relevant conditions. If we are primed to buy, vote or otherwise interact by unconscious triggering, then we are not exercising free will.
A recent television ad reveals how this works. The ad begins with the upbeat rock tempo of Barracuda, a song about a sexually aggressive woman who trolls men. With this music in the background two young men offer, “Shopping while hungry… is a dangerous game.” We then see a short, plump and wide eyed woman drinking a brown liquid from a bottle while frantically pushing a shopping cart down a grocery aisle. We then see several actors including one who is rubbing her pregnant belly soulfully repeating the phrase, “Shop like a mother.” We don’t know whether the woman who was drinking chocolate milk while shopping is a mother, a barracuda or both. But here I am exhibiting the uniquely human trait of finding relationships where none exist. We are given four disjointed memes without a defined storyline. If any one of those memes (classic rock from a women’s band, men referencing shopping as “a dangerous game,” anxious shopper, or motherhood) connect our subconscious with the supermarket in question, then we will think of that store when the trigger meme presents (For a discussion of this mechanism see: Mind Virus). Unlike this example, most advertisements have some sort of narrative, but the narrative is not the part of the ad that programs you to buy, shop, or act in a way intended by the advertiser. It is the memes imbedded in the ad that are the activating agents.
You may think that when that expensive $2.5 million T.V. ad comes on during an all important football game, you ignore it and go to the fridge for a beer. What brand of beer? I am old enough to remember when European beers outsold U.S. beers which were commonly compared to dishwater in Canadian pubs. But after an extensive long-term multimedia campaign that including identification with Canada’s national game (hockey), one of those foreign brands has become dominant in the Canadian market. More money is spent producing television advertising than is spent on the programs that attract you to the T.V., because it works on targeted consumers. Psychologists have become mental technicians using sophisticated eye-tracking and brain wave experiments as well as surveys and focus groups to help the corporate elite push your buttons. They are using your dreams, desires and subconscious triggers to sell you stuff that you otherwise might not want.
Sometimes they use fear. We are all familiar with negative political advertising. A rival is painted as having a “secret agenda” or as having a questionable past. The same technique may be used in marketing. One European carmaker, promoting its reputation for safety, weakened the structure in a selection of competitor’s vehicles while reinforcing their own beyond production standards to produce an ad where rollovers produced disproportionate damage in North American vehicles. Safety fears would then drive customers to their brand.
Negative advertising has also been applied to the sale of foods. The phrase “health food” is used to imply that competing products are not healthy. One “health food” chain actually developed an aerosol spray which they used daily in their stores to mimic the smell of 19th-century grocery stores with the implied assumption people used to eat healthier. The so-called health food industry became a victim of its own success. The established chains began selling the same products with lower overhead, but the emphasis on negative advertising remained. Goods are now often promoted on the basis of what they do not contain instead of what they do contain. Going “gluten free” or “lactose free” is a necessity for people who are allergic to those products but of little import on most of us; and, the alternatives are often more expensive with less nutritional value. For example, while almonds have been shown to have similar nutritional value to milk, less than 2% of “almond milk” is actually almonds. The product is essentially coloured water.
Advertisers do not always succeed. A company selling shaving products recently ran a series of ads degrading masculinity as “toxic.” While the ad won favour with a particular political lobby, it offended a large percentage of the constituency that buys most of their products. Sales plummeted, and the company replaced the offending advertisements with ones that celebrated masculinity demonstrating that consumers have the capacity to defy advertisers.
You asked how we may avoid the negative effects of advertising, Scott. We need to do more than simply not buy a product when we are offended. Simply turning off the remote is insufficient because it only results in advertisers increasing their saturation through multiple mediums. The amount of advertising space on television has more than doubled in the last 35 years, and on U.S. channels you can be deluged with 12 minutes of advertising in a 30-minute slot. You may have noticed they also turn up the volume to ensure that if you don’t see the ad you will at least hear it. Ads appear on shopping carts, parking meters and even electronically triggered above urinals. The cartoons that used to introduce movies were replaced by advertising long ago. My internet provider asked me if I wanted to stop seeing an ad, and when I hit the “yes” button, it then asked me why. And my computer was frozen until I answered the question! The cost of all this advertising is built into the price you pay for the product.
One way to protect yourself from advertisers is to avoid buying heavily advertised products. A more sophisticated variation of this strategy is to know your triggers and refuse to buy from advertisers who push those buttons. For example, the majority of males are attracted to women. If this is one of your buttons, refuse to buy from an advertiser who pushes it. Many feminists miss, but most men know that the attractive woman with the .7 waist to hip ratio selling overpriced consumer products is not selling sex but status. By noticing men with high-status women are, in fact determining the status level of men. Men who lack status, such as the 90% in prisons who are men, the 80% who are homeless, the 75% who commit suicide, and the 50% who are victims of domestic violence are invisible to most women. The promise of the advertisers pushing this button is that if you purchase this overpriced product, you will demonstrate status. I know of one of the federal political leaders has two Rolex watches. Even one Rolex is an excessive display of wealth similar, in kind, to a peacock displaying his feathers to the peahen. Both men and women have sex and status buttons but they also have the power to ignore advertiser’s attempts to push them.
The ultimate answer is to research each competing product comparing quality and price. For example, we could research the nutritional value of a variety of foods and match these foods against our own nutritional needs. We then may add additional factors such as taste and price in making a decision. Unfortunately, we do not have the time to sufficiently research every product we buy. We are forced to rely on heuristics.
Some people simply buy the cheapest. While this is often this a good policy, you could be sacrificing quality. You could also be sacrificing your long-term interest. U.S. “transnationals” are famous for undercutting local companies only to jack up prices when the competition is gone. This not only hurts consumers but leads to a loss of jobs and often to a reduced tax base.
We become creatures of habit almost by necessity. We buy the same brands until we have reason to change that decision. If this is your profile, then compare shopping with others from time to time, looking for alternative opinions to research. Knowing that we become largely creatures of habit, advertisers target children. Soft drink companies vie for the school market. The Pepsi-Cola company has “donated” sports equipment, and Coca-Cola has “donated” scoreboards in exchange for the right to have vending machines in the school. Like the early Indian reserves that were designated “Anglican” or “Catholic”, educational institutions may be designated “Pepsi” or “Coke” but not both. Fast-food chains and pharmaceuticals offer to go “in partnership” with schools in supplying textbooks, computer equipment and curricula. Sweden has banned all advertising aimed at young children because of the long term habituation.
Your free will may be exercised if you become a knowledgeable shopper. This means ignoring advertising and forming your own ideas about quality. Do the research on selected shopping habits from time to time. Avoid impulse buying. Throw away coupons unless they are something you already wanted. Know whether the product is local or foreign. Read consumer reports. Be careful about buying heavily advertised products. Approach all advertising skeptically.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Robertson, again.
Robertson: You are most welcome Scott.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HawkeyeAssociates.Ca
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/11/04
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson is a Registered Doctoral Psychologist with expertise in Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, and Human Resource Development. He earned qualifications in Social Work too. Duly note, he has five postsecondary degrees, of which 3 are undergraduate level. His research interests include memes as applied to self-knowledge, the evolution of religion and spirituality, the aboriginal self’s structure, residential school syndrome, prior learning recognition and assessment, and the treatment of attention deficit disorder and suicide ideation. In addition, he works in anxiety and trauma, addictions, and psycho-educational assessment, and relationship, family, and group counselling.
Our guest today is Teela Robertson, M.C., who earned a B.A. in Psychology from MacEwan University and an M.C. in Counselling Psychology from Athabasca University. She has been a Board Member of the Center to End All Sexual Exploitation (CEASE), and a Transitional Support Worker through the E4C Youth Housing Program. Now, she is a Registered Provisional Psychologist with a non-profit community agency.
Here we talk about religious and non-religious background in the context of counselling, a culture of one, secular and faith-based approaches, and men and women in counselling/being counselled.
*Listing of previous sessions with links at the end of the interview.*
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the risks of personal religious or non-religious background influencing the professional work of a counselling psychologist while in session with a client — in general terms?
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: I attended a cousin’s wedding during the 1980s officiated by an Evangelical Christian minister. As part of the ceremony, the minister advised the happy couple that disagreements were part of marriage, and that if they had problems that they cannot resolve they should go see a pastor, a church elder, or a trusted family member. He advised them to never see a psychologist. There is a tension between psychology and religion that is often not recognized and is even less often addressed, and that tension stems from conflicting worldviews. I make no apologies for expressing a worldview of client individuality, empowerment, and self-actualization. The imposition of my worldview beyond this fundamental understanding would be unethical.
Our worldview is a kind of map of our understandings and expectations that, in turn, colours and even distorts our perceptions of reality. Our worldview begins with our childhood experiences and our interpretations of those experiences. Psychology is premised on the view that humans are volitional individuals capable of discerning reality acting in the social interest, and as I have argued, psychology is largely about teaching those skills to our clients (see: free will). Religion is premised on the view that humans are not up to this task, and that we need external direction on questions such as good and evil, ultimate meaning, and transcendence. Religion is inherently directive, and while psychology is not always non-directive, client empowerment is its core objective. Psychotherapists must bracket other aspects of our worldviews that might interfere with client self-actualization. There are obvious limits to this approach. For example, it would be unethical for me to help a sociopath become more successful in systematically harming other people. Instead I should offer to help the client overcome whatever pathology presents with the hope of self-actualization within a socially useful frame. This places me in the role of the expert with respect to diagnoses.
Teela Robertson, M.C.: One’s cultural background influences their perceptions and meaning making of situations. This includes faith, ethnicity, local culture, family culture, and so on. Psychologists are not immune to the effects of how our personal perspective influences our perceptions of clients, the trick is to ensure we are self-aware and able to monitor when it is our beliefs coming through versus the clients. Ideally we work with a client based on their cultural background and beliefs regardless of how this fits with our personal beliefs. This is not always an easy task. When the beliefs of the psychologist and client do not align, we not only have to be aware of where our biases come in, but also the limits to our knowledge about the client’s belief system. So to answer your question, the main risk I see is that the psychologist may start to impose their own beliefs upon the client.
Jacobsen: Dr. Robertson, you work with each client as a culture of one. How does this approach respect clients with unique versions of common and uncommon personal issues? Teela, in conversations with your father, how does one incorporate secular and faith-based approaches to suit the preferences and background of clientele in counselling sessions?
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: My “culture of one” approach assumes the uniqueness of each individual. By understanding individualized inner motivations, we will often find that behaviour that otherwise presents as abnormal is really a logical attempt to satisfy basic needs. Therapy then consists of brainstorming with the client alternative ways to meet these needs.
It may be that the client most at-risk for culturally inappropriate counselling has a therapist who is a member of the same racial, cultural, or religious group. The risk here lies in the therapist assuming an understanding of the client’s personal culture. If that happens, the client will likely feel compelled to “go along with” the therapist’s assumptions for fear of being labelled a deficient member. The second biggest risk might be for clients of culturally sensitive counsellors who have taken a workshop on the culture of the client. Let me use the example of a hypothetical non-aboriginal therapist counselling a person with ancestry that is indigenous to Canada.
Such a therapist will likely have learned about sweat lodges, a ceremony indigenous to most aboriginal cultures in northern North America. The sweat lodge ceremony may be used to connect to a transcendent power, heal certain ailments, or bond with fellow community members. Asking an aboriginal client whether they attend sweat lodges might be off-putting to those aboriginal people who view such ceremonies to be witch craft. Such people might be particularly sensitive to such a question because some Aboriginal Spiritualists have referred to them as “apples” for not following their traditions. Asking a woman if she attends sweats might be an insult if she is from a more traditional community that practises male only sweats. It is better to understand the personal culture of the individual before exploring behavioural alternatives, and it is safer to come from a perspective of “not knowing” where the client is considered to be the expert on him or herself.
Teela Robertson, M.C.: Whether one is religious or not I try to match the counselling tools to the client’s needs and beliefs, I believe my dad does the same. One way we have discussed incorporating faith into counselling is through the tools they already have that they find helpful, a common one is prayer. I think the trick is to ensure that the client is using tools in a healthy way. For instance, if a client were to tell me that they pray to God to take away all their negative emotions, we will need to modify the expectation that they can stop feeling any negative emotion and engage in psycho-education about emotion. Something like prayer can be quite healing in providing people with a sense of hope that positive change can happen.
Jacobsen: Speaking of differences in background, in general, do men and women require different counselling methodologies based on different needs? If so, how, and why?
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: There are statistically significant differences between men and women for a number of behaviours, but the range is such that you cannot predict the values, attitudes, and behaviours of any one individual based on their sex or gender. Again, I would recommend that each client’s personal culture be explored without presuppositions. Following exploration of the client’s worldview and agreement of presenting issues, I like to offer the client a range of possible interventions drawn from Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Adlerian Psychotherapy, and Narrative methods, and then have the client co-construct a treatment plan.
Teela Robertson, M.C.: In my opinion the differences in approach I take lie more with personality. I find a greater proportion of my male clients than female clients have been taught not to show “weak” emotions such as sadness, and anxiety, instead they may show these as anger or a lack of emotion. To combat this I often find I spend more time with males working on the basics of learning to identify and name emotions, as well as creating a supportive relationship where it is safe for them to share these emotions with me. I commonly explore how they learned about emotions and what they were taught about how to deal with them, as well as how they were treated when they showed emotions. As a whole I don’t find a great deal of difference between treating men and women.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Robertson and Teela.
Teela Robertson, M.C.: Thank you.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HawkeyeAssociates.Ca
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/09/17
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson is a Registered Doctoral Psychologist with expertise in Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, and Human Resource Development. He earned qualifications in Social Work too. Duly note, he has five postsecondary degrees, which is a lot, of which 3 are undergraduate level. His research interests include memes as applied to self-knowledge, the evolution of religion and spirituality, the aboriginal self’s structure, residential school syndrome, prior learning recognition and assessment, and the treatment of attention deficit disorder and suicide ideation. In addition, he works in anxiety and trauma, addictions, and psycho-educational assessment, and relationship, family, and group counselling.
Here we talk about counselling and ethics.
*Listing of previous sessions with links at the end of the interview.*
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You give insight into counselling in the fact that, in general, advice is not given, as in counsellors do not tell clients what they should or should not do.
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: That is correct, Scott. As explained previously in this series, I practise in Adlerian tradition where advice giving is anathema, and this view comes from a humanistic view that we, as a species, are defined by our ability to reason in an objective, volitional and internally consistent way. I made the argument that psychology, as a profession, seeks to teach people to reach this human potential in their individual lives (see: Free Will). While the advice giver is usually well-meaning, advice giving puts the receiver in a dependent position. In its most extreme form, advice giving reduces the receiver to an automaton waiting for direction. The advise that is given is necessarily from the perspective of the one who is giving it, not from the perspective of the receiver.
Often counselling and psychotherapy are considered to be synonyms, but Adlerians make a distinction: counselling is essentially joint problem solving done with clients who have intact selves while psychotherapy involves the reconstruction of part of the self (for a discussion of reconstructing the self see: Self-mapping). In either case the psychologist acts as a kind of consultant who has expertise in change while the client is recognized in having expertise in understanding himself. The counselling session becomes the collaboration of two experts.
I think the notion that counselling is advice giving comes from outside the profession, but is popular enough that some psychologists accept that definition. But they then typically view themselves as psychotherapists. As I said, the professional ideal is to promote individual volition, and this typically involves constructing alternatives with the client mapping pros and cons and deciding on a plan.
Jacobsen: What is a way in which counsellors violate professional ethics and codes of conduct here? How have things gone wrong in the past? What examples speak to this in the history of counselling?
Dr. Robertson: Were the therapist to impose his views on a client, that would be unethical. We need to understand that the client is in a vulnerable position, and that is why they are seeking counselling or psychotherapy. A therapist with the best of intentions may think that the answer is obvious, but unless the client arrives at that conclusion by considering his or her alternatives, priorities, goals and worldview then the imposition of a “solution” that appears right to the therapist does nothing to build the client’s capacities as an independent volitional individual. I think this is a standard understanding of most historic schools of psychotherapy, but there are exceptions.
Soviet psychology of the 20th century provides an example of systemic unethical diagnosis. Soviet psychologists viewed the communist man (inclusive of women) to be more collectivistic and altruistic than others. It seemed to them self-evident that the mentally healthy person, if given the opportunity, would want to participate in such a society. Those who did not agree with this worldview and were in conflict with the authorities were deemed to suffer from what was termed “sluggish schizophrenia.”
When an ideology or religion is used to modify terms like “psychology,” “counselling” or “psychotherapy,” I become wary. For example, how does “Christian Counselling” differ from counselling? Christian counsellors I have talked to define their religion as having certain superior attributes with respect to love and spiritual fulfillment. But a secular counsellor, on finding that a client believed in prayer, for example, might invite the client to pray as part of his or her therapeutic plan. A difference might be that if the prayer does not work to the client’s satisfaction, the secular counsellor might be more willing to explore other alternatives while the Christian counsellor might be more prone engage in self-limiting platitudes such as, “Maybe God does not want this for you.” Counsellors employed by Catholic Family Services are routinely required to sign a statement stating they will respect the Church’s beliefs regarding “the sanctity of life.” This is regularly interpreted to mean that counsellors in their employ may not explore the option of abortion with pregnant clients, and if a client chooses that option, she will do so without the support of her counsellor or therapist. Counsellors from a variety of Christian denominations actively discourage people who are non-heterosexual. A particularly unethical practice is encapsulated in the oxymoron “Conversion Therapy.” Conversion implies a template outside of the individual to which the individual converts. It is, therefore, the opposite of therapy where the client defines his own template. Overall, Christian counselling does not add to the professional practice but is subtractive, limiting the options permitted clients.
The notion of limiting psychology’s ability to increase to individual choice and volition is pervasive. Feminist Psychotherapists argue for equality between the sexes, but most psychotherapists already embraced this ideal long before there was Feminist Psychotherapy; indeed, Alfred Adler introduced the idea to the Viennese psychological circle founded by Sigmund Freud in 1911. The purpose of Feminist Psychotherapy has not been to develop new therapeutic techniques since the methods typically used, such as journaling, re-framing, assertiveness training were all initially developed by other schools of psychotherapy. We are left, therefore with an ideological reason for its existence, as one feminist writer of textbooks noted (Corey, 2001) “A goal of feminist therapy is to replace patriarchal ‘objective truth’, with feminist consciousness…” In this formulation, objective reality is deemed to be patriarchal, and since most schools of psychotherapy assume that there is an objective reality to which the client may reference (Narrative Therapy being an exception), then those schools are, by this definition, patriarchal. In a decision that reminds us of the Soviet diagnosis of “sluggish schizophrenia,” the American Psychological Association has decided to recognize a category called “toxic masculinity.” In a move that reminds us of Conversion Therapy, the Canadian government has decided to fund feminist organizations and therapists to convert toxic men into… something else. I have demonstrated that male stigmatization exists (see: Stigma), and my fear is that a purpose of this conversion therapy will be to have men internalize this stigma whith the long term effect of further eroding their mental health.
Scott, you asked me about professional codes of ethics. Codes of ethics are written by those with the power to do so. Conversion Therapy as practiced by some Christian groups has been ruled unethical. The feminist version has not. I believe that freedom of conscience involves a duty to conduct oneself to a higher ethic, and in my case that ethic involves supporting individual volitional empowerment. Individual volition operates within the constraint that there is a reality outside ourselves and if we stray too far from that reality we will harm ourselves and others. We cannot gain empowerment by feeding a delusion.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Robertson, again.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HawkeyeAssociates.Ca
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/09/19
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson is a Registered Doctoral Psychologist with expertise in Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, and Human Resource Development. He earned qualifications in Social Work too. Duly note, he has five postsecondary degrees, which is a lot, of which 3 are undergraduate level. His research interests include memes as applied to self-knowledge, the evolution of religion and spirituality, the aboriginal self’s structure, residential school syndrome, prior learning recognition and assessment, and the treatment of attention deficit disorder and suicide ideation. In addition, he works in anxiety and trauma, addictions, and psycho-educational assessment, and relationship, family, and group counselling.
Here we talk about personal responsibility, victim culture, and more.
*Listing of previous sessions with links at the end of the interview.*
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You comment on a couple of cases of personal responsibility and, more particularly, personal fault passed onto others or systems & institutions. How can institutional systems and legacies completely disempower parts of new generations of peoples?
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: As I re-read the commentary I wrote nearly twenty years ago, it seems, sadly, to be even more relevant today. At the time I viewed the legal cases from lawsuit happy U.S. America, as bizarre and slightly humorous anomalies. For example, the thief who got trapped in a garage and subsisted on Pepsi and dog food until the home owner came back from holidays, and then had the nerve to sue for unlawful confinement, had to be one of a kind. So I thought. But it is like a mental virus that has grown and evolved into something quite dangerous.
My original conclusion was that if we blame others then we are basically saying they have power over us and we are mere victims. About a dozen years after I wrote that an indigenous man murdered his wife and kidnapped his stepdaughter in my home community. After the man was apprehended, his sister told the press that her brother was the real victim because he had gone to an Indian residential school. My point is that yes, bad things have happened in the past, but that is not an excuse bad behaviour in the present. We have the power to choose how we will respond, and from that realization comes our own empowerment. We may not be able to control what others do, but we can always choose how we will react. And we can react with dignity in a way that makes the world a better place. Unfortunately, there are psychological reasons, and sometimes money, to be made from playing the role of disempowered victim, and this has contributed to the rise of a victim culture in Canada.
Jacobsen: Please explain what you mean by “victim culture.”
Robertson: Certainly, Scott. I operate from a humanist perspective that accords every individual worth and dignity by virtue of being human with the implication that people should conduct themselves accordingly. But if your self-identity is moulded around being a victim, you are proclaiming that power rests with the perceived victimizers. The victim then attempts to persuade people with even more power to punish the victimizers and redress the wrongs, often through financial compensation. But this comes at great cost to the individual. Let me give you the example of marriages. I have found marriage counselling to become more challenging over the past thirty years despite the fact that I have become more skilled with experience. Half the battle in marriage counselling is communication and developing the ability to understand the other’s perceptions with empathy. Increasingly I find that one or both partners have developed narratives of being a victim. And when they are presented with an alternative perception they simply repeat their own victim narrative verbatim, only more loudly. And when this does not work they declare themselves to have “not been heard,” and this further increases their sense of victimization. A couple of years ago I published some research on secular weddings and I found that people are as likely to have been legally married at least once by the time they reach my age, as they were 50 years ago, but at any given time over half the adult population is single. There is a reason for that.
We have evolved to the point where people’s primary identity is as a member of a victim group who have been considered historically wronged. Academics have even coined the word “transectionality” to describe people who are simultaneously members of multiple victim groups thereby attaining a higher ranking in the world of victimology. This is not to say that some of the victimization isn’t real. Even white males can point to accurate examples of victimization. But if our primary identity is based on something negative as opposed to something positive, then we pay a heavy psychological price.
You asked about the role of institutions. Ultimately, victim culture leads people to become helpless victims waiting for the state, or others, to make things right. Whole classes of victim groups have emerged with status accorded to ascribed degree of victimhood. Some politicians are only too happy to gain votes by acknowledging various groups sense of victimization and even apologizing for it. They may even pay compensation. But in the end this only reinforces dependency and disempowerment. Which suits the politicians because then they can go after the same votes, in the same way, time and again.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Robertson, again.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HawkeyeAssociates.Ca
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/08/13
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson is a Registered Doctoral Psychologist with expertise in Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, and Human Resource Development. He earned qualifications in Social Work too. Duly note, he has five postsecondary degrees, which is a lot, of which 3 are undergraduate level. His research interests include memes as applied to self-knowledge, the evolution of religion and spirituality, the aboriginal self’s structure, residential school syndrome, prior learning recognition and assessment, and the treatment of attention deficit disorder and suicide ideation. In addition, he works in anxiety and trauma, addictions, and psycho-educational assessment, and relationship, family, and group counselling.
Here we talk about the youth and attraction to Satanism, Christmas, pagans, Christianity, the Devil, gossip, and more.
*Listing of previous sessions with links at the end of the interview.*
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You have commented on the ways in which gossip can even move to the point of Satanic cults and the like. You have remarked on Satanic beliefs among youth and the reasons for the attraction of it.
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: I wrote the first column a couple of years after a child was murdered in La Ronge, Saskatchewan by two older children, age 14 and 8. The murderers believed that if they drank the rendered fat of a virgin they would gain the power to fly. The victim had been dead for a couple of days before his family realized he was missing and reported his disappearance to the police. Nonetheless, the story was circulated that the police would have acted more quickly if the victim were “white.” Then the story was circulated that a Satanic cult was operating in the community and the perpetrators had been “possessed.” Fingers were pointed at adult individuals who were seen to be potential cultists.
Several years later, I was asked to do workshops on Satanic cults in two communities of the Peter Ballantyne Cree to the east of La Ronge. Some youth had murdered several cats and smeared the blood in a local church. Soon after, Satanic symbols were found scrawled on walls in a second community. The RCMP, at the time, had a special unit to deal with cults and that unit was brought in. The Department of Indian Affair funded cult experts to come in. I had a chance to talk to some of the youth involved. In a nutshell, they were angry with their parents and the adults in their communities and this was seen as a way of giving expression to their anger. But to this day, you will find adults believing that some mysterious cult had entered their community and possessed the minds of their youth.
I would like to update an account I gave in the second article linked to your question, Scott. The account given, that Satanism is a mutated form of early paganism involving pagan survivors of Christian persecution, was an accepted narrative within anthropology. But I now believe that the vast majority of women and men who were burnt at the stake during the 16th and 17th century European witch-hunts were, in fact, Christians who had no connection to either pagan or Satanic beliefs. A kind of malignant gossip mutated and spread inciting fear and the need for drastic action engulfing, in some cases, whole communities. You can read my recent work on mind viruses here: Viruses.
The “Scott Boyes” mentioned in the first article was the editor of The Northerner that originally published this series. He had final say on whether my teasing him about hypothetical gossip would be seen by the readers.
Jacobsen: Your writing on Christmas and its history is of interest here too. Is there a common system of belief around oppositions? In that, those leaving Christianity may be more attracted to inverted belief systems, where negative valence beliefs become positive in the newer worldview, e.g., the interest in the archetype of evil in Christianity in the Devil seen as representative of the highest good. Is this particularly the case among the young?
Robertson: That certainly was the case with respect the Peter Ballantyne youth. Their parents were all Christian as were the authorities against which they rebelled. Although there is no evidence that the Church of Satan was involved in their activities, having looked at their website, I believe that church represents an inversion of Christianity as well. To be clear, if Christians are seen to do evil, as they did with the Indian Residential Schools for example, then that which the Christians fear must be good. Of course, the logic does not necessarily follow.
There is no evidence that the boys who murdered and ate the flesh of the young virgin were operating from any inverted belief system. The Christianity of their parents simply made magical or supernatural thinking acceptable, so their actions must be seen within the same paradigm that allowed for the burning of the witches. Immoral superstitious actions done out of fear or opportunism have the same result to the victim. The antidote for such viral thinking is a healthy dose of rational and scientific thought. I think that critical thinking should be taught at all levels in our educational systems and that no topics should be exempted from rational inquiry.
By the way, in my seven years of writing for The Northerner, there were only two articles they refused to print. One of them was this article on the history of Christmas. I was told it would offend some Christians. The other was an article critical of Toshiba.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Robertson, again.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HawkeyeAssociates.Ca
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/07/21
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson is a Registered Doctoral Psychologist with expertise in Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, and Human Resource Development. He earned qualifications in Social Work too. Duly note, he has five postsecondary degrees, which is a lot, of which 3 are undergraduate level. His research interests include memes as applied to self-knowledge, the evolution of religion and spirituality, the aboriginal self’s structure, residential school syndrome, prior learning recognition and assessment, and the treatment of attention deficit disorder and suicide ideation. In addition, he works in anxiety and trauma, addictions, and psycho-educational assessment, and relationship, family, and group counselling.
Here we talk about racism, white supremacy, power dynamics, sense of unworthiness, cults, dealing with racism and cults, and more.
*Listing of previous sessions with links at the end of the interview.*
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: A serious social disorder remains racism. A sense of superiority based on a non-biological, but still sociological and fictitious, category with real-world consequences. For example, you wrote on white supremacist forms of racism.
One correlation or driver is the power dynamics of racism. The power differential, presumed or perceived, may create fertile grounds for the sense of unworthiness described in the writing on cults, too.
What seems like cultural means by which to deal with racism and cults, as a set or separately? What tools of the psychological trade can be useful here?
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: I was hopeful, when I wrote the first article you cited, that racism was in decline. The idea that racial categories were arbitrarily defined was gaining acceptance, laws against racism were being enforced by human rights tribunals, fewer people were spouting racist ideas, and those that were would often be publically challenged. That trend line has been changing. Just this last week a law professor at Penn State in the U.S. said that her country would be better off if it restricted immigration to “whites.” A teaching assistant from the same university said she always asks black females students questions first. From there she ranked a series of minorities based on her estimate of “deserving” ending with white males whom she said she called on only if there is nobody left.
If I was to guess the psychological mechanism prompting the law professor’s racist statement would involve fear — fear that cultural values she holds dear are disappearing. The driving emotion of the teaching assistant’s racism is probably anger. She has a sense of social justice based on real or imagined historical wrongs, and she is intent on using her power to right those wrongs and punish those she sees as evil or in some way responsible. Historically it is not uncommon for the racist to describe the victims of racism as evil.
The law professor may be afraid that the underlying values of her civilization, having built the richest, best-educated and most tolerant civilizations known to mankind according to Steven Pinker, are being challenged in a way that will eradicate those advances. The teaching assistant, also driven by feelings, believes that the whites who have tended to dominate the economic pyramid in that civilization need to be replaced. The two are united in believing that there exists a pendulum with the teaching assistant believing that the pendulum should swing to favour those who have been historically disadvantaged. Those who wish to set the pendulum exactly in the middle like to set quotas for university entrance and various occupations based on population estimates, but the setting of such quotas reward tokenism or place-holding over ability and initiative thereby reinforcing the law professor’s concerns. The only way to eliminate racism is to get rid of the pendulum.
The pendulum is the concept of race, and as I pointed out in my initiating article, race is an illusion. All physical characteristics tend to blend into various population groups and no one set of characteristics is common to any. Anthropologists in the 1970s and 80s tried. By comparing blood type, skin colour, head shape and other physical characteristics they came up with three major races: Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid. But even these categorizations are not discrete. Let me give you an example. In Canada, Jagmeet Singh likes to say he is the first visible minority member to lead a major political party. But his ancestry is Indo-European — he’s a Caucasian. He could still be a member of a visible minority if we define “white” more narrowly than Caucasian — and that is exactly what happens. Racial categories are defined by political expediency with people who would formerly have identified as “white” now claiming aboriginal, Hispanic and black status for the benefits accorded those categories through the quota system. We can remove the pendulum through colour-blindness. One of the participants in my doctoral research refused to identify as Metis because she did not live “Metis culture.” (see: Aboriginal Self). She did not identify as “white” either and when reporting to the census takers she would attempt to list her ethnicity as “Canadian.” What if, in any event, this woman was discriminated against because of her ascribed race? I would propose that laws against discrimination on the basis of race or any other fantasy categories continue.
Jacobsen: Okay, what is the connection between cults and racism, if any?
Robertson: In its original meaning “cult” meant a system of religious veneration directed toward an individual or saint, but in its modern form it connotes a form of mind control. “Mind” as used in this sense is the product of a self that is structured to incorporate elements of individuality, volition, constancy and logically consistent thought. David Martel Johnson, after studying pre-Homeric Greek and Egyptian cultures concluded they did have minds. I think his judgement is a little harsh, but they certainly did not have minds that functioned to differentiate the objective and subjective as we commonly value. Cultists operate by convincing their following to give up their sense of reason, and to trust the leader. Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger masterfully deconstructed science and reason as flawed, but he was not a relativist. He taught that one who was “Dasein” could determine ultimate truths and, of course, he and the Fuhrer were Dasein. Of concern, Heidegger may be considered the modern founder of postmodernism.
Cultish societies are xenophobic, and this antipathy for the outsider can easily lead to racism. Tribal societies, as existed in all of our pasts, were notoriously xenophobic, so this may be a tendency built into us. One of my concerns is that identity politics may be leading toward a kind of tribalism that involves the demonization of the outsider. The antidote for cultism, tribalism and attendant racism is to help people construct healthy selves that are capable of “minding” that Martell describes. I have argued that the project of psychology is to teach people to exercise free will as is possible with a complete and healthy self (see: Culturally evolved self).
Related to this, I would suggest the terms “western medicine” and “western science” are racist. What is referred to by these terms is a method of streamlining our reasoning processes that occurred as a result of the European Enlightenment, so from a historical sense the use of these terms is defensible. How it is used; however, is to imply that there are “alternate ways of knowing” that are more effective or more appropriate for non-European peoples. It is Heidegger all over again, and it is used to discourage non-European peoples from exercising their individual reason in favour of some collectivist or groupist template. It thus puts those people in a cognitive disadvantage.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Robertson, again.
Robertson: It was my pleasure, Scott.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HawkeyeAssociates.Ca
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/06/26
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson is a Registered Doctoral Psychologist with expertise in Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, and Human Resource Development. He earned qualifications in Social Work too. Duly note, he has five postsecondary degrees, of which 3 are undergraduate level. His research interests include memes as applied to self-knowledge, the evolution of religion and spirituality, the aboriginal self’s structure, residential school syndrome, prior learning recognition and assessment, and the treatment of attention deficit disorder and suicide ideation. In addition, he works in anxiety and trauma, addictions, and psycho-educational assessment, and relationship, family, and group counselling.
Here we talk about psychology, low self-esteem, crazy, and more.
*Listing of previous sessions with links at the end of the interview.*
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In “The Age of Psychology,” you describe, in brief, the ways in which psychology is utilized in the modern world. The “Epidemic of Low Self-Esteem” described how this age of psychology can be used for the positive.
“Crazy Making in Our Communities” talks about the ways in which individuals can go wrong, act strangely, or malfunction depending on the frame, as in the case of schizophrenia.
“From Lloydminster to Lenningrad” spoke to the manifestations of the social illness of racism reflected in certain psychologies, which seems to reflect religious fundamentalism.
If we look to treat extreme mental or social illnesses, how can the age of psychology, moving forward, help with their treatment — either reduction or even eventual elimination?
Humanist Canada Vice-President Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: Scott, you honour me by referencing articles I wrote for the now defunct weekly newspaper, The Northerner, 20 years ago. The main theme of The Age of Psychology seems to be even more apropos today. As a heuristic, if you read something, don’t learn anything new, but feel angry, chances are someone has been pushing your psychological buttons to get you to do something. My views on self-esteem have broadened substantially since I wrote Epidemic. I continue to recommend that parents spend considerably more time finding what is good and positive about their children than the negative; however, I believe that the self-esteem movement has gone too far producing people who overestimate their abilities while feeling entitled to the benefits that come with greater achievement. Studies comparing U.S. American and Japanese high school students, for example, have found that the U.S. students have higher self-esteem as related to their abilities in mathematics but their math achievement is substantially lower. Yes, we need to praise people, particularly for effort, but they also need to be grounded in reality. I am sorry, but we cannot all be whatever we want to be, we each have limitations, and in any case it requires work to accomplish that which is worthwhile. Our reluctance to give negative feedback has resulted in people with fragile egos who cannot handle criticism and have learned to treat negative feedback as “traumatizing.”
I was fascinated in the Lloydminster to Leningrad article to observe two people separated by 50 years and 7,000 kilometres who held identical racist views about Jews. Efforts to have them question their biases with facts just led to a series of rationalizations, often based on conspiracy theories, to explain away those facts. Those mechanisms are also used by the religious fundamentalists described in the article of that name. In his book The Deadly Doctrine Canadian psychologist and humanist Wendell Watters described religion as a kind of mental illness and in this he is in the company of Sigmund Freud who viewed religion as a kind of mass hysteria.
All of this speaks to my favourite article you referenced, Crazy Making. What is “crazy?” It is not being in touch with reality. The antidote is to teach reality testing skills based on natural rather than supernatural explanations using the rational and scientific skills honed in the Enlightenment. These skills need to be coupled with the belief that one can always choose courses of action that will make one’s future better instead of worse. This is the positive in self-esteem. But Crazy Making goes beyond this simple analysis. Communities, even societies, “make crazy” selected people they choose to demonize. The people could be Jews, Muslims, right-wingers, left-wingers, men or any other identifiable group viewed as “toxic” in some way. The 1960s rock band Jethro Tull, in their song Aqualung, sang of demonizing the homeless as a way of making the majority feel good about themselves. As a humanist, I don’t believe in demons. I believe people are essentially good and I agree with something Jordan Peterson said that we should approach every encounter with the attitude that here is a human being who knows something I do not yet know. I think that if we hold our own beliefs to be tentative dependent on further evidence, and that the people holding contrary believes are, nonetheless, good in their intentions, that we will have done a lot to improve mental health in the world.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Robertson, again.
Robertson: Thank you for this opportunity to go down memory lane, Scott. I hope my reflections will help others to also reflect, each in their own way. The ability to reflect is in effect, the ability to reprogram ourselves, and that is a key part of what it means to be human.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HawkeyeAssociates.Ca
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/05/14
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson is a Registered Doctoral Psychologist with expertise in Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, and Human Resource Development. He earned qualifications in Social Work too. Duly note, he has five postsecondary degrees, of which 3 are undergraduate level. His research interests include memes as applied to self-knowledge, the evolution of religion and spirituality, the aboriginal self’s structure, residential school syndrome, prior learning recognition and assessment, and the treatment of attention deficit disorder and suicide ideation. In addition, he works in anxiety and trauma, addictions, and psycho-educational assessment, and relationship, family, and group counselling.
Here we talk about male stigma in social work and more.
*Listing of previous sessions with links at the end of the interview.*
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You wrote an article, recently, which is associated with Humanist Canada. What was the research question around male stigma? What was the tentative conclusion from the article published in Humanist Perspectives?
Humanist Canada Vice-President Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: Scott, you always tend to, and I shouldn’t overgeneralize and I’ve heard you do this before, but you tend to ask big questions that take a long time to answer.
The first part of the answer to my question is that the definition of “stigma” has to be clear. It is not the same thing as “discrimination.” Certainly, where stigma occurs, you expect discrimination to follow, but you can have discrimination without stigma.
Stigma, in the definition that I am using, is the imputation of a character defect, which when believed renders members a targeted group to be unfit, not also for interactions but, for particular social interactions.
I was looking for examples of stigma that fit that definition in the population. So, using that definition, I wanted to know when gendered stigmatization occurs. That was the research question.
To do that, I had to examine the experiences of a group of men. I had a sample of 16 men who agreed to partake of in-depth interviews on their experiences. I matched those experiences to the definition of stigma.
The conclusion was that stigma does occur. Now, given the restrictions of the research method, I am not able to say how prevalent that stigma is in society. That can be answered by future research.
Jacobsen: If we’re looking at those 16 men, what are some highlights from their self-reports?
Robertson: The two takeaways, the 16 men had some overlap. Some men experienced two forms of stigmatization. One was stigmatization with respect to role as parents. Men are less responsible, less able, or less reliable to be good parents and more of a threat, therefore, to children and women in general.
The other form of stigma, which was related to that. It is more about the threat rather than the ability level. Certain jobs, men had to prove that they were not a danger to functional success in those jobs.
One of the jobs being social work.
Jacobsen: How is this reflected in the numbers of men entering those professions in history as well as the present day?
Robertson: Overwhelmingly, in social work, men are underrepresented. Some of this underrepresentation can be traced to stigma. In my study, for example, I found that two men who were in the social work profession were judged to be in the first case not able because men don’t relate as well, and don’t communicate as well.
(Ed. Robertson interviewed two social workers, two social work students, and three social work clients totalling 7 individuals or almost half of the sample in the study, who all experienced or reported stigma from members of the profession.)
Therefore, this man had difficulties and was treated differently than if he had been female in the same position. As I said, discrimination, itself, is not by itself the same thing as stigma.
But if it is believed that because of men as a class have a particular characteristic that can be stigmatic, in the second case, a man graduated from social work. In his first job, and in his first job as a matter of fact, he was given the responsibility for assessing a woman, a single parent, and the women complained to his supervisor that he reminded her of an abusive uncle or an abusive family member in other words.
The supervisor asked as a claim of sexual harassment and was unwilling to interview the woman earlier for fear of furthering her trauma. As, not the male but the, female members of this persons team in social work who he had just started to work with, whether they felt comfortable with him given that he had been accused of sexual harassment, he lost his job.
I don’t believe a woman who some man said, “Well, she reminds me of an abusive aunt.” I don’t believe that woman may have been treated the same way with those suppositions. That is, supposition of being dangerous. Now, this is a complete surprise.
I didn’t, at any point, in the survey ask whether a particular profession was possibly had stigmatic views against men. I, certainly, did not single out social work. But it kept coming up. Remember, these are 16 men.
Two of them were students. In one case, the man in class argued against what was being presented; that domestic violence was a male event perpetrated by women. He brought forward evidence in terms of research that showed that domestic violence as 50–50. Most of the research that I have seen is 50–50.
It can be initiated by males or females in the domestic situation. He provided an argument. He defended his position. By the end of the conversation, he was compared to mass murderer Marc Lepine.
There is a suggestion here that because of a man disagrees with the stats being used; therefore, he is, now, like a mass murderer. It may be hard to understand the leap. But we can understand what happens, subsequently. He was drummed out of the profession.
He was kicked out of school. He was later won on a settlement because it was unjust, clearly. Why would this happen? Is it that only women can challenge such statistics on domestic violence without getting a reaction of this sort?
Noting only 16 men in the study, 3 of them were in events, where they were in custody battles with their ex-spouses. In each case, a bias was evident. I’ll give you one example. This example is, actually, from your province of British Columbia.
The male, in this case, bought a house close to the school, where his children went, because he wanted them to be comfortable going to school. He wanted to make this transition as easy as possible for the kids, because he knew a divorce is difficult on the children.
The social worker, in this case, said to him; that he was wasting his money. Because, in her opinion, the woman gets the children pretty much all the time. That can be an example of discrimination and not necessarily stigma.
But then, the same social worker about a month later after the woman in question had ignored an order with regard to visitation rights and the man complained. The social worker says, “Well, you are the man. In my opinion, I have to go with the lesser of two evils.”
There you have evidence of a stigmatic attitude. This kind of things happened over and over in the study. There was surprise that one profession should be mentioned so often in such a small sample.
Jacobsen: Even though, we have preliminary findings on some male stigma in social work in particular. What would be further directions of research deeper into the subject matter of social work male stigma or into male stigma in other domains of work?
Robertson: This method used in this study established that the conditions satisfying the definition of stigma exist as applied men. Quantitative methods are needed to establish how prevalent this stigma is found in Canadian society.
It was significant that nearly half the men in this sample recounted examples of stigma in their experiences as workers, students and clients of the social work profession; however, this does not prove that the profession as a whole is rife with this stigmatization.
The stigma could be limited to time or place or to, for example, men of a particular personality type. A study aimed specifically at the social work profession is needed answer these questions. It would then be possible to replicate such a study on other domains of work.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Robertson.
Robertson: Okay!
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HawkeyeAssociates.Ca
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/04/02
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson is a Registered Doctoral Psychologist with expertise in Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, and Human Resource Development. He earned qualifications in Social Work too. Duly note, he has five postsecondary degrees, of which 3 are undergraduate level. His research interests include memes as applied to self-knowledge, the evolution of religion and spirituality, the aboriginal self’s structure, residential school syndrome, prior learning recognition and assessment, and the treatment of attention deficit disorder and suicide ideation. In addition, he works in anxiety and trauma, addictions, and psycho-educational assessment, and relationship, family, and group counselling.
Our guest today is Teela Robertson, M.C., who earned a B.A. in Psychology from MacEwan University and an M.C. in Counselling Psychology from Athabasca University. She has been a Board Member of the Center to End All Sexual Exploitation (CEASE), and a Transitional Support Worker through the E4C Youth Housing Program. Now, she is a Registered Provisional Psychologist with a non-profit community agency.
Here we talk about generational differences in educational training, and private practice counselling psychology work in comparison to non-profit community work.
*Listing of previous sessions with links at the end of the interview.*
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s start some of this within the context of a generational difference, for one, Lloyd and Teela, you come from different generations of counselling psychology. For two, you are a father and a daughter. You’re family. Any points to make at the outset here?
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: Issues such as those involving gender diversity, transsexuality, changing male roles and multiple lifetime careers were, I think, normative markers for Teela’s generation, and I consult with her regularly to avoid a feeling of being “stuck in the past.” I have talked before in this series about treating every client as a culture of one and the process of exploring each person’s unique culture has saved me from a lot of grief; however it is good to know what the client is talking about. I consult with Teela regularly about new and changing perspectives, and newer communication patters by which those perspectives are transmitted. I think I bring a historical perspective to the table.
Teela Robertson, M.C.: Given my dad raised me, I was influenced by his Adlerian approach, specifically regarding beliefs about human nature such as people are unique given their context, goal oriented, and capable of change. In my training I found myself automatically ascribing to an Adlerian framework which was pointed out by a professor early in my Masters. It was no surprise, but of course we typically try to differentiate from our parents. I agree my generation and particularly my personal experiences offered a different perspective for me to draw on when consulting with my dad. On the other side, my dad’s range of professional experience and expertise is a platform for me to draw on as I continue to learn and develop my professional self.
Jacobsen: Another difference, though not necessarily or, at least, fully based on generations, is the private practice versus not for profit professional lives in the latter-2010s. Lloyd, you work through Hawkeye Associates, i.e., a private practice. Teela, you work with a not for profit agency.
Lloyd, how does private practice possibly provide more in-depth and intimate experiences with clients or patients in comparison to not for profit agencies? Teela, does a not for profit potentially give a more consistent and narrow range of possible issues and concerns of patients compared to a private practice clientele?
Lloyd: Although I have maintained a private practice under a registered business name since 1985, I have also worked for the provincial government, indigenous band governments, school boards and a community college. I have experience as a psychologist in each of those settings. While the private practise route allows the practitioner more flexibility in controlling his or her schedule, it also has some drawbacks. For example, if the client is a “no-show” normally the practitioner does not get paid for that missing hour; Further, most private practice work is funded through various plans each of which has their own limitations. For example, one Employee and Family Assistance Provider limits paid sessions to three every calendar year. Successful therapy usually takes longer than three sessions. Of course, there may also be limitations when employed as a psychologist by an agency. For example, the provincial mental health program had a policy that therapists were not to do marriage counselling or ability assessments. School boards often did not like their psychologists doing mental health work. In private practice, I could do it all.
Teela Robertson, M.C.: Working in a community agency with accessible services that includes a sliding scale we see a wide range of client issues and concerns. Often this means clients who might otherwise only receive 3–5 sessions through insurance or employee assistance programs can continue therapy at a reduced rate. I am typically able to see my clients until we agree services are no longer required. Being in an agency there are some practice expectations to follow, however, at least in the agency I work there is a large amount of flexibility in terms of working with clients in our own style as opposed to having to conform to a specific modality or approach. What is somewhat unique although not exclusively, is that the agency I work for is faith-based and encourages us to take into consideration the client’s cultural and spiritual beliefs to the extent we are competent to and the client wants us to. This is an area I believe my dad and I practice very similarly. In that we may intentionally included a client’s cultural or spiritual practices as a strength they can draw on, something they may already be doing that they find helpful, prayer is a common example. Often times it is helpful to help clients consciously identify what it is they are already doing to get through tough times and do those things more intentionally, as long as they are productive for them.
Lloyd: There is research demonstrating that prayer can be effective in treating certain conditions such as depression and anxiety. But when you break down the results of that research you find that prayer involving a request that a deity give them something or do something to change their circumstance is not very effective. The prayer that is effective is non-demanding and contemplative, something like the notion of mindfulness. But often that is not sufficient. Psychotherapy is a value added process focusing on client empowerment and self-change. Using myself as an example, I was raised in a very religious family. Being a nervous sort, I found a quiet prayer to myself before each exam calmed me down and gave me the confidence to do my best. And it worked! I graduated from high school with a B average. Then I went to university and eventually decided I had the ability to do better by establishing my learning goals and sticking to a plan to reach those goals. In the process, I no longer needed the prayer to calm me down because I was now confident in my knowledge and ability. Since then, with one exception in my masters program, I have had straight As. Adler said we all have within an innate drive he called “striving for perfection.” The client who has stopped striving is discouraged. Our job, in part, is to help the client see that he or she has the capability to make a meaningful difference and to develop a plan to be the difference he has already decided is meaningful. As Teela said, that decision needs to be grounded in whatever cultural norms with which the client has chosen to self-identify.
Jacobsen: Lloyd and Teela, from educational experiences at the time of graduate training, what techniques were emphasized as core and then others as more secondary, even experimental — to provide a sense of the development of the discipline of counselling psychology over time?
Lloyd: In my masters program, it was emphasized that a psychotherapist had to pick one so-called “theory” of practise and learn it well. Eclectic practitioners were viewed as muddled and slightly irresponsible. In fact, these were not theories at all but competing schools of practise that regularly, and shamelessly, appropriated techniques from each other. Most psychologists today describe themselves as eclectic, and this has allowed for an evolving disciplinary paradigm that I described in my article on free will. This paradigm will, I think, allow for the development of psychology as a science, and has already allowed practitioners to refine their craft using best practices from a variety of schools.
Teela Robertson, M.C.: In my program Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and Solution-Focused Therapy (SFT) were the popular choices. I believe this is due to the evidence backing CBT as well as the clear tools in each approach to help clients in very few sessions, this can be less intimidating for novice therapists. Another popular approach is mindfulness based techniques, I often draw on mindful techniques. Similarly to my dad’s experience I was told to pick a theory I most closely prescribe to as many still hold a negative view of eclecticism as an approach but acknowledge most therapists draw on tools from multiple theories. I am technically eclectic, although an Adlerian approach allows for this in terms of drawing on various techniques helpful for the client.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Robertson and Teela.
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: You are very welcome.
Teela Robertson, M.C.: Thank you for having me.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HawkeyeAssociates.Ca
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/03/19
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson is a Registered Doctoral Psychologist with expertise in Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, and Human Resource Development. He earned qualifications in Social Work too.
His research interests include memes as applied to self-knowledge, the evolution of religion and spirituality, the Aboriginal self’s structure, residential school syndrome, prior learning recognition and assessment, and the treatment of attention deficit disorder and suicide ideation.
In addition, he works in anxiety and trauma, addictions, and psycho-educational assessment, and relationship, family, and group counseling. Please see Ask Dr. Robertson 1 — Counselling and Psychology, Ask Dr. Robertson 2 — Psychotherapy, Ask Dr. Robertson 3 — Social and Psychological Sciences Gone Wrong, Ask Dr. Robertson 4 — Just You and Me, One-on-One Counselling, and Ask Dr. Robertson 5 — Self-Actualization, Boys, and Young Males: Solution:Problem::Hammer:Nail as these are the previous sessions in this educational series. Here we talk about memes, the self, and Aboriginal or Indigenous issues.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s start with memes and the self in relation to the Aboriginal self this session, please. The self is a cognitive structure and, thus, in part, a cultural construct. It also links to memes.
A meme is described as “an elemental unit of culture that exhibits referent, connotative, affective and behavioural properties. Connotation and affect were assumed to be the source of the attractive and repellent “forces” identified by Dawkins.
In addition, the self exists as non-static.[1] This view of the self as a dynamic whole within an environment is reflected in the eco-maps idea and cultural construction.[2] You have described one caveat of the self-stability as important as our selves evolving through time, or the dynamism of the self, too.
Also, the self, as it has evolved, is a reflective project. As noted, there can be consistency in the memeplexes, and so the average self across selves, e.g., consistency in volition in spite of cultural repression in the case of Maomao. In a way, the self remains not entirely a cultural construct in this resistance to cultural repression.
You explain the modern self as follows, “The modern self may be understood as a self-referencing cognitive feedback loop having qualities of volition, distinctness, continuance, productivity, intimacy, social interest, and emotion.”
The self, as a referent point, simply seems non-trivial as a point of contact here. Adler stated the self is core in worldview. Obviously, this links worldview to culture, the cultural construction of the self, the average self across selves, the dynamic self evolving through time, and, ultimately, the reflection in the structure and dynamics of the brain and so the mind.
Thus, these diverse points of contact centered on the self may be a means by which to help patients, as some work shown by you.
What other contexts provide explanation of the self and memes as further background — ignoring for the moment other work by Blackmore and others on technology and “memes”?
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: Thank you for that intricate summary of my work in this area Scott. I am not going to accept your suggestion that we ignore Blackmore for the moment, because I think that she offers a good starting point to understanding my contribution to self studies. Briefly, she viewed the self to be an illusion created by complexes of memes infesting human bodies turning us into “meme machines.” Given that the self is not a material thing, but an entity consisting of units of culture that describes a relationship with one material human body, hers is not, at first glance, an unreasonable metaphor. But we cannot be the corporeal body Blackmore assumes us to be because such bodies, by themselves, lack self-awareness or consciousness, and we have both. In the alternative, we might be the memeplexes so visualized, but that leads to the image of ethereal bodies waiting to infest some unsuspecting dumb brute in a kind of non-theistic dualism. From whence did such ethereal bodies come? The answer, of course, is that the memeplexi had to come from the bodies to begin with, which means there could be no infestation, no take over, no dualism between the two. Our bodies and our minds co-evolved and the distinctions we make between the two are simplifications that may benefit our analysis in some ways but cannot completely or holistically describe the phenomena.
When did the first self emerge? Well, I could say when the first ape-like creature recognized his reflection in a pool of water, but an argument could be made for millions of years earlier — when the first organism recoiled when penetrated by a foreign object. Of course, neither the ape nor the organism had a self we would recognize as such. The evolution of the self was aided by the invention of language that allowed for increasingly sophisticated conceptualizations, and equally important, a process whereby phonemes can be recombined to create new meanings — a process that is mimicked in the process of recombining memes in new and novel ways. The modern self with elements of uniqueness, volition, stability over time, and self descriptors related to productivity, intimacy and social interest, is one such recombination that proved to be such value that it was preserved in culture and taught to succeeding generations of children. This modern self occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago, but had such survival value that it spread to all cultures.
When I use the term “modern self” it should not be confused with “modernity” which is said to have occurred with the European Enlightenment. Foucault mistook the ideology of individualism that flowed from the Enlightenment with self-construction in declaring the self to be a European invention. Let me explain. To engage in volitional cognitive planning each person must first situate themselves within a situational and temporal frame. Even when engaged in group planning, each individual must so situate themselves in determining their contribution to the group effort. The Europeans did not invent this. While the potential benefits to societies containing individuals who can perform forward planning are obvious, the individualism inherent in defining oneself to be unique, continuous and volitional are potentially disruptive. I have argued that the rise of the great world religions was an effort to keep the individualism inherent in the modern self in check. Confucians sublimated the self to the family and tradition. Buddhists declared the self to be an illusion. Christians instructed the devout to give up their selves. Hindus controlled self-expression through an elaborate caste system. One of the accomplishments of the Enlightenment was to reverse the moral imperative. The individualism inherent in the self was now seen as a good and the enforced collectivism restricting the freedoms of the self, especially with regard to freedom of thought, was deemed to be oppressive. It is with this background early psychologists like Adler were able to declare the self to be central to a unique worldview.
Jacobsen: This can relate to Aboriginal peoples too, especially in the forced attempts at construction of new selves for the Aboriginal peoples in Canada with the sanction of both the churches — in general — and the government of Canada.
You stated, “The botched church-directed attempt to re-make the selves of aboriginal children led to the distinctive symptoms of Residential School Syndrome even in individuals who were not sexually or physically abused at school. Since the self both creates and is created by the surrounding culture…”
That links to the individual and cultural construction of the self in an Aboriginal mistreatment context. However, nuances exist here. The history remains gray rather than black and white — so to speak. In “The Residential School Experience: Syndrome or Historic Trauma,” you state, “…the residential school experience traumatized a generation of children without the necessary pre-condition that each one experienced physical or sexual abuse.”
Robertson: If I can interject here, I was engaging in literary hyperbole in the last quote you correctly attributed to me. Not every residential school was the same during all periods in which they existed, and not every child who attended an Indian Residential School was traumatized. I have worked with a number of adults who report good experiences at such schools. Having said that, there are numerous examples of physical and sexual abuse, but that is not the whole story. The point I was making here is that the system itself was potentially traumatizing without the necessity of introducing those “life and death” causal factors necessary for a traditional diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
All trauma can be viewed as damaging to the self of the individual who experiences it. In the case of Residential School Syndrome, children were removed from their families and their communities for extended periods of time. The churches wanted to minimize familial influence that might negate their sacred mission to proselytize. Isolated individuals have difficulty maintaining their sense of self. In the residential school environment students would not have typically received such reinforcement for their self, except possibly from their peers. From the staff, these students were treated like different persons from who they were in their communities and this was in an environment where they were disempowered. The new self was often grafted on to the old self but often without a good fit, or in some cases, the old self was discarded entirely. If we were only talking about physical or sexual assault then a diagnosis of PTSD would be sufficient to understand the condition. Considerations of self expand the range of recognized triggering events and expands the range of symptoms. It also introduces the possibility of intergenerational transmission.
Jacobsen: Also, you noted the possibility, as when Waldram reviewed the work of Manson (a study of U.S. high school students) and 8 other studies, of low rates of exhibited PTSD in Aboriginal peoples — because they simply have low rates of PTSD. In other words, it’s not everyone.
That is to say, there is a difference between the Aboriginal sub-populations who have and have not gone through Residential Schools, and differentials between individuals and people groups who went through the Residential School system. (All this skipping over issues of blood quantum and status, as described.)
Robertson: The mixing of “blood quantum” and culture invariably leads to racism, but for this discussion, we do not need to go there. At the time that I wrote the article to which you refer, the research on PTSD in aboriginal populations consistently showed lower rates of PTSD despite a higher proportion of potentially traumatizing incidents with survivors of residential schools in Canada being an exception. Since Waldram’s work, Brave Heart, who popularized the notion of “Historic Trauma,” has argued that PTSD in indigenous American populations is much higher than had been diagnosed, but this argument is based on the idea that high rates of alcoholism, domestic violence and crime are evidence of trauma. In my opinion, there are other possible reasons for such destructive activities.
Jacobsen: For example, there will be differences in the efficacy of methodologies between, for example, the Cree and the Blackfeet. It can be the same with different methodologies for men and women too.
As we discussed in the last session on pornography and video games and young men, described in the case of international students who were middle eastern men, you explain, “In the new, unmonitored environment, their post-secondary studies suffered because they spent several hours per day gaming and viewing pornographic websites.”
This may need a different intervention than with women who may be less likely to have these problems and different issues, if they do have them, manifesting with them, too.
One practical therapeutic example included a woman. You researched the construction of the map of the self, where the map of the self may help youth with the serious issue of suicidal ideation, as in the case of “Suzie,” alongside CBT and EMDR.[3]
However, males may respond in different ways. Therefore, different cultural groups and sexes & genders may require different methodologies. How can the ideas of memes and the self incorporate into different therapeutic methodologies for different Aboriginal peoples — and for Aboriginal men and women?
Robertson: There is an assumption in your question that different methodologies are appropriate for different classes of people. I treat each client as a culture of one with that culture identified through exploration. Once the client’s personal culture is understood, or in the process of developing that understanding, we co-construct treatment plans based on the uniqueness that is inherent. When we talk about differences between the sexes, or between racial and ethnic groups, these differences are merely averages and cannot describe any one person within the group. Any attempt to define people by their membership to an ascribed identity ends up being oppressive. People must define themselves.
Jacobsen: Further on the issues of men and women, and Aboriginal peoples, you have explained, in part, how this church (and state) imposition impacts the ways in which PTSD-like or PTSD symptomatology can be passed through the generations. You have described some of the atrocious outcomes:
The churches’ plan to pay for school maintenance costs through the labour of the students was unsuccessful, and this resulted in cutbacks to diet and health care. A 1941 study found that half the children who entered residential schools prior to that date did not survive to adulthood.
This relates to the cultural construction of the self passed through peoples with the trauma generated and delivered socioculturally down the generations. Also, as you note, ideological stances, such as some feminisms, may impute selves into men as a category, causing real-life havoc and lifelong damage.
This may become an issue or concern, or a reality, for many Indigenous peoples within the bounded geography of Canada, as they may be imputed, by the wider non-Aboriginal culture, with certain selves with damage to healthy senses of self. The aforementioned trauma, obviously, can impact the sense of self.
As noted in counselling services, the ethnicity and sexual orientation of the counsellor can influence who shows up, where, in a North American context, similar “ethnicity appeared to be more important to Amerindian than to Caucasian students…”
Dealing with aforementioned points of contact at the outset, for those Indigenous youth, or even older, affected with PTSD or PTSD symptomatology, could the storytelling and metaphors, e.g., the medicine wheel, help in the discovery of the newer healthier self, especially if done through an Amerindian counsellor as an example?
Robertson: My concern is not so much that people who are not aboriginal to North America would impute damaged selves to those who are, but that aboriginal people make the imputation to themselves. For example, when Waldram first suggested we consider that lower rates of PTSD have been diagnosed among Amerindian populations because they actually have lower rates of PTSD, there was a huge outcry, not from the non-indigenous populations, but from indigenous academics. These academics and others in the indigenous community believed that Waldram was minimizing the effects of colonialism, but this interpretation was a misreading of his work. His actually said that we should explore resiliency factors in aboriginal cultures that lead to a greater ability of members of those communities to cope with potentially traumatizing events, and I agree. We need to explore community strengths instead of focusing exclusively on weaknesses or past wrongs. Indeed, a focus on weakness can be damaging irrespective of the money and resources thrown at that weakness. Let me give an example.
Supposing there is a terrible death in a community and the grieving family invites me to help them with the grieving process. I let them know I will be right over. While they are assembled in the front room waiting for me, Aunt Mary arrives with a cake. We can all recognize that Aunt Mary is not there to show off her baking. She is there to provide comfort and support to the grieving family. Now, supposing instead of inviting Aunt Mary in, the family tell her they are waiting for this expert on grieving to arrive, and they ask her to come back later. What Aunt Mary has learned is that her approach, what she has to offer, is not good enough. She is less likely to offer her coping skills in the future and less likely to pass her skills on. One of the co-constructed community activities that we developed to combat high rates of youth suicide in Stanley Mission during the 1990s was to have elders teach the wilderness survival skills. These camps proved to be very popular with the males and therapeutic. When we asked the elders why they had not taught these skills to their grandchildren previously they replied that in this modern age they didn’t think anyone would be interested.
The storytelling tradition runs deep in cultures indigenous to the Americas, and indeed, one of the ways we make sense of the world is to tell stories to ourselves. Usually, in these stories, we are either the protagonist or the story is told from our perspective. The first task is to gain an understanding of the meaning of the metaphors and images embedded in the story. Then I look for evidence of the protagonist overcoming great difficulty. If the self that is in evidence from these narratives does not evidence the ability to overcome obstacles, then that is an area of self-definition that needs to be addressed. Over time, the self-narrative will change to include empowered self-volition, and with that change the individual can assess their circumstance from new perspectives.
The medicine wheel concept offers the promise of understanding complex situations; however, the medicine wheel as is popularly used falls short of that ideal. If you believe that the medicine wheel is always divided into four and that the primary constituents of that fourplex include physical, mental, emotional and spiritual then you have moved it from being a useful construct for understanding complexity to a simplistic dogma. In any case that medicine wheel is not particularly traditional. For one thing, there is no word for mental in the Algonquian family of languages, nor in any other indigenous language as far as I know. In Cree a word meaning “He is crazy” is usually used much to the chagrin of mental health workers. Second mental disorders are usually inabilities to modulate, control or act on emotions so “mental” necessarily includes both cognitive and emotional functioning. Finally, and most tellingly, the wheel is not indigenous to Amerindian cultures. There has been a lot of cultural appropriation going on in the construction of the modern medicine wheel. There are hundreds of ancient stone circles stretching across the length of the Great Plains of North America that are too big or too intricate to be tepee rings, the stones that hold the flaps of a tepee down and are left when a camp moves. These ancient circles were divided in many ways and not always from the center like spokes in a wheel. Following that older tradition, I invite clients to construct their own personal medicine wheel using whatever symbolism that fits with their history and worldview.
Jacobsen: Herein, we have a deeper question about the necessity of the categories of the Aboriginal self and non-Aboriginal self, or, rather, the selves. The important part seems the development of a functional self in the first place.
As you noted, cultures evolve. Or, more quotable, “As culture is the collective expression of the people who constitute it, cultural evolution is tied to self-change.” Static assumptions do no one good here, described earlier; either at the individual or the collective levels.
Some examples of this include Indigenous Christianity exemplified by Dr. Terry LeBlanc, Dr. Raymond Aldred, the late Rev. Richard Twiss, and others. Cultures collide and third ones arise. You posed the question, “How many non-aboriginal memes can be incorporated into a self before it ceases to be aboriginal?”
Looking into the future, the First Nations cultures will remain. The Second Nations or settler-colonialist cultures will stay. Simultaneously, a third set of cultures will emerge from this history. What might be the next manifestation of a third culture?
Robertson: During the 1960s Anishinaabe Duke Redbird used to say that the truck is a very important part of Amerindian culture. “How do I know that?” he would rhetorically ask, only to answer “Because whenever I visit a reserve anywhere in Canada, there are old half tons and plenty of reserve mechanics who know how to keep them running.” I would add that the trucks are a lot newer these days.
It is not so much that Amerindian or First Nations cultures will remain as that they will continually be co-constructed and reconstituted by the members that identify with those cultures. Those reconstructions will inevitably involve cultural appropriation. The concept of nation as applied to Amerindian peoples in Canada is one such appropriation. The idea of the nation began with Joan of Arc who rallied people who spoke various dialects of French to oppose the British. Although French forces eventually repelled the British, the idea that the French were a nation that owed each other and the nation allegiance did not take root until the French Revolution and was exploited by Napoleon to almost conquer all of Europe. Arguably, however, the first nation occurred earlier in the form of the Dutch Republic. The Anishinaabe could be a nation if they defined themselves as such, and if they did they would organize something like an Anishinaabe national council. Irrespective of issues of sovereignty and self-government, a band that may consist of two or three extended families, is not the same thing as a nation so when the term “First Nation” is used at that level it represents a misappropriation. It seems that the term “First Nations” represents a conflation of “first peoples,” but even here we have waves of migration so that the descendents of the Clovis peoples would be arguably the first, the Dene the second and the Inuit the third.
Given the historical record your use of the term “Second Nations” is confusing. You may be referring to the formation of Canada led by John A. Macdonald. He attempted to form a nation out of British North America but in his attempt to assimilate French and English speakers into that nation he was extending the definition of the term. In any event, the experiment did not work as planned. Beginning with Rene Leveque, the Quebecois defined themselves as their own nation but English speaking Canadians have never defined themselves as an English speaking nation. All of this prompted Justin Trudeau to describe Canada as a post-national formulation in a New York Times interview. In Trudeau’s opinion, the Canadian nation no longer exists.
You asked about the emergence of a third culture, but that has already happened and is continuing to happen. Canadian culture has been evolving from a “mosaic” pattern distinctive from the U.S. American “melting pot.” It is descended from the fur trade and the mercantile system that distinguished British North America heavily influenced by geography, climate, and cultures that were indigenous to the land. It is also a culture that is descended from the European Enlightenment as well as its Christian traditions. It will continue to evolve as a negotiation between its peoples.
Jacobsen: As you imply, the objective world matters, as objective truth provides the basis for empirical models for comprehension of the natural world. However, the work with Indigenous or Aboriginal peoples with PTSD symptomatology can become a difficulty.
As you explained, “The scientific method developed as a way of reducing subjectivity in our quest for the objectively real. Rational thought is anathema to thought systems that propagate through non-rational means.”
How can healthy concepts of self and, with them, reliance on approximations of objective truth derive a basis for a third culture — secular and religious — more constructive and positive than destructive and negative of relations between the First Nations and Second Nations — so to speak — or the settler-colonialists and, in fact, a basis for different and innovative forms of treatments oriented with the context and conceptualizations of memes the self?
Robertson: First I would like to explain that I am not a post-modernist. I had a professor who said science is just a “white male way of knowing.” I countered that if this was true then accounts of colonialism are just a “Politicized Indian way of knowing.” For the very same reasons why I believe there exists an objective reality outside ourselves, I believe the holocaust and the colonization of the Americas occurs irrespective of the race, gender or ethnic membership of the speaker. “His truth” or “her truth” is always trumped by “the truth.” It is our challenge to find what is true, and that is the mission of science.
Instinctively, we know this is true. Clients with very low self-esteem don’t change just because the therapist tells them they are worthy and capable. They change only when they see sufficient evidence that counters their low self-evaluation. It is not that they are afraid to believe in themselves, it is that they are afraid to believe in themselves falsely. They take a theory as to who they are and they keep to that theory until it is overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary. They are scientists.
Evidence that is based on blaming others is self-defeating because the act of blaming transfers one’s personal power to those who are blamed. A problem with victim culture is that it depends on redress from the more powerful with the result that it breeds perpetual dependency. PTSD is characterized by a disempowered self surrounded by a worldview that is hostile to the individual and unpredictable. The anecdote for both those with PTSD and those immersed in victim culture is to define oneself as capable of contributing to a secure future within a world that is mostly, but not always, supportive and predictable. The positive self-esteem that results is then a result of one’s own efforts within a social interest context.
Blaming or demeaning others is a cheap and ultimately ineffective way of building self-esteem. Let’s deconstruct your use of the term “settler-colonialist.” The 19th century Cree, after they defeated the Dene in most of what is now northern Saskatchewan, settled in the now vacated land building family trap lines and ultimately forming communities. Since they came from what is now northern Manitoba and settled in a land to which they had not previously occupied, they were settlers. But after a generation or two, their descendants could no longer be viewed as settlers because they were born in and were part of the land that was once Dene. The term “settler” only applies to the generation that settled. The notion that white people will always be settlers because of their race is, I think, racist. I am reminded of a political conversation I had with a group of people at the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College back in the early 1980s. At one point a Cree woman who refused to acknowledge that she also had European genes loudly stated, “I wish all the whites went back to where they came from, and you Metis should go half way back.” We all laughed. In those days we were not so sensitive to humour. But when you think about it, the idea that the Metis should drown in the North Atlantic is a racist idea, but at the time we knew she didn’t really mean that. The fact is, the whites aren’t going anywhere. Calling them “settlers” only breeds a perpetual sense of self-defeating disempowering victimization.
I notice that when the words aboriginal and settler are used in the same sentence, the word “aboriginal” is usually capitalized while the word “settler” is never capitalized. This is rather curious because both words are descriptive adjectives. Why would adjectives describing one people be treated differently than adjectives describing another? Now, in fact, in English adjectives that end in “al” are never capitalized, but in Canada we have recently ignored that convention. Perhaps we believe that by capitalizing the word aboriginal we will build the self-esteem of people who are aboriginal to this land. I think there are more meaningful ways of building self-esteem. As a person with such ancestry, I don’t need to capitalize a self-referencing adjective to build my self-esteem.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Robertson, again.
[1] It is referenced in other research by Dr. Robertson, “…this understanding explains how the syndrome may be transferred intergenerationally. That being said, it would be a mistake to assume that all who went to residential school suffer from the associated syndrome or that therapeutic self-reconstruction can be done by PLAR facilitators.”
[2] Interestingly, as a small point, the self can have implications for how one views the need for weddings too. Dr. Robertson states, “It is postulated that marriage ceremonies have persisted among the non-religious due to needs to authenticate or recognize transitional changes to the self, but these needs have been met through ad hoc strategies as opposed to a uniform demand for humanist services.”
[3] Ignoring the prior learning assessment, though intriguing, as this does not suit the needs of the educational series here, the work with Dianne Conrad repeats the other interesting points about the need for integration into the models, of the practitioner of “self-development,” of a dynamism in other words.
Some interesting commentary, “The literature of higher education and adult learning has long recognised the value of providing adults with not only cognitive and workplace skills but also with tools for development in the affective — social and emotional — domains of learning.”
Some more intriguing commentary, “…the practice of recognising prior learning, as a means of credentialing and a form of validation, must be rigorously and ethically administered to ensure appropriate recognition of real achievement.” How does one keep the accurate conception of self mapped to the notion of the “self”?
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HawkeyeAssociates.Ca
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/02/11
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson is a Registered Doctoral Psychologist with expertise in Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, and Human Resource Development. He earned qualifications in Social Work too.
His research interests include memes as applied to self-knowledge, the evolution of religion and spirituality, the Aboriginal self’s structure, residential school syndrome, prior learning recognition and assessment, and the treatment of attention deficit disorder and suicide ideation.
In addition, he works in anxiety and trauma, addictions, and psycho-educational assessment, and relationship, family, and group counseling. Please see Ask Dr. Robertson 1 — Counselling and Psychology, Ask Dr. Robertson 2 — Psychotherapy, Ask Dr. Robertson 3 — Social and Psychological Sciences Gone Wrong, and Ask Dr. Robertson 4 — Just You and Me, One-on-One Counselling, as these are the previous sessions in this educational series. Here we talk about self-actualization.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Famously, so famous, in fact, as to become a common phrase indicative of common sense wisdom — which, as one may joke about ‘common sense,’ may be uncommon sometimes and other times not-so-wise, the late Abraham Maslow, American Psychologist, remarked on the existence of problems and tools to solve them:
I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.
Dr. Philip Zimbardo, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University, and others — including Dr. Warren Farrell, who speaks in a pace and tone so as not to offend even the fly on the wall, for content reasons, obviously — continue to focus on some overlooked issues for males, young males and boys in particular; where as a collective, interrelated culture, these become issues for us, too. Maslow constructed the hierarchy of needs in the 1943 paper entitled A Theory of Human Motivation.
Zimbardo, who specializes in the psychology of evil (Stanford Prison Experiment in experiment and Abu Ghraib in reality, though this experiment came under more critical scrutiny, recently) and time perspective (e.g., living, mentally speaking, in the past, the present, or future), spoke on young men and boys since the early 2010s right into the present.
In particular, Zimbardo spoke on the failure of some boys and young men in multiple domains of life, where mainstream cultures — multinationally speaking — demand certain levels of performance and expect achievement of specific milestones by culturally affirmed ages for social approval. If not, then cue the epithets and societal reproval.
It is not an all-or-nothing evaluation, but it is a change in the ratio of the boys and young men succeeding compared to previous generations on average — and, especially, in contrast to the wonderful rise of girls and women. It becomes a dual-facet phenomenon of decline for boys and young men and incline for girls and young women with higher-order analysis implications, in time and in persistence of culture in bounded geography. Zimbardo reflected on the failures, by his estimation, as indicative of a hijacking or hacking of the hierarchy of needs by pornography, video games, and fatherlessness/(male-)mentorlessness — in part.
That is to say, with the self-fulfillment and psychological needs removed from the hierarchy of needs or ignored by the boys and young men, this left, at least, pornography, video games, and mentorlessness as central pillars in the decline of self-actualization and psychological needs, in boys and young men.
In the end, Zimbardo argues the result becomes a context in which young men and boys find themselves fulfilled as purely safety-and-physiological-needs-based beings, while also creating, in his research and assertions, i.e., not formally accepted by the academic psychological community in the DSM-5, “arousal addictions”: a psychological mode of a move towards pleasure and drift, or shift, away from pain in every life dynamic with a consistent need for novelty, which is an addiction for similar hyperstimuli with perpetual novelty, e.g., pornography and video games, as opposed to the same hyperstimuli, e.g., cocaine and gambling.
Of course, as a side remark, Dr. Leonard Sax, M.D., Ph.D., American Psychologist and Physician, describes endocrine disruptors and educational system changes as additional factors in this.
No planning, no contingencies, no notions of the future, no orientation towards larger life goals, and little or no incentive to move out of this hedonistic, presentist mental state. Did Maslow predict this psychological orientation of young men and boys? If so, how? Did anyone (else)?
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: Your pre-amble certainly covers a lot of ground, Scott! The short answer as to whether Maslow predicted the current psychological orientation of young men and boys is “no.” He was interested in individual as opposed to collective psychological development. On the other hand, his hierarchy of needs may be applied to such developments.
There is a lot of evidence that males in modern Euro-American cultures are not doing well. Males, on average, die younger. Male unemployment is increasing with large numbers of younger males considered virtually unemployable, yet 97% of workplace deaths are men. Seventy percent of graduates in Canadian universities are women. Male suicide rates are four times that of women. Men are more likely to suffer from addictions, be incarcerated and be victims of violent crime. Eighty percent of homeless are men. Things have gotten worse for men since ex-feminist Warren Farrell wrote his book two and a half decades ago. From a Maslow hierarchy of needs perspective, things have not been going well, and part of that can be attributed to the influence of feminism.
Sax, whom you also referenced, in a brilliant analysis of kindergarten curricula in the United States, said that the curricula had been changed in preceding decades to conform to girl’s normative development. Specifically, he said that kindergartens had come to emphasize verbal skills which developmentally favour girls at that age. Had kindergartens emphasized spatial skills then boys would have been favoured. The result of this gynocentric curricula is that boys are more likely to experience frustration in their early schools, like school less, and more frequently experience failure. If female normative development and behaviour is set as normative across society, then boys and men will be disadvantaged. But that is only part of the story.
Using qualitative methods, I was able to demonstrate that a diverse sample of Canadian men have experienced harsh stigma as a result of their sex. Stigma is the imputation of characteristics to a class of people that renders them unfit for certain social roles. The men were viewed as a threat to others or irresponsible with respect to family responsibilities simply because they were men. As a result, they were judged as unfit, or less fit, in their roles as parents or as employees in specific occupations despite a lack of evidence of any wrongdoing. We see this stigma in society with notions of “toxic masculinity” where guilt does not have to be proven, it is assumed. Thus, even when men overcome disadvantages built into education, they remain at a disadvantage. The alienation of fathers from their families, in large part because of stigma, compounds the problem because boys, raised by single parent mothers, are less likely to have effective role models matching their gender and they are more likely to experience addictions, incarceration and suicide.
So, as Zimbardo has argued, many young men are dropping out. They are not competing for careers. They are not establishing families. They are not contributing meaningfully to society. They are occupying themselves with short term gratification. Maslow argued that until self-esteem needs are met, people are more preoccupied with meeting those needs than pursuing self-actualization. If a group of people are disadvantaged in education and suffer stigma for being a member of their group, it could be expected that in accepting the dominant society’s normative view, they suffer low genderized self-esteem. Zimbardo’s famous prison experiment showed definitively that people tend to become the roles societies set for them. The scary implication of this is that many of these young men could become the “toxic masculine” stereotype feminists have set for them. But I think there is another way of looking at this.
About three decades before Maslow built his famous pyramid, Alfred Adler said that all humans are born with a “striving for perfection” which is similar to Maslow’s idea of self-actualization. Those who give up this striving are people who are discouraged and this describes those young men who are dropping out. We need to combat society’s message to boys that they are both bad and failures and we need to reintroduce the striving for goodness.
Robertson’s article on Male Stigma can be found at: https://www.hawkeyeassociates.ca/images/pdf/academic/Male_Stigma.pdf
Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, what therapeutic methods, in a professional setting — group and one-on-one, work with the young men and boys, who, by standard cultural expectations, continue to fail at, probably, increasing rates?
Robertson: In 2012 I attended a workshop on how to counsel men at a Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association annual convention. The presenters were both women one of whom asked, with wide eyed innocence, how many of the attendees, who were overwhelmingly women, had actually counselled a man. Fewer than half the workshop participants raised their hands. The workshop then proceeded with a review of statistics on how few men seek psychotherapy, how men experience depression and suicide ideation less but nonetheless commit suicide at higher rates, and how men sublimate their mental health needs through alcohol, anger, and violence. The prescription of the presenters was that men need to learn how to admit their failings and seek help; they need to be in touch with their feelings more and make themselves “vulnerable” by discussing those feelings; and they need to find allies and build support systems. In short, they need to become more like women.
The suggestions of these female facilitators are not totally wrong. Many men benefit from honing these skills; but I would argue that many women would benefit from learning skills in which men tend to more easily excel. The problem with the paradigm that was presented at this workshop is exactly the problem Sax found with gynocentric kindergarten curricula — it sets up female developmental experience as normative to which both sexes should aspire.
The dominant themes in psychotherapy have always been gyno-normative, even when most of the practitioners were male. For example, Freud’s patients were all female (and rich females at that), and it was on his experience with them that he based his theories. It is probably no coincidence that the psychoanalysis he developed consists of symbolism, dream interpretation, random thoughts, free associations and fantasies in a process that can take years. In contrast, the male approach is to define a problem and solve it. Sometimes this involves setting aside one’s emotions so that rational processes are better able to take charge. My experience with men is that they do not want to be in therapy for a long time. Albert Ellis’ Rational Emotive Therapy makes sense for many men although women may equally benefit from this approach.
I don’t mean to recapitulate John Grey’s Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus thesis. A non-sexist psychotherapy will treat each person as a culture of one with the therapist setting out to learn that culture; however, we need to recognize that there are certain tendencies that may be culturally or genetically driven. Sexist psychotherapy occurs when the normative experience of one sex is set as the norm for both. For example, the presenters at the “How to Counsel Men” workshop I just cited were mystified as to how it was that men were far more likely to commit suicide than women but were far less likely to suffer from depression. It did not occur to them that the American Psychological Association defines depression using the female normative experience. Male symptoms that differ from the female expression are not recognized, and I submit this is one reason why men are under diagnosed with this condition.
It is not at all clear that men’s mental health needs will receive serious attention any time soon. The APA Guidelines for the Psychological Practice with Men and Boys released last year, attempts to link traditional masculinity to racism, ageism, sexism, classism, and heterosexism, and this, we are told, results in “personal restriction, devaluation, or violation of others or self.” The unsubstantiated suggestion is made that men commit higher levels of intimate partner violence and are estranged from their children because they lack the will or ability to have positive involvement in healthy family relationships. Psychologists are cautioned about believing their male clients who protest their innocence because, in the words of the APA, “Male privilege tends to be invisible to men.”
I think we should consider the possibility that men do not seek counselling or therapy because they do not see counsellors and therapists as sympathetic to their experiences and the APA guidelines fail to dispel this perception. This should not be seen as an indictment against all therapists. Jordan Peterson’s “Twelve Steps” are based on practices that are common to Rational Emotive and Cognitive Behavioural therapies, and he expressed surprise that his approach has been overwhelmingly endorsed by young men because those approaches are gender neutral. I think his experience demonstrates that men are willing to seek help for their mental health issues if the helpers are seen to be sympathetic to their lived experience.
My advice to men who are interested in psychotherapy is to interview a number of psychotherapists before settling on one. Ensure that the therapist you choose is sympathetic to your needs and has an approach with which you feel comfortable. I think most therapists would feel comfortable answering such questions, and if they do not, you do not want to use the services of that therapist.
Jacobsen: Recalling a remark by Sax, he noted, after the age of 30, no reliable intervention — inasmuch as his research and professional practice work are concerned — for the aforementioned failure, in terms of steerage back onto the high seas of normal cultural life. He states, according to recent research on the architecture of the brain, an adult female is aged 22 and an adult male is aged 30.
Robertson: Neuropsychology is not my field; however this sounds like an old idea that girls mature faster than boys. I will rely on Susan Harter on this who did a meta-analysis and concluded that the frontal lobes normally complete their development around age 25 for both sexes. She published this in her 2012 book, and there may be subsequent research of which I am not aware. On the other hand, Sax is on solid ground in contending that there are inherited sex-linked differences with respect to personalities, drives and certain aptitudes although it should be remembered that when discussing such differences we are talking about averages and that knowing a person’s sex will not reliably tell us anything about any individual person’s personality or aptitudes. In any case, we are not born with a blank slate as Steven Pinker classically articulated in his book of that name, and on that point I think Sax is on very solid ground scientifically.
The 1950s and 60s popular notion that girls mature faster than boys was grounded in a number of observations that included girls verbal and social development, and the fact that young women were often ready to settle down and raise a family by their late teens. Young men, on the other hand, were often more interested in things than people and would rather explore and experiment than settle down and raise a family. The related conclusions regarding maturity was again grounded in a gynonormative perspective. We now know that different lifestyles and experiences can affect the brain’s structure such that male curiosity, if allowed expression, will result in a strengthening of relevant parts of the brain. Neo-natal scarcity can also lead to phenotypical gene expression that may be adaptive in a world of grinding poverty but are maladaptive in the modern context. Sax may have been thinking of this research in putting limits on when profitable interventions may be undertaken. Recent research has debunked the idea that the brain loses all plasticity by age 30, and in any case, I have helped many adults past middle age to lead satisfying lives after having had a career of dysfunctionality.
Jacobsen: Looking at the last two questions, if we look at the short, medium, and long term futures of men and, thus, in part, societies, what will be the outcomes for those who begin to succeed, and those who continue to fail, by the standard cultural expectations in Canada? What will be the outcomes for the Canadian culture if the trends lean towards further failure or further success — as defined before? For example, Sax reflects on the work by Professor David D. Gilmore, Professor of Anthropology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, with the likely dissipation and replacement, as an assessment and not a judgment of Gilmore, of secular English-speaking culture in North America, and, in fact, elsewhere, because of the lack of strong bonds across generations and the current cultures with young men and boys on one failure, and girls and young women on another standard success, trajectory, where these sub-cultures in larger Canadian society will not reproduce themselves for a variety of reasons and, therefore, will undergo steady replacement by other sub-cultures enacting the behavioral, communal, familial, and mating patterns indicative of those who have endured in previous generations for millennia, e.g., the Navajo, the Chinese, the Jewish, and so on.
Robertson: Again, there is a lot packed into your question. I would predict that some men will continue to succeed and they will assume the position of alpha males. I predict that large numbers of men will continue to fail, in part due to societal structures that lead to this result, and in part due to their own state of personal anomy flowing from a breakdown in the intergenerational transmission of values. I would argue, however, that reproduction below replacement levels is occurring worldwide and cannot be attributed solely or even primarily to events unique to Euro-American cultures but seem to be correlated with higher levels of educational opportunity available to women that allow for alternate avenues to self-actualization besides the mother archetype. I don’t think a low birth rate is necessarily a bad thing, but I am concerned about male roles in this new culture.
With the words “alpha male” my mind went immediately to the Canadian prime minister who may or may not be prototypical. Alpha males operate by different rules than are available to ordinary males. Feminists in Trudeau’s cabinet like Chrystia Freeland and Jane Philpott gave Mr. Trudeau a pass on substantiated allegations of a past sexual assault while applauding the expulsion from the Liberal caucus backbench members who faced unproven allegations of sexual assault. This would be an example of how rules between classes of men differ in the new society. The problems men who are not alpha face are either invisible or ignored. Even though three times as many male aboriginal men are missing or murdered as compared to aboriginal women, a Canadian inquiry into the problem excluded consideration of the men. When the government announced that Syrian refugees would be admitted, single males were specifically excluded from refugee status. When foreign aid increases were announced, agencies receiving the aid had to agree that none of it would go to men. I do not think the majority of men can expect much consideration from such feminized alpha males.
One problem faced by the majority of men is we do not normally confide in and support other men. I have been part of that problem. In 1969 I marched with Women’s Liberation to protest the “Saskatoon Club.” This was a club for well-to-do men in the city of Saskatoon. Men got to relax, play pool, discuss business and politics, and enter into mentoring relationships without the perceived distraction of women. We succeeded in opening it up to women. About three years later a succession of women rose at a meeting of Women’s Liberation to state that there were women present who felt intimidated by the presence of men. They politely asked the men present, who numbered about a quarter of the group, to leave, and we did so without protest. The result is that there was no net gain in inter-sex cooperation. The difference involved a shifting of gender specific networking and mentoring capacity. Ordinary men to this day remain largely unorganized.
The lack positive male self-identity can be traced to an intergenerational fail in the transmission of values. This fail began long before the advent of feminism. With the Industrial revolution men were forced to work in factories for 12 to 16 hours per day six days per week. Men became absentee parents whose contribution to the family was largely as a “good provider.” Mothers raised their children but necessarily gave them a woman’s perspective. This division of labour became a cultural norm, maintained long after working hours were reduced. Most men still measured their self-worth by their ability to be that good provider for their families differing to women in matters of child-rearing. But now, if men work hard and achieve financial success they are told that they are the recipients of unearned male privilege. Some men are saying, “Why bother?” I think the appeal of people like Peterson is that he has given them a reason to bother that transcends current ideological constraints, and that reason has to do with the development of personal integrity. In a sense, he is reaching out intergenerationally, filling a need in building positive male identities, as I also hope to do in this interview. Thank you for the opportunity.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Robertson, once more.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HawkeyeAssociates.Ca
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/01/28
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson is a Registered Doctoral Psychologist with expertise in Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, and Human Resource Development. He earned qualifications in Social Work too.
His research interests include memes as applied to self-knowledge, the evolution of religion and spirituality, the Aboriginal self’s structure, residential school syndrome, prior learning recognition and assessment, and the treatment of attention deficit disorder and suicide ideation.
In addition, he works in anxiety and trauma, addictions, and psycho-educational assessment, and relationship, family, and group counseling. Here we talk about the clientele.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When working with clients or patients one-on-one, how do you build rapport and trust with them? I imagine, on a one-on-one basis, difficulty in working with them without rapport or, especially, trust.
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: Numerous studies have found that client-counsellor rapport accounts for up to 50% of the variance in therapeutic outcomes, and this has led some psychologists to conclude that the methodological school of psychology one practises is not important. What the data actually shows is that without rapport the client is less likely to experience positive outcomes regardless of methods used, but that still allows for the possibility that some practices are more efficacious than others for particular issues.
Probably the easiest way to build rapport is to identify commonalities between therapist and client. This could include gender, race, ethnicity, religion, social status, and so on. Once the client has revealed the problem or issue that has brought him or her to therapy, the therapist may share that he has faced a similar issue, and this too has the effect of establishing rapport, but there are risks associated with this approach.
The first such danger is that it can undermine the therapeutic process. As discussed in an earlier conversation, psychotherapy is predicated on the notion that each of us is a unique self-determining individuals. By over emphasizing our external commonalities, we run the risk of denying that self-empowering process. The clearest example I can think of occurred when I was Director of Mental Health for Northern Saskatchewan. Concerned with the lack of effectiveness of its alcohol and drug addiction program, the province brought its addiction program under the authority of the mental health program. I discovered that addictions workers had been hired, not on the basis of their competence in psychotherapy, but on the basis of their status as “recovered” alcoholics. These workers had maintained sobriety for years, and they thought they could use their own experience as a template for others. They gave advice based on their own experiences and they thought they were doing therapy. Such an approach denies the individual experiences and cognitions of the client.
A second danger of establishing rapport through the development of a common identity is that it could confirm a dysfunctional worldview. Psychotherapy is about change. If a man comes to me having been abused by women, and I reveal to him that I also have been abused by women, then we could commiserate and blame while avoiding dealing with the changes the man will need to make to have healthy transsexual relationships. Similarly, Feminist Psychotherapy adds an ideological perspective to the field and that perspective could keep female clients from undergoing beneficial self-change.
I am not discounting using therapist and client commonalities in building rapport, I am just cognisant of some of the risks that need to be monitored while taking such an approach. There is another way of building the therapeutic alliance. Adler viewed the client or patient as an expert in himself and therapy as a collaboration between two experts. Another way of picturing this approach is to view the therapist as a kind of consultant. The client identifies the issues he or she wishes to tackle, and I offer alternative therapies the client may use to reach agreed upon goals. We then co-construct a treatment plan. Treatment then is in part experimentation to see which approaches are most effective in this situation given the unique attributes the client possesses. In the process, the client learns self-monitoring and self-assessment skills that can be applicable in other situations.
Jacobsen: What are you bearing in mind in this working environment, in one-on-one counseling? How do you gauge individual needs and project possible timelines of the patients?
Robertson: In most cases, the client comes to me with an issue or issues on which they wish to work. We don’t necessarily stay with the same issue. In one example, the client came to me with the complaint that she was too sensitive to criticism. Following a couple of sessions, it became apparent that she was the recipient of emotional abuse, so this shifted the strategies we used. In another case, the client came to me with problems maintaining attention, but it became apparent that the reason she had difficulty focussing was depression. Such changes in focus involve a re-negotiation of treatment planning. I like to project a certain number of sessions in which to incorporate a treatment plan with the idea that at the end of those sessions we, that is the client and I, evaluate the achievements obtained. This could result in terminating our sessions, continuing with the present treatment plan, or negotiating a new plan.
Jacobsen: How do you work to prevent the possible transference of trauma to the counsellor or reactivity of the counselor, in case they or you may have had prior similar negative life experiences? For example, a male counselor who witnessed abuse of one parent by another in youth, and then hears a recounting of a client’s experience with this. This may work them up.
Robertson: Hopefully the counsellor has dealt with his or her related traumas before they attempt to help someone who has had a similar traumatic experience. If the counsellor has not successfully dealt with that trauma then he or she should not accept such clients. On the other hand, if the counsellor has successfully dealt with a similar event, that counsellor may be able to offer unique helpful insights. The person who experiences a trauma is not necessarily forever wounded by it.
The issue of transference was first noted by Freud who viewed the client or patient’s attribution of emotions and motivations to the therapist as an opportunity to generate positive insight. I think what you might be concerned with is the issue of countertransference where the therapist takes on the emotions of the client. The counsellor or therapist has a special relationship with the client involving a kind of intimacy. Karl Rogers called this therapeutic stance unconditional positive regard. Alfred Adler said you have to get into the client’s skin to see the world through his eyes. The danger here is that the therapist may so identify with the client that he takes on aspects of their worldview and trauma. This, of course, does not do anyone any good. The therapist is conducting a cognitive exercise in monitoring the client’s cognitions, emotions and behaviour. By maintaining this cognitive distance from the client’s emotions and behaviour, the therapist is actually modelling those skills the client will need to gain control of problematic emotionally laden behaviours. Some people equate cognitive distance as a lack of empathy, but this is a misunderstanding of the concept. The therapist practising cognitive distancing is empathetic enough to understand that the client, to gain control of his or her emotions and behaviours, must be able to sufficiently objectify them to understand them and thereby gain control.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Robertson.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HawkeyeAssociates.Ca
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/01/14
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson is a Registered Doctoral Psychologist with expertise in Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, and Human Resource Development. He earned qualifications in Social Work too.
His research interests include memes as applied to self-knowledge, the evolution of religion and spirituality, the Aboriginal self’s structure, residential school syndrome, prior learning recognition and assessment, and the treatment of attention deficit disorder and suicide ideation.
In addition, he works in anxiety and trauma, addictions, and psycho-educational assessment, and relationship, family, and group counseling. Here we talk about different notions of empirical and ethical wrongness (and rightness) in science in general and then in psychological and social sciences in particular.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When do social and psychological sciences go wrong? In that, the hidden premises of the field poison the research questions asked and skew the findings in response to the questions.
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: The first part of your question, Scott, is “when do sciences go wrong?” The answer, of course, is “all the time.” Science is, at its core, careful observation. It is always possible that our observations are imperfect, or that our interpretations of well-observed phenomena are mistaken. Therefore, scientists will always acknowledge that their knowledge claims are provisional, dependent on further evidence. This is why, in modern science, replication and peer review are so important in identifying any biases that may have affected interpretations placed on research.
You may have been referring to Thomas Kuhn with respect to the second part of your question on hidden premises. Kuhn said that for a discipline to become a science it had to be united by a paradigm which he defined as a body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief. In 1970 he declared psychology to be a proto-science because it lacked such a unifying paradigm. A quarter of a century later Pat Duffy Hutcheon examined three possible paradigmic formulations in psychology — the psychoanalysis of Freud, the developmentalism of Piaget, and the classical behaviourism of Skinner — and she found all had failed to establish themselves as the dominant paradigm in psychology for various reasons. I believe that since then a fourth paradigm has implicitly taken root in the field and that is the subject of the final chapter in a book I am writing about the evolution of the self. That paradigm is based on our self-definition as a species that includes our selves as discreet, relatively stable, volitional, reflective and rational beings. At this time results within the field of psychotherapy are overwhelmingly interpreted from this cognitivist paradigm. Consistently obtained scientific results that cannot be understood within this paradigm would force a scientific revolution replacing this paradigm with another more inclusive one. I suppose you could say the research and interpretations of findings are “poisoned” by the assumptions built into the more primitive paradigm. The classical example of this would be the pre-Copernican notion that Earth was the center of the universe. Using this paradigm, the planets exhibited complicated orbits around Earth, sometime speeding up or slowing down, performing strange loops and so on until the paradigm shifted placing our sun in the center of the solar system. I have argued that an emerging paradigm in psychology includes a self-definition of us as a species as volitional and capable of rational choice (see: https://www.hawkeyeassociates.ca/images/pdf/academic/Free_Will.pdf). It has been argued that such a view favours the construct of individualism and “poisons” the individuals so-counselled against collectivism. I do not happen to share that view. But that is an academic debate.
I do not believe the general public perceives the self-correcting tentativeness built into science. Instead of viewing science as a method for obtaining knowledge, they often view it as a belief system like a religion or an ideology. Religions and ideologies encourage this misunderstanding because they identify Truth, with a capital T, as authoritative and absolute. If scientific evidence runs counter to what they take as authoritatively true, then science is seen as a defective belief system that has “gone wrong.” An example of this would be the attack on the theory of evolution by people who want to believe Earth is only 6,000 years old. A second example would be people who believe environmental scientists are part of a great conspiracy to fake evidence related to global warming. A third example would be people who wish to think that evidence debunking notions that our minds are a “blank slate” when we are born are part of a patriarchal backlash. In an interview with the late Carl Sagan, the Dalai Lama said that if science proved reincarnation was impossible, then Buddhism would have to change. We need to carry something of that understanding into all our belief systems or we end up becoming the mindless servant of those belief systems.
Jacobsen: If we look at some aspects of interests for you, and if we look at some long and dark periods in Canadian history for some demographics within Canada, have social and psychological sciences been utilized in such a way to impact Indigenous communities disproportionately negatively? If so, how so?
Robertson: When I was Director of Health and Social Development for the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations during the 1980s, many chiefs repeated the refrain that they had been “studied to death.” They were, of course, not claiming that they had been physically harmed. They were claiming that there had been numerous studies and they had not seen any positive results. In some cases, studies were conducted but the results were not communicated back to the communities in question. I believe that knowledge should be “open access” and shared between all stakeholders.
The question as to how psychological knowledge has been utilized is, of course, a different question. While I was Director of Health and Social Development, a band education authority in a reserve in northern Saskatchewan hired a psychometrician from Edmonton to assess the intelligence of their elementary students. Sixty percent of the students were labelled mentally handicapped. My master’s thesis is on cultural bias in intelligence testing, and I know the reserve community in question and I can tell you that the psychometrician must not have followed test protocol with respect to testing children whose second language is English and who come from cultural traditions do not favour speeded, timed tests. At first, the band education committee was happy with these results as they received considerable extra funding for special needs children. But this was, in my opinion, a false economy with a negative impact. You see, educational programming for mentally handicapped is quite different from what was needed. When I was Director of Life Skills for the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College during its early years, we educated students from often remote communities in those habits of mind and organizational skills that were needed for academic success. The program added an extra year to the student’s university education, but it was incredibly successful. Teaching students cross-cultural skills for academic success in a modern industrial society is better than teaching independent living skills aimed at the mentally challenged in such cases.
Jacobsen: Using the same sciences but asking better research questions with the greater good of society and individuals in mind, what may alleviate some of the impacts of phenomena including residential school syndrome?
Robertson: A good research question is one that when answered extends our knowledge in some way. Accumulated knowledge may then be used to bring improvements to society but that is beyond the purview of scientists in their role as scientists. I am suspicious of power-brokers limiting research based on some notion of the “greater good.” For example, a former prime minister limited research into climate change presumably because he and his party felt this was in the greater good. Decisions by authorities on what constitutes the greater good are often ideologically based. That being said, research into ways to alleviate human suffering interests me, and as you have alluded, residential school syndrome has been one of my interests.
As a kid who stayed with the families of friends on reserve in the 60s, I knew something about the dark history of Indian residential schools. So, I was surprised when chiefs in Saskatchewan commissioned me, along with my colleague Perry Redman, to do research into keeping one of these schools open after they had been closed elsewhere in the country. Later, I was hired as a school psychologist with a specialty in youth suicide prevention at a different Indian Residential School that was kept open under an Amerindian administration. About a decade after that I was commissioned by Indian Child and Family Services in Lac La Ronge to assess the students at one of the last remaining residential schools in the country. Then, at the turn of the millennium, I accepted a contract with the Aboriginal Healing Foundation to provide psychological support to various projects aimed at alleviating the effects of residential schools in northern Saskatchewan. I have published articles on residential school syndrome and the related concept of historic trauma.
Residential school syndrome is a form of post traumatic stress disorder that affects a minority of people who attended residential schools and is characterized by symptoms like extreme rage, lack of emotional connection with one has children, and aggressive alcohol and drug abuse in addition to those symptoms that are normally associated with PTSD. I have found a combination of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy coupled with aspects of Narrative Therapy that draws on the tradition of aboriginal storytelling as a way of meaning making to be effective. Treatment needs to be individualized. Some clients have benefited from learning and practicing aboriginal traditions, but others have a different worldview. In one of my articles I describe how the elders in one community found attempts by their band health administration to introduce Aboriginal Spirituality to be oppressive (see: https://www.hawkeyeassociates.ca/images/pdf/academic/ColonizationStanley.pdf)
A concern I have is the tendency of some to essentialize and universalize experience. One woman approached me worried that she might be “in denial.” She had good memories of her residential school experience and was leading a happy and productive life, but the negative media reports about these schools had led her to question her remembered experiences. Not all residential schools were the same and not all students at such schools suffered or witnessed abuse. Even worse, in my opinion, is the concept of historic trauma, where a whole race of people is said to suffer from a psychological condition irrespective of when, where and under what conditions colonization occurred. In my mind, undo psychologising is destructive of peoples’ mental health.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Robertson.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HawkeyeAssociates.Ca
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/12/27
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson is a Registered Doctoral Psychologist with expertise in Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, and Human Resource Development. He earned qualifications in Social Work too.
His research interests include memes as applied to self-knowledge, the evolution of religion and spirituality, the Aboriginal self’s structure, residential school syndrome, prior learning recognition and assessment, and the treatment of attention deficit disorder and suicide ideation.
In addition, he works in anxiety and trauma, addictions, and psycho-educational assessment, and relationship, family, and group counseling. Here we talk about psychotherapy.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In a previous interview in two parts for The Voice Magazine, we covered some material on a course taught during the time at Athabasca University for you, which is the largest online university in Canada. You brought forward some analysis of psychotherapy and prominent figures in it. What is psychotherapy?
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: As you mentioned, I touched on this in our last interview Scott. Psychotherapy is a process of effecting change in an individual who voluntarily enters a therapeutic relationship as a client or patient. The change is psychological in that it is intended to impact positively on the client’s cognitive and emotional functioning. The therapist acts as a facilitator of such change in keeping with the client’s goals. There is a consensus across the schools of psychotherapy that the therapeutic process is not advice giving. To give advice is to presume that the advice-giver knows the client better than the client does. To give advice is disempowering because, if the advice works, it leaves the client dependent on the advice-giver the next time there is a problem. Rather, the practice of psychotherapy involves the development of the individual to be a competent volitional actor with a sense of personal worth and constancy within a social milieu.
This definition, while sounding elegant, is not complete. Some schools of psychology are quite strict in proscribing advise giving. Others might allow advise giving where the client has an intact self and the focus of the intervention is problem-solving. In such cases, the therapist is not doing psychotherapy, but may be viewed as doing counselling. Still other schools conflate the terms psychotherapy and counselling. This latter view is not completely without theoretical merit as any change in behaviour that brings a feeling of success is likely to affect the psyche in some way.
Jacobsen: Following from the prior question, what did the major well-known figures, Freud and Jung, get wrong and right in their work?
Robertson: Both Freud and Jung drew attention to phylogenetic factors that contribute to the development of the psyche. By suggesting that archetypes are encoded, instinctive, preconfigured patterns of action, Jung was, in effect, taking a deterministic stance. Similarly, in Freud’s tripartite division the poor ego is left frantically balancing the instinctual drives of the id with the dictatorial culturally determined superego. Although I am not a determinist, I count the recognition of genetic and environmental constraints as an important contribution. I think Freud’s greatest contribution is that he popularized the idea that psychology is a science. Another of Freud’s contributions was that he brought the study of human sexuality out of the constraints imposed by Victorian morality by making it central to his theories. This is connected to something that Freud, in my opinion, got wrong and that is the notion of “penis envy.” As Alfred Adler noted in reply, if women were envious of men during the beginning of the twentieth century when this conversation occurred, it was more likely due to inequality in social relations than the fact that they are born without a penis.
Jung’s conceptualization of archetypes from which we create meaning has application to cultural and self studies, but he dabbled in mysticism and his notion that there exists a collective unconscious has bolstered the beliefs of some religionists. This can have dangerous consequences. For example, his speculations on the collective unconscious of the so-called “Aryan race” and the notion that they are somehow “rooted to the land” while the Jews are a “rootless people” played to the rise of Nazism. His comment that the psychology of Freud and Adler were okay for the Jews but his psychology is for the German “Volk” could be viewed as either religious or racial bigotry.
Jacobsen: Following from the first query once more, who were the figures of similar note as Freud and Jung but, unfortunately, not brought into the light of public consciousness as much as the aforementioned?
Robertson: I think Alfred Adler has not received sufficient recognition. For example, Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers, leaders of Humanist Psychotherapy, failed to credit Adler as offering a precursor for some of their ideas such as self-actualization and client centred therapy. Adler included the former term in what he called “striving for perfection” and anticipated client centred therapy by declaring that the patient or client was expert in his or her self with psychotherapy defined as a collaboration between experts.
Adler also had a foot in the Behaviourist camp. His “homework assignments” were a method of shaping and reinforcing behaviour. But the classical behaviourist might have been put off by Adler’s support for the idea that mankind has consciousness and the power of choice. In this way Adler anticipated Cognitive-Behaviourism. The founder of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy, Albert Ellis, did credit Adler’s influence in the development of his school of practise. By suggesting to clients that they consider revising their worldviews, Adler was anticipating those modern psychotherapists who view humans as meaning makers.
Today we have a plethora of schools of psychological practice with the founders of each emphasizing some feature or technique that makes their school distinctive. I argued in https://www.hawkeyeassociates.ca/images/pdf/academic/Free_Will.pdf that these schools are united by a theory of human potentiality and that the project of psychotherapy is to teach people to reach the potential implied by that theory. I think Adler tapped into this vision of what it means to be human over a century ago and he addressed it holistically.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Robertson.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HawkeyeAssociates.Ca
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/12/14
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson is a Registered Doctoral Psychologist with expertise in Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, and Human Resource Development. He earned qualifications in Social Work too.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2021/07/04
[Beginning of recorded material]
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Yeah. So what are the down lifting forces?
Rick Rosner: All right. So, we ended the last session on uplifting people in the future with me bitching about Rupert Murdoch. The deal is that, well, there are a couple of things. One is to some extent, you make the planet safe for yourself by uplifting the planet. That you don’t want to have such huge gaps among people that get a huge population that’s pissed off and will try to destroy you. Now some people will – some of the hyper rich, a lot of them, I think – work to insulate themselves from the angry masses. But I think most people have some inclination to want to uplift out of fairness and out of having a world that’s not miserable and chaotic. At the same time, everybody has their limits to uplift. The same way people have different limits to how far they’re willing to go to recycle.
Most people now believe that climate change is happening and want to do stuff within reason to slow it down. But everybody has a different idea of what is within reasonable expectation. So similarly, everybody has their idea of what might and will happen in the future as things happen. Everyone will have their idea of what’s reasonable and what isn’t going to uplift the world. It’s expensive to uplift. And it’s even more expensive when you have active forces that are down lifting people, the forces that keep people dumb. And that leads to the question of why would somebody want to keep people dumb? And in America, at least, it’s very much tied to money that the Republican Party has become the slaves of their rich donors, their hyper rich donors.
And the Koch brothers and people who are worth hundreds of millions and billions of dollars. And who don’t want to pay taxes, who don’t want to pay for stuff like infrastructure, who have so much money that they feel that they can buy their own services and they don’t want to pay for anybody else’s services. So, for 20 years and more, the Republican Party has been working against stuff for the public good: schools, infrastructure, and health care. If you’re rich and can afford to pay for it yourself, you don’t want to pay for anybody else’s shit. And not wanting to pay for schools, I mean, the majority of people are in favor of things like schools and libraries and decent roads.
And it’s to the benefit of rich Republican donors to have a very angry, mobilized base that thinks that roads and schools are socialism because it serves the purposes of the money driving the Republican Party to keep people down lifting and stupid in this way. There are also some doctrinaire stuff that keeping people worked up about abortion. But again, most of it goes back to feeding people’s prejudices and ignorance and stupidity to get what you want if you have the money to pay for it. And given the way politics works in the U.S. has been for the past 50 years and more, the Democrats have suffered for wanting to play fair, for thinking they have more popular and better ideas and thus don’t have to engage in the same kind of branding and often dishonesty that the Republicans engage in.
And the Democrats suffer from this. This naivete or laziness or confidence in their own goodness and confidence that normal political systems working normally will lead to the triumph of goodness and to the triumph of popular things, things that most people want being voted, coming to pass via legislation. And increasingly, lately, that’s not true because the Republicans play dirty. And a question for the near future is whether Democrats will play dirty too? It’s something that I’m writing about in my novel, where the main character plays dirty when that character finds it reasonable to do so. All right.
[End of recorded material]
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2021/07/04
[Beginning of recorded material]
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Okay, so, what are you thinking along the lines of, on the one hand just giving up on humanity versus trying to uplift or bring people into kind of this science fiction in near future that is likely on the…
Rick Rosner: So, I’m writing this novel set in the near future. And the main character in the novel is part of a large tech enterprise. And is in the middle of changes that are going on with regard to just stuff that is in the middle of the ongoing tech revolution. And if writing about this, the near future and about this character, I have to think about what will happen to, well, humanity in the near future as well as in the medium future. And there’s been a theme or a trend in science fiction for a long time, at least as far back as H.G. Wells, The Time Machine.
Jacobsen: Which is a great movie and book.
Rosner: Several pretty good movies. It tries to present the very far future. A future, I don’t know hundred thousand years from now, and then I think we get a peek at the future many millions of years from now. But the more fleshed out version of the far future is, maybe a couple of hundred thousand years from now, when humanity has split into Eloi and Morlocks. And Eloi are like fairies. They’re very physically fragile. They live on the surface. They flit around. They’re not good at stuff. They’re just like kind of cute little fairy creatures. And then the Morlocks live underground. I haven’t read this in a gazillion years. And they do all the work, maintaining whatever technology remains. And they come to the surface, I think, and capture and eat Eloi.
So anyway, you’ve got the trolls underground and you got the little fairies above ground. And that’s a very early, I don’t know what, 1910, 1920 version of humanity bifurcating into two different forms, two different species. And then more recently in the Trump era, you’ve got books like Neil Stevenson’s Fall and books by Cory Doctorow, like Charles Stross and Doctorow wrote Rapture of the Nerds, probably more than 20 years ago. Now that has America having been split into Jesus land and then, like technologically advanced areas, it kind of takes you on a tour of the various fragments of America.
And kind of the theme in some of these books is that some segments of humanity might be beyond help, beyond saving. That the vast majority of the people in the fallen lands or Jesus land are turning into savages and are being left behind. Mostly as a matter of their own doing as they fall for propaganda that sells them deranged versions of the world that they form their own insular populations. And it’s tough to get out of there and join the rest of the world. And the rest of the world doesn’t really want to deal with these insular populations because they’re insane and dangerous and violent and dumb. So it’s an issue in my book too, and I haven’t come up with any, I don’t think deeper insight than some of these other people have come up with.
But it’s hard to tell whether to what extent the current malaise, Jimmy Carter gave a speech about the national malaise back in 1977, 1978. And it was among the reasons he didn’t get reelected because he gave a fairly pessimistic speech. He says, we need to get our shit together. We need to address the challenges of today. And we need to drive smaller cars. We need to save energy. And then Reagan came along and said, its morning in America and everything’s great. And SUVs originated under Reagan. These big ass vehicles. And people like that better than Carter, Carter’s national malaise. But anyway, our current malaise with Republicans being a deranged political party and trying to pass, attempted to pass 400 laws, individual states to suppress voting.
And by voter suppression, we mean people who would vote Democratic, black people, non-rich people. But it’s hard to tell whether the current malaise is more of a blip or whether it’s an ongoing trend and whether the insanity of a quarter of the U.S. adult population is a temporary aberration or just an ongoing thing that’s going to continue to be a problem and even more of a problem as the potential for a technological gap grows. I mean, given some of the technology that is coming, you don’t have to be a dumb redneck to be fearful and intimidated. So I guess my money would be on the technological gap, the intellectual gap. That all these gaps are going to be persistent and troublesome.
So I mean in the 14th century, the gaps among people, I mean, they were significant. On the one hand, you could be a king or a queen. On the other hand, you could be somebody who lives in a mud hut. But they were nowhere, but still everybody was like medicine didn’t work in the 14th century. There was no air conditioning. There were no cars, no telephones. There was not a lot of stuff. So the gap between the richest and the poorest. I mean it was significant. But it left many areas of life still basically equal. Everybody died like crazy because medicine didn’t work. But in the year 2050, the potential for some people having great medicine that extends their lives almost indefinitely and other people dying even younger on average than they do now because they’re stuck in relative poverty and relative ignorance.
I just saw a statistic today that of the one third of Americans who haven’t yet been vaccinated, 74 percent say they will not get vaccinated. So what three quarters of one third is like one quarter of Americans are vaccine resistant, which for the first time I think ever the average life expectancy in America has declined for several years in a row. I think its setting records, the declining lifespans and whatever. But like, the decline in life expectancy is not evenly distributed among Americans. It falls on the poor, the dumb, the despairing. It’s not just COVID that kills a shitload of people. I think opioid overdoses, I think, has over the past 12 years killed half a million Americans.
So anyway, the potential for greater and greater divides among different populations, I don’t think that’s going away. And people in the future who have the power to decide how much resources, how many resources are going to be devoted to bringing people along to uplifting people will, as they are now, be forced to triage or will prefer to triage. Various organizations and individuals and governments will be making decisions in the future about how hard to push to bring the dumbest, the poorest, the most belligerent, the most insane of us to try to get them out of their dumb propagandized funk.
Except there is the addendum. Rupert Murdoch, the guy who created Fox News. And it seems like it’s been around forever, but I think it’s only been around for about twenty-five years. Rupert Murdoch is ninety. And you could make the case that he’s done more damage to humanity than any other living person. Maybe any other person ever, given the number of people he’s impacting. He also happens to be married to Mick Jagger’s ex-wife, Jerry Hall, which is insane. She’s a former supermodel. And this old evil fuck he’s married to. He’s ninety and he’s still out there, still pushing Fox News to do more damage. All right, the end.
[End of recorded material]
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
The refugees in Germany can be atheists, apart from the image of Muslims and other non-Christian religions coming into the country. These are atheist asylum seekers fleeing persecution; sometimes, simply for their lack of belief in the dominant mythology of the culture in which they were born.
As reported by DW, “Mahmudul Haque Munshi’s name was on a hit list in Bangladesh. After five of his friends and associates were murdered, the authorities warned the blogger: ‘There’s nothing more we can do for you.’ Munshi had to leave the country in 2015.”
Oftentimes, these refugees or asylum seekers will have to travel through several nations simply to find some destination of safety. Some have seen what is labeled a “Global Hit List” of some listing, formal or informal, of the nonbelievers or those who left their faith that need to be killed.
Some names include people of Bengali descent and who are refugees. Many refugees fear being killed not by a God but simply by other refugees or others who feel personal resentment and need for retribution for individuals who leave religion, often common within the Islamic faith.
If someone leaves the faith, or publicly speaks out against some of the theocratic intents of some of the faiths, this becomes the basis for the reactionary violence against people simply for not adhering to the dominant faiths of the culture.
One refugee organization is devoted to the plight of the non-religious and is titled the Atheist Refugee Relief organization. It has helped 37 nonreligious refugees since November 2017 and continues to do important work for them.
Dittmar Steiner of Atheist Refugee Relief stated, “Conservative Muslims criticize women who go around without headscarves… We are actually dealing with assaults, exclusion, threats and violence.”
A 31-one-year-old, Worood Zuhair, stated this as a common experience for herself, who is a biologist from Karbala, Iraq. She is under police protection and continues to receive death threats because of the lack of personal religious belief.
These prices are often paid with lost time in life or in blood for the nonbelievers or the non-religious around the world. The refugees among them will be far more vulnerable to the attacks against them that are not beholden to others within the community.
As reported, “The physical and mental abuse has left Zuhair deeply traumatized. “When your own father gives your soul to Azrael, the angel of death, that is enormously painful,” she told DW. “He did it so often. I couldn’t take it anymore.”
Now, Zuhair speaks about the multitude of abuses against women refugees, including those who need asylum because of their religious criticism and work for the rights of women where she “supports the (OWFI) Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq.”
For too many women refugees and women atheists, this poor treatment and abuse is common. Islamists are one such group who wish to punish individuals who criticize or leave the faith.
But it can go even deeper than this, as noted about Munshi, “Munshi attracted the wrath of Islamists when he founded the Shahbag movement in his home country in 2013. The movement called for the punishment of those responsible for war crimes committed when Bangladesh fought for its independence against Pakistan in 1971. Roughly three million people died during that war.”
In this, we can see moral acts of courage being socially punished with the threat of retribution permitted by culture. With a prominent blog and network, Munshi garnered about half of a million followers. There were mass protests in the streets with subsequent death threats.
The main struggle for these atheist refugees is for freedom from religion. The ability to live apart from the enforcers of religion and the cultural enforcement of religion on them. But these refugees live a life on the run while fleeing in a manner of speaking.
Atheists aren’t the majority of refugees and are not the vast majority of the world’s population, but atheists are a struggling group within the global and refugee population based on fear and stigma by the religious and motivated by ignorance and hatred to create problems for them around the world.
The report states, “According to a statement by the country’s Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), origin from a particular country or a particular reason for fleeing, such as religious affiliation or atheism, does not automatically lead to a protection status.’”
Thus, atheism can become a specified indication of a person’s need on their sprint in life. Steiner stated, “The number of people affected is increasing… A year ago it was two to three requests a week — now it is between seven and nine a day.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
There has been a continuous growth in the number of non-religious people in the Turkey, which, by some reckonings, has been quite dramatic via the increase in the number of atheists within the theocratic state known for working via the state to keep evolution out of the classrooms
Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan continues to have a theocratic politics with the ongoing encouragement of Islam to the Turkish people. But, at the same time, we see this rise in the number of atheists within the country. Those for whom religion simply doesn’t take or didn’t take.
As reported, “According to a recent survey by the pollster Konda, a growing number of Turks identify as atheists. Konda reports that the number of nonbelievers tripled in the past 10 years. It also found that the share of Turks who say they adhere to Islam dropped from 55 percent to 51 percent.”
The official directorate of religious affairs in Turkey, Diyanet, declared in 2014 that 99% of the Turkish public identifies as Muslim. However, with recent survey data from Konda, this has created heated debated within the country.
Ahmet Balyemez, a 36-year-old computer scientist, stated, “There is religious coercion in Turkey… People ask themselves: Is this the true Islam?… When we look at the politics of our decision-makers, we can see they are trying to emulate the first era of Islam. So, what we are seeing right now is primordial Islam… Fasting and praying were the most normal things for me.”
Cemil Kilic, a theologian, considers both statistics correct. In that, 99% of Turks identify as Muslim but only identify as such from a cultural and a sociological perspective. Kilic, here, is making a distinction between cultural Muslims, as in cultural Christians, and spiritual Muslims.
The theologian Cemil Kilic believes that both figures are correct. Though 99 percent of Turks are Muslim, he said, many only practice the faith in a cultural and sociological sense. They are cultural, rather than spiritual, Muslims.
Kilic stated, “The majority of Muslims in Turkey are like the Umayyads, who ruled in the seventh century… The prayers contained in the Koran reject injustice. But the Umayyads regarded daily prayer as a form of showing deference towards the sultan, the state and the powers that be… Regular prayers have become a way to signal obedience toward the political leadership… And prayers in mosques increasingly reflect the political worldview of those in power.”
Kilic explained how the lack of a formal religion, in this case Islam, does not negate a moral compass of the individual, as he states that some atheists are even more ethical and conscientious than a great number of Muslims.
One of the facts floating around this issue of Islam and atheism on the rise within Turkey is that fact that President Erdogan has been in power for about 16 years, as prime minister until 2014 and then president onwards into the present.
Kilic argued the state admixture with religion is part of the problem and the atheists may, in fact, be more consistent in their beliefs than the Muslims at times. Ateizm Dernegi, the central organization for atheists in Turkey, has, through its leader, Selin Ozhoken, stated that the desire by Erdogan to produce devout Muslims has, in fact, failed miserably in a number of ways.
Dernegi explained, “Religious sects and communities have discredited themselves… We have always said that the state should not be ruled by religious communities, as this leads to people questioning their faith and becoming humanist atheists.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
In a recent discrimination case, the atheists won it, which was in British Columbia, Canada.
The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal awarded $12,000 to the based on a daughter of a couple being “kicked out” of Bowen Island Montessori School (BIMS). It was labelled discrimination by the BC Human Rights Tribunal because the school, as stated by the BC Human Rights Tribunal, “…treated them differently from every other parent at the school, and sought to suppress their expression of concerns about the nature of the curriculum that were grounded in their race, ancestry and religious beliefs.”
That is to say, discrimination for lack of belief in the prevailing mythology. The parents are Gary Mangel and Mai Yasué. The child was enrolled in 2014 and Mangel sat on the board of directors. Then the school wanted to know the way in which to celebrate the holiday time properly.
One person recommended “clay elf ornaments.” But Mangel rejected this idea, as this, to him, promoted a Christian holiday. One asked if a Hanukkah activity may be better. But Mangel rejected this too.
But Mangel was rather rude in the email correspondence:
I don’t think it’s appropriate to celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, or any other religious/political event at preschool (including Remembrance Day). [My child] is three years old… [and] cannot consent to being involved in decorating military wreaths or Christmas trees or lighting Hanukkah candles. Having the kids do these things seems inappropriate, given their absolute inability to understand the religious and political symbolism associated with those acts. As Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion) has written, there is no such thing as a Muslim, Jewish, or Christian, etc… baby/toddler/child. They are simply too young to be making these sorts of decisions.
Other board members argued the important of a “cosmic education” through the inclusion of different religious imagery included into the school, as this was important to the philosophy of the Montessori folks at the school.
Mangel stated that there should “atheist Christmas ornaments.” Things escalated from there, more explicit details can be gleaned from the link. Mangel wanted none of the celebrations while the board want as many as possible or, at a minimum, the major traditions to be represented.
No one changed their minds and there was something like a “reality TV show,” according to Mehta.
Things really came to a head when “Mr. Mangel responded, ‘I’ll sue them too’ and then began doing the Nazi salute and marching around while he sung a different version of O Canada in which he substituted his own lyrics.”
The arguments continued over the holidays. Then the school wanted the atheists to sign a contract that stated that “Multiculturalism, including the observation of a wide variety of celebrations is important to us.”
The atheists refused to sign it. Then the school took this as a basis to not re-enroll the daughter of the atheist parents. The atheists being belligerent was not the legal complaint but, rather, the response to the signing, i.e., the refusal to sign it.
BC Human Rights Tribunal member, Barbara Koenkiewicz, stated, “I find nothing in the evidence that could justify the refusal to register [the child] unless Dr. Yasué and Mr. Mangel essentially agreed that they would be significantly limited in their ability to raise issues about the cultural aspects of the BIMS program.”
The school was ordered to pay $5,000 per parent and $2,000 for the child/daughter.
Link to the source material:
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Newsweek reported on a massive dossier, at 1,200 pages, listing several priests and seminarians who are labelled as “actively gay” in Italy alone.
This was sent to the Vatican via the archdiocese of Naples. Francesco Mangicapra created the document. He is a gay male escort and did not like the hypocrisy of the priests and decided to do something about it.
He said, “The aim is not to hurt the people mentioned, but to help them understand that their double life, however seemingly convenient, is not useful to them or to all the people for whom they should be a guide and an example to follow.”
Now, an Italian Cardinal and the Archbishop of Naples, Crescenzio Sepe, stated that none of the named priests are currently stationed in Naples. Note, this does not deny the veracity of the claims in the large dossier.
Now, this is simply adding to the pile of accusations against members of the Catholic hierarchs around the world but, this time, focused on Italy in particular.
As reported, “Last month, an Italian court issued a 14-month suspended sentence to a Vatican tribunal judge for sexual molestation and possessing child pornography. Monsignor Pietro Amenta, a judge on the Rota (a court that hears mostly family cases), was arrested last March for publicly fondling an 18-year-old man in Rome.”
With the examination of the computer, the authorities found pornographic images of the young on the person computer. Then there was a plea bargain accepted by Paloma Garcia Ovejero, Vice Director of the Vatican Press Office. In an email from the Catholic News Service, it stated that he had “resigned as the prelate auditor of the Roman Rota.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
The atheist community has been seeing an unprecedented rise in its international notoriety and respect by the wider public, but with this increase in visibility and dignity for the minority community within the non-religious international movements has been the backlash. Regardless, atheists are on the rise globally with differences depending on the nation or the region in consideration.
Big Think reported on the increases in the atheist population, especially in authoritarian China and in Europe in general. There was a survey of 60,000 or more people on 68 nations around the world with comparison from a 2005 survey.
The survey data gathering and analysis was done through the reliable and respected WIN/Gallup group. The number of people who identified as having no religion in 2005 was marked at 77%; whereas, for the survey done recently – in 2017, the number was 62%. A significant decrease, while not a majority, of 15%.
For the members of the atheist community with an interest in the ways in which atheist has continued to garner popularizers, famous speakers, best-selling books, and packed-house debates and dialogues, one is through the global transformation of the religious identification landscape.
For the in-depth analysis of the research, or the deeper reportage on it, please see the link associated with the survey rundown done by Big Think. But the big takeaway from the news reportage is the level of atheism, by which the survey states as “convinced atheism,” is most prominent is China – a huge number of the global population of atheists harboured there – and in Europe with most of the top 20 being in North America.
When looking at the breakdown of the 15% over the approximately 12-year-period, we can see noteworthy increase from 5%, in 2005, to 9%, in 2017, for the global convinced atheist population. That is to report, there has been an extraordinary increase of 80% for the convinced atheist population around the world in only about a dozen years.
The main factors argued for are age, education, and income: more of each means less religion; less of each means more religion. There is a direct negative correlation for these factors.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
The basic premise within the atheist community or more generally the formal non-religious community throughout the world remains the increase in the number of religious in the global view and the increase in the non-religious in select regions or nations.
In the research done by WIN/Gallup and reported on by Big Think, the number of the self-identified religious is 62% of people – as found when asked if they consider themselves religious people. They surveyed 60000 people across 68 nations. In 2005, the number was 77%.
This represents, in the scale of dozens of countries, a massive ground shift in the perspective of the religious and the non-religious, and the ways in which the international public perceives the categories for self-identification.
This says the overall number of people identifying as religious has been on a precipitous decline since the start of the 21st century. The number of atheists embed within the set of formal non-religious. In other words, the 15% drop in the religious indicates a concomitant rise in the formal non-religious but only a smaller portion of the 15% rise in the formal non-religious as atheists.
The formal non-religious can be brights, atheists, humanists, secular humanists, agnostics, and so on.
As described in the article, “In 2005, just 5% of those surveyed in 2005 considered themselves ‘convinced atheists’ – the remaining 18% were non-religious or ‘don’t knows’. In 2017, the fish-nor-fowl brigade had grown to 30%. ‘Convinced atheists’ had increased as well, but only to 9%.”
It indicates stellar increase in the number of convinced atheists by 80%, from 5% of the total to 9% of it. The opinion in the reportage continued to opine on the beliefs of the non-religious who may see parts of religion as reliable and valuable in some way.
“People may believe in aspects of religion even if they don’t consider themselves religious (and vice versa). As other results from the survey show, a higher percentage than those who say they’re religious believe in a soul (74%) and God (71%). Inversely, a lower percentage believe in things that many theologians would say are essential to religion, such as heaven (56%), hell (49%) and life after death (54%),” the article explained.
The third property was the aspects of a belief in the Architect of the Cosmos, or lack thereof, and the non-direct association with materialistic belief, and so, potentially, a non-belief in a supernaturalist or metanaturalist soul embedded with the person’s body.
Many external factors influence the degree to which an individual considers themselves religious. If someone has a higher income, if someone is older, and if someone is more educated, then this person will more likely be less religious; if the opposite factors, then the more religious.
Geography factors into the belief in God as well. Although, some countries have older populations, more educated populations, and richer populations, which, obviously, may associate with the aforementioned factors.
“For cultural, social and/or political reasons, some countries have a much higher degree of atheism. Europe is a regional hotbed, but even here, direct neighbours may be at great variance,” the article stated, “The most godless country in the world, however, is China. According to the survey, fully 67% of respondents in China considered themselves ‘convinced atheists’ – more than double the percentage in the world’s second-most atheistic country, Japan (29%).”
East Asia remains a major center of atheism, in fact “convinced atheism.” However, the other 18 of the 20 major convinced atheist nations emerge in Europe. Slovenia has 28%. Italy has 8%. Outside of Europe and East Asia, Australia has 13%. Canada has 10%. One African outlier is the Democratic Republic of the Congo at 8%.
Interestingly, 4% of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s population identifies at convinced atheist. (More detailed statistics with images are provided in the link at the preface to the article.) If you look at some of the more in-depth analyses provided in the presentation by Big Think, you will be surprised to note some of the Arab majority states and the level non-religious identifying citizens, even in purportedly highly Muslim countries.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Claire has a background in law and psychology, and is currently working on her degree in Religious Studies. She has been involved in the skeptic movement since 2013 as co-organizer of the Czech Paranormal Challenge. Since then, she has consulted on various projects, where woo & belief meets science. Claire has spoken at multiple science&skepticism conferences and events. She also organized the European Skeptics Congress 2017, and both years of the Czech March for Science.
Her current activities include chairing the European Council of Skeptical Organisations, running the “Don’t Be Fooled” project (which provides free critical thinking seminars to interested high schools), contributing to the Czech Religious Studies journal Dingir, as well as to their online news in religion website. In her free time, Claire visits various religious movements to understand better what draws people to certain beliefs.
Claire lives in Prague, Czech Republic, with her partner, and dog.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When it comes to the demographic or sociological analysis movement more broadly or the New Atheist movement for narrowly, I notice one trend. Others notice this trend as well.
That being the greater number of white men compared to most other demographics in the atheist and New Atheist movements. What seems like the source of the disproportionate amount of white men and men in general in the atheist and New Atheist movements?
Claire Klingenberg: I think it stems from history. Men were, white men were, prevalent in the sciences, in high positions, in professor jobs, in everything. This is continuing that. There are more women getting engaged in these issues.
It is going to take some time to change. Having time to do activism that advocates for the change of the bigger picture, and does not precisely deal with the here and now, is a luxury. Both the atheist and skeptic movement do deal with the here and now, but in a much broader sense, which makes them a luxury item. Unfortunately, as we see the demographics in the US, people of color are not always in the socioeconomic position to be able to afford this kind of luxury.
So, we have to work on making our movement more accessible to various different socioeconomic demographics.
Jacobsen: Other than SES or socio-economic status. What other variables seem to play into this split in the community, where far more men than women?
Klingenberg: Seeing your own people in the movement. Historically, the skeptic movement was created by the demographic of older white men. I can imagine some people do not feel welcome when they do not see some of their own within that group.
Fortunately, within the Czech Republic, one of the founders was a woman. She opened the door for us. I can understand why some cannot feel like they can bond with someone seemingly wholly different or that they will not be understood by anyone.
Jacobsen: I like the last note as well. It notes the logical implication. If you did the vice versa, you would find other communities heavily dominated by women or the African-American community in America.
If you look at much of the Christian community represented by comedic people like Steve Harvey and others, you find largely a base of African-Americans. Also, within the atheist movement, you have Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and more modern New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens… These are white men.
It is having the SES to have a theme to get out of the community and think about these things. But it seems like a dual-based problem, “I am in community. I am comfortable with this.”
So, it is an unfortunate fact. Human beings are tribal and connect with each other on base measures of “identity,” if I can use that term, of skin tone.
Klingenberg: The skin tone does define the circumstances in which you live and which influence you. Because of that, you may feel “How can these people understand what I am going through?”, and especially the feeling “How can these people have the same goals as I do?” This logic or thinking could be another barrier.
Jacobsen: In some commentary that some may give, I notice an underlying tone. That tone being, “People of particular groups should belong in a certain category, should act in such a way.”
The common trope is the white guy breakdancing [Laughing]. It doesn’t look good. Similar thing in a more serious context, an African-American woman must be religious, must be Baptist, and heavily involved in the community.
That is a stereotype that gets played en masse. If someone doesn’t behave as expected based on their ethnic heritage, or their national status as well, they may be coerced or pegged into behaving in one way.
Neil deGrasse Tyson talked about his deep passion for astrophysics and astronomy. Even though he had that, he felt pushed with the undertone of coercion to sports activities. “I am in sprinting, and running, and other things,” rather than astrophysics and astronomy.
He notes that he was lucky. He met Carl Sagan. That continued to stoke the fire. That passion pushed through the attempts at coercion away from what he really a) had the ability to do and b) the passion to pursue, which was astrophysics.
It can even be good will and good intentions that exacerbate societal splits along belief lines and eventual outcome lines.
Klingenberg: Last month, I was at a talk by Anna Grodzka. She is a Polish trans woman. She founded a supporting organization for trans people in Poland. She had this beautiful quote, “We live in a world haunted by stereotypes, which do not reflect reality but impose upon us.”
I think that it is a beautiful way to summarize all of this. People have these stereotypes in their head, which many times do not come close to even reflecting reality. However, we are forced to live and fight with them on a daily basis.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Claire.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to Psychology Today, a practicing Canadian psychologist and an American neuroscientist discussed religious claims to truth.
The psychologist is Jordan Peterson. The neuroscientist is Sam Harris. It has been an ongoing debate with the New Atheists dominating in the 2000s. They were ascendant and debating the prominent Christian philosophers and theologians.
The 2010s see a different debate happening with many of the prominent New Atheists aging or deceased. The current debate between the two were about religion and true speech with a connection to myths and then also the world of rationality and science.
As reported, “What makes the debate so mercurial is that Peterson himself does not believe in traditional Christian claims such as the resurrection. Rather, he sees religious belief as a Darwinian adaptation that remains mostly unconscious.”
The orientation of Peterson is the potential for a spiritual reality with the truths from the religious myths. That is, human psychology and societal structures can be illuminated through the mythologies of times past.
One evolutionary biologist, Bret Weinstein, moderated some dialogues in Vancouver and Dublin. Then there was one with Douglas Murray as well. Harris and Peterson looked into the roots of religion and the ways in which this relates to truth.
“One illuminating way of thinking about religious belief, evoked in their second debate, involves a loaded gun. If we are taught to treat all guns as loaded, the argument goes, we will be safer in the long run,” the article explained, “Whether or not it is true that a particular gun is loaded or not does not matter—so long as we treat every gun as if it is loaded, we will be more likely to survive. A society that believes that every gun is loaded, then, is more likely to survive than a society which does not.”
Harris spoke the literal truth and the metaphorical truth. The latter as having utility within the world of fiction. Then these metaphorical truths can be more helpful than literal truth in some cases. The thought is that the society built on the assertion of human beings being built in the image of the creator of the universe is better for having a basic purpose.
Peterson argued for the utility of the Biblical stories within the framework of Darwinian evolution. That these stories must have survival significance.
“In his lectures and writings, Peterson describes the story of Cain and Abel as a warning against envy and resentment, and the Tower of Babel as a call for caution against centralized, totalizing systems. These stories, he argues, are ‘metaphorically true,’ even if they are literally false,” the article stated.
Harris pointed to some of the religious narratives containing some moral data. However, they can be useless too. Because these assume gods or a God. It becomes a “misapprehension of the causal structure of the cosmos.”
Peterson’s concern comes in the form of a secular ethic coming from preceding ethics; if we lose those preceding ones, then we lose ethical systems now. We need to know their origins. He directed attention to human and animal sacrifice. The idea is give something up now for later. He argues for this as the discovery of the future.
Harris argued for the utility of the narratives but without the belief in revelation or the supernatural in essence.
“Here, the debate reached a kind of impasse. Peterson insisted that because so much of our thinking is unconscious, and stories are our way of describing the behaviors that emerge from that unconscious processing, our old religious stories might have far more to teach us about ourselves than we can rationally discern on our own,” the article stated.
Harris argued this was an evasion on the part of Peterson. However, for the three discussions, the main conversation focused on the nature of the truth. Peterson, apparently, echoed the arguments of one Christian philosopher, Alvin Plantinga.
That the adaptively evolved faculties should be judged on the ability for greater survival of the organism. Harris views this as a stretch. That even, in one thought experiment, if humans died off as a species; our fundamental scientific and rational discoveries would still be true.
Peterson stated that if we die based on some ideas then, maybe, those ideas are not true.
The article concluded, “At the end of the debates, the fundamental question of religion and the human mind remains unsettled. But that doesn’t take the joy out of watching two scientists tear out the foundations of truth, morality and culture beneath their feet and try to put them back together again.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to Laughing in Disbelief, one atheist is bringing his own brand of atheism to the world of stand-up comedy.
There is a clip called The Lock In. In it, there is a discussion around the subject matter of atheism and God, and the connection with the youth world and dating arena for the young people. It is part of a larger special called Bad Comedy For Bad People.
In the synopsis of the special, it describes Jensen began a Twitter account for his daughter. It garnered an international audience: @MaxTheTiger. He did not expect international audience. One usually does not even expect a national audience with a Twitter account for a daughter, or for themselves for that matter.
As reported, “Then again, he probably never pictured having the “death talk” with li’l MaxTheNecromancer as his small, ardent atheist tried to Lazarus a froglet. And even that one wasn’t as odd as learning a thing or two from the comprehensive “sex talk” his wife and several organic, fair trade bananas laid on their nephew.”
With the latest release through Stand Up! Records, he talks about the ethics around homelessness and incarceration. The complexities around veganism and teenage depression. Then he slides into a monologue on the Civil Rights Movement and the music around it.
This then moves into speaking to the gay marriage and the issues of aging with hope for a “better, kinder, future.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to Laughing in Disbelief, one atheist is bringing his own brand of atheism to the world of stand-up comedy.
There is a clip called The Lock In. In it, there is a discussion around the subject matter of atheism and God, and the connection with the youth world and dating arena for the young people. It is part of a larger special called Bad Comedy For Bad People.
In the synopsis of the special, it describes Jensen began a Twitter account for his daughter. It garnered an international audience: @MaxTheTiger. He did not expect international audience. One usually does not even expect a national audience with a Twitter account for a daughter, or for themselves for that matter.
As reported, “Then again, he probably never pictured having the “death talk” with li’l MaxTheNecromancer as his small, ardent atheist tried to Lazarus a froglet. And even that one wasn’t as odd as learning a thing or two from the comprehensive “sex talk” his wife and several organic, fair trade bananas laid on their nephew.”
With the latest release through Stand Up! Records, he talks about the ethics around homelessness and incarceration. The complexities around veganism and teenage depression. Then he slides into a monologue on the Civil Rights Movement and the music around it.
This then moves into speaking to the gay marriage and the issues of aging with hope for a “better, kinder, future.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to Friendly Atheist, many atheists in Indonesia fear for their lives and so live under fake Muslim identities.
Indonesia has the largest population of Muslims in the world. The number of Muslims in standard statistics may be misleading because of the fear of reprisal from the community, the family, and even the state. If someone is in fear for their livelihood, then they may simply work to fit into the pack.
As reported, “Living a double life isn’t all that uncommon in Indonesia, where atheists live in fear of being sent to jail (or worse) thanks to fundamentalist religious groups. AFP profiled one of these atheists, identified only as “Luna Atmowijoyo,” about her de-conversion from Islam years ago.”
Atmowijoyo lives with her parents. But still, she wears an Islamic headscarf to simply fit into the family and so the community, and to avoid the backlash, potentially and likely, of her father. She was told to not have friendships with non-Muslims.
She is 30-years-old and still finds a lot of the simple things bother her. Atmowijoyo stated, “Like I couldn’t say Merry Christmas or Happy Waisak to people of other religions,” where other problems involved the treatment of homosexual males and females as in some way dysfunctional/abnormal.
The juxtaposition of the Quran and science were also problems. Then the idea entered her brain, that God may not exist. The reportage notes the Abrahamic faiths’ marginalization of the sexual orientation and gender identity minority communities.
It continued, “But for most of us, going public with that idea will lead to a loss of family or friends. It’s not a death sentence. In Indonesia, atheists who speak out about their beliefs risk their lives and freedom.”
The law of the land in Indonesia does not help, either. It has some purported stipulations about the freedom of expression. However, the freedom expression of speaking about a lack of a belief in God or gods becomes something that places an individual at risk of arrest of killing by the authorities.
The six religions recognized by Indonesia are Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and others. However, with over 90% of the population believing in Islam, the criticism of religion and a religious Theity, including the Islamic one especially, becomes potentially grounds for public and legal punishment.
It may even be a greater risk for a woman. In 2018, one student was charged for a Facebook post that made a comparison between Allah and some Greek gods, while also stating the Lord of the Rings is comparable in reality to the Quran.
Alexander Aan received 30 months in jail in 2012 for the posting of explicit material of the Prophet Mohammed while also declaring himself – Aan – an atheist. The government will not acknowledge any hypocrisy between allowing someone to be an atheist but only keeping it to themselves, under potential punishment with the force of law.
Abdurrahman Mas’ud, head of the research and development agency at the Ministry of Religion, explained, “Once somebody disseminates that idea, or the concept of atheism, that will be problematic.”
The article concluded:
Blasphemy laws are always going to be blasphemy laws. Nobody is falling for this “atheism is legal” nonsense, and there’s a good reason some atheists are hiding their lack of faith from everyone in Indonesia. Without reforming the culture and the laws — with the help of believers who truly believe in free speech — nothing will get better in this area.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to Rome Reports, Cardinal Antonio Marto argued that the main issue for the religious is the actual lack of interest in religion. It was a short news article on the story of the cardinal and bishop, and his perspective on the waning interest in religion now.
Marto was the one who welcomed Pope Francis to Fatima – his city – in 2017 and the then-pope Benedict XVI in 2006. Coming from a family of deep faith, Marto knows the Roman Catholic religion and theology, and cultural and social life.
Marto was ordained as a priest with a doctorate in Theology with Benedict appointing him the bishop of Fatima, of the city. He was reluctant to take the position; however, the pope, at the time, wanted Marto to be the bishop.
As reported, “Fatima receives thousands of people from all continents every year. For this reason, it’s interesting to get his opinion about what should be the Church’s priority.” Marto is concerned about the state of the Church. This is someone with authority, education, and influence within the Roman Catholic Church from a Catholic news source.
“At this moment, the priority is to bring God to the hearts of men and women, and men and women to the heart of God, and this is part of the message of Fatima,” Marto opined, “This is because we live in a time of religious indifference. Our greatest enemy is not militant atheism but religious indifference. This indifference is fought with the joyful and convinced testimony of faithful Christians.”
The decline in the global interest in religion – though continued growth in the numbers – remains a concern for the individuals within the Roman Catholic Church including the hierarchs such as Marto.
The article concluded, “It’s this issue he hopes to continue working on as cardinal and theological bishop of Fatima one who finds rests by walking in the mountains or spending time with his family and friends.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to Friendly Atheist, there can even be discrimination around religion against particular members of the community who are beloved: firefighters.
The reportage states, “In 2016, atheist Jeffrey Queen filed an unbelievable lawsuit against the city of Bowling Green (Kentucky) based on what he witnessed while working for the fire department. The lawsuit only came after his complaints were ignored, some by Deputy Chief Dustin Rockrohr (also named in the lawsuit), and he was formally discharged.”
The claims are extensive within the lawsuit. Some of them including the referring to non-Christians as pagans. The asking of the person in question on the job if they would like to join the church. Another stating that he should “get right with Jesus.”
Others included that atheists should burn or that a colleague would be damned if they would atheists and feels glad that “none of those fuckers work here.” The man, Queen, was forced into participation in a Bible study at the fire station. Then after coming out as an atheist, the Captain, Eric Smith, and one other firefighter stated that they would, therefore, burn down his house.
He was called a faggot almost every day, or queer. He is straight and married, for the record. His colleagues would not touch gay people because of their potential for having AIDS – “probably had…” Then there was a statement that if a homosexual works there then they would make sure he dies in a fire; also, they stated that they would chop his feet off.
One man did not get help with chest pain after hearing he was gay. Some firefighters refused to help out. Then African-Americans were referred as “hoodrats” and “thugs” and even the n-word. As reported, “He witnessed members of the Fire Department refer to Muslims as ‘towelheads,’ ‘jihadis,’ ‘ali-babas,’ and ‘sand n—–.’ He heard those same people say of Muslims, ‘we need to ship them all back where they came from’ and ‘let the bombs torch them, they are going to hell anyway.’”
Queen took an absence from work due to the harassment. He resigned due to the hostility in the work environment. No one would have known about these instances without the whistleblowing of Queen. He went public and suffered as a result of it, professionally and personally.
“Since that lawsuit was filed, though, the city and Rockrohr have tried to get the courts to throw it out. They don’t dispute what Queen witnessed,” the article explained, “Instead, they claim ‘that jokes, pranks, and teasing are all part of the fraternal environment at the Fire Department that Queen enjoyed and participated in.’”
However, Queen did not enjoy it. He hated it. The fire department is claiming the harassment on the basis of atheism was not a possibility because they did not know, at the time, that he was a closeted atheist in the fire department.
However, Queen states that the statement about the burning down of his house due to his atheism as a result of the colleagues in the fire department finding out about his atheism.
The article continues, “On Friday, however, a judge ruled that there was more than enough reason for this case to move forward. There’s plenty of information regarding religious discrimination and retaliation that a jury would have to sort out, the judge said, and the reasons for dismissing the case are absurd.”
It resulted in a 14-page ruling on Friday issues by the U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley that the allegation of a hostile work environment based on religion and claims of retaliation could proceed reasonably to a proper trial.
In a 14-page ruling issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley allowed the allegation of hostile work environment based on religion and claims of retaliation to proceed to trial.
McKindley stated, “A reasonable jury could find that the harassment and threats were in retaliation for his complaints regarding the workplace… According to Queen, his work environment got so bad that he had to take a medical leave of absence and eventually forced him to resign.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to The Atlantic, Dr. Richard Dawkins spoke on a cultural taste for the bells of cathedrals and a distaste for the calls of ‘Allahu Akhbar.’
Dawkins tweeted an image of himself in Winchester, England on a Sunny day.
Richard Dawkins is at it again.
The famous atheist and bestselling author of The God Delusion tweeted on Monday a picture of himself sitting on a park bench and enjoying a sunny day in Winchester, England. For many people, this moment might have been a chance to just kick back and relax. But apparently not for Dawkins.
“Listening to the lovely bells of Winchester, one of our great mediaeval cathedrals,” he tweeted to his nearly 3 million followers. “So much nicer than the aggressive-sounding ‘Allahu Akhbar.’ Or is that just my cultural upbringing?”
Yes, actually, it is, replied thousands of people. Many flat-out accused him of racism, xenophobia, bigotry, or Islamophobia. News outlets from The Independent to Newsweek reported on the public outrage. Even by Dawkinsian standards of provocation, this latest statement felt to many like a shock.
In fact, however, it’s pretty common for native English speakers to perceive Arabic sounds as “aggressive.” So much so that American accent reduction coaches make money off Arabic-speakers by warning them that their native language “may cause [them] to sound harsh or aggressive.” Another adjective often applied to the language is “guttural.” Many people characterize German in the same way.
Sociolinguists, who study the ways people’s cultural beliefs affect their beliefs about various languages, say this is no coincidence.
“A lot of times people’s negative or positive attitudes about a particular group get transferred onto the language,” explained Christopher Lucas, a professor of Arabic linguistics at SOAS in London. “They start to believe that it’s just the linguistic content of the language that is the bearer of those features that they experience as negative or positive, when that is almost never the case in actuality. … Sounds are just sounds. They don’t have any objective content that you can map onto specific emotional states.”
That’s not to say the perception of sound is entirely socially constructed. “There is some non-arbitrary link between sounds and the meanings people associate with them,” said Morgan Sonderegger, an associate professor of linguistics at McGill University. For instance, he said, it’s pretty well established that words with higher-sounding vowels tend to denote smaller objects, while words with lower-sounding vowels tend to denote bigger things; this is true cross-culturally. He cited a 2016 study that examined words from nearly two-thirds of the world’s languages and found that people everywhere often associate certain sounds with certain meanings. And an earlier cross-cultural experiment found that when people are shown a curvy shape and a jagged shape, and are asked which one is a bouba and which one is a kiki, they overwhelmingly associate the curvy shape with bouba and the jagged one with kiki. Sonderegger noted, however, that although human beings do seem to have some built-in associations, even these are just “raw materials that can be overwritten by cultural biases.”
The linguist Vineeta Chand argues that there’s actually nothing inherent in the sounds of a language that make it more or less enticing. Instead, people tend to find a foreign language attractive when the group it’s associated with enjoys economic or sociocultural prestige—think of the popularity of French as “romantic.” And the linguist Guy Deutscher argues that people tend to find sounds or sound combinations grating when they appear rarely or not at all their own native language—like the consonant cluster lbstv in selbstverständlich, which is German for obvious.
Lucas added that he believes Dawkins’s “vague soup of negative ideas [about Islam] is bleeding into his transcription.” The author’s tweet refers to “Allahu Akhbar,” but the proper transliteration would be Akbar, because this Arabic word contains no kh sound (as opposed to, say, the word sheikh). “He’s transcribing it as if it’s a kh, and for people who are native speakers of a language that lacks a kh sound—like most dialects of English—that is very often felt to be a harsh, ugly sound. People here in the U.K., when you ask them what’s your opinion about German, will say ‘Oh, it’s ugly! You’ve got all these kh, kh, kh sounds.’ But there are many other languages with these sounds, like Dutch. And no one in my experience says that Dutch is ugly.”
Dawkins posted a new status on Twitter on Wednesday, after a barrage of intense media attention: “The call to prayer can be hauntingly beautiful, especially if the muezzin has a musical voice. My point is that ‘Allahu Akhbar’ is anything but beautiful when it is heard just before a suicide bomb goes off. That is when Islam is tragically hijacked by violence.”
The tweet, which seemed meant to defuse criticism from the left, reinforces the linguists’ point: The words sound “aggressive” to Dawkins, not because of some inherent acoustic harshness, because he associates them with suicide bombers.
Earlier this year, Dawkins made headlines for giving away free copies of The God Delusion to Muslims after discovering that millions of copies had been illegally downloaded in Arabic translation in Muslim-majority countries. Yet for the atheist provocateur, taking issue with the Arabic language seems to be something of a pattern. He did it in 2013, 2014, and 2015. His 2014 tweet is especially striking for its similarity to this week’s remarks: “I’ve read that Arabic is the most beautiful language,” Dawkins wrote then. “I questioned that aesthetically & was bizarrely accused of racism. So I deleted it.”
But Dawkins keeps repeating himself. And many of his followers seem content with that: His “Allahu Akbar” tweet collected more than 16,000 likes.
“The people who get away with simplistic ideas about languages are people who don’t speak them and haven’t lived the experience of those languages being used to express love and anger and hilarity and sadness,” Lucas said. “If you’ve been exposed to a language a lot, that pretty much guarantees you’re not going to have simplistic ideas about it.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to Mondaq, there was a Supreme Court of Canada decision on June 15 2018 relevant to LGBTQ rights.
There was a landmark decision on the Canadian limits for their institutional religious freedoms. It amounted to the law school wanted by an Evangelical Christian University in Langley, British Columbia being rejected on legal grounds.
As reported, “The decisions concerned regulator rejections of a law school which required that students sign a covenant prohibiting any form of sexual activity outside of a marriage between a man and a woman.”
Two cases – Law Society of British Columbia v Trinity Western University and Trinity Western University v Law Society of Upper Canada – had the Supreme Court of Canada find both the Ontario and British law societies’ legal decisions to not accredit the law school came from a balanced place.
The law societies made the decision to not accredit the law school for Trinity Western University (TWU). The decision was said to have made a balance between the Law Societies’ mandates and religious freedom.
It continued, “TWU is a private post-secondary institution that provides education in an evangelical Christian environment. While LGBTQ students are not prohibited from attending TWU, all students are required to sign a covenant that prohibits any form of sexual activity outside of a marriage between a man and a woman.”
This limits students. With the covenant, the Law Societies made a vote. The vote determined a proper denial of the accreditation of the law school proposed by TWU. With extensive deliberations, it was decided that TWU was discriminatory against LGBTQ people.
“On judicial review, Ontario’s Divisional Court held that the Law Society of Ontario had properly exercised its statutory mandate to act in the public interest in refusing to grant accreditation to TWU’s proposed law school because its mandatory covenant was discriminatory,” the reportage stated.
The denial of the accreditation, apparently, violated the Section 2(a) religious right found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court was found to have made a proportionate and balanced decision on the equality rights and the Law Society of Ontario’s public interest mandate.
“In contrast, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the Law Society of British Columbia’s decision not to approve TWU’s proposed law school. The court instead found that the decision’s effect on TWU’s religious rights was severe compared to the minimal impact on Law Society of British Columbia’s statutory public interest objectives,” the article said.
The appeal was then made to the SCC. The SCC made a staggering 7-2 decision to deny accreditation to the TWU law school. Most of the SCC found that the Law Societies violated the communal religious freedom of TWU.
However, with the Charter right invoked for the legal societies’ decision, the SCC used a decision-making framework from some previous decisions. It was the Dore/Loyola framework. It was meant for the balance of the Charter rights and the statutory objectives.
Reportage continued, “The Supreme Court held that the Law Societies had balanced competing interests reasonably and proportionately. As with many administrative decisions, the decision under review did not need to be correct; it was only required to fall within a range of possible reasonable outcomes.”
Two sides were present. The SCC ratiocinated that the religious rights of the TWU community were not limited based on the mandatory covenant because of this not being a requirement of the Christian environment.
The other was that the statutory public interest mandate is to prevent harm to LGBTQ students of law. It means a diverse bar with equal access and opportunities. The decision highlighted the balance between public interest and religious rights.
“In a minority concurring decision, Justice Rowe found that TWU’s religious rights had not been engaged by the Law Societies’ decisions. He argued that while religious rights protected individuals and faith communities’ beliefs and practices,” the article explained, “it did not protect their attempts to impose adherence to others who do not share their beliefs.[9] With no Charter right balanced against the Law Societies’ public interest mandate, the decision to deny TWU accreditation was entirely reasonable.”
There was another minority decision happening concomitantly. The Chief Justice McLachlin stated that the Dore/Loyola framework shall be applied. It was commentary from McLachlin on the freedom of association and the freedom of expression.
“She ultimately agreed, however, that the decision of the Law Societies was reasonable as they had a heightened duty to maintain equality and avoid condoning discrimination,” the article stated, “In dissent, Justice Côté and Justice Brown argued that the Law Societies’ statutory mandates did not include the governance of law schools.”
There was further commentary by Justice Côté and Justice Brown about the mandatory covenant not being discriminatory. Their argument was that the covenant did not target LGBTQ people in particular and, therefore, this did not comprise any form of standard discrimination.
It, on the implications, continued to state, “The decision serves as a high-profile example of judicial review of administrative decisions engaging Charter rights. The Supreme Court declined to depart from the Dore/Loyola framework, despite criticism in some circles.”
The SCC made balance with the statutory objectives and the religious rights within the context of the Dore/Loyola framework. The decision may show SCC deference to the statutory mandates of administrative bodies.
“The impact of these decisions extends beyond adjudging the quality of various legal tests. The number of interveners (23) across religious and human rights spectra illustrate how personally important these decisions were to groups across Canada,” the article concluded, “As noted above, the Supreme Court focused on interests of diversity and equal access to the legal profession in reaching its conclusions. Many will view these decisions favourably as a continuation of the use of the Charter to advance the rights of LGBTQ Canadian citizens.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
The #MeToo movements around the world are now impacting the Christian church more broadly with the hashtag #ChurchToo.
A training event for the prevention of sexual misconduct was scheduled to educate church staff about healthy boundaries. This event was arranged by the Mennonite Churches of Eastern Canada (MCEC) and conducted in Kitchener, Ontario by Rev. Dr. Marie Fortune where representatives of 10 denominations of Christianity attended the training in order to begin dealing with the sexual harassment happening within their own ranks. This endeavor is linked to the #ChurchToo movement — which branches off of the #MeToo era which began by exposing predatory male behavior and sexual harassment in enclaves like Hollywood and the mainstream media — and is now spreading throughout the rest of society.
Church Leadership Minister for the MCEC, Marilyn Rudy-Froese, stated, “It’s all over in our society. It’s not just happening in the movie industry, and it’s not just happening in the Catholic Church… It’s the work we all need to be doing: we need to be shifting our culture to be attentive to the voices and stories of victims.”
Fortune founded the FaithTrust Institute in the Seattle area where she was a young United Church minister circa 1979. She wants survivors of sexual misconduct to come forward with their narratives of abuse.
“It’s harder — it’s not impossible but it’s harder — for institutions to ignore anymore,” she said. “That’s always been a challenge in addressing this issue, is they really don’t want to know and their knee-jerk reaction tends to be wrong in terms of institutional self-interest,” Fortune stated.
Rather than be one of the ones who have been ignoring the problem either passively or systematically, Fortune wants to help these Christian organizations move head first into dealing with the problem. She advises them not to fear looking bad to the community.
Fortune emphasizes the need to prevent sexual misconduct within the church in the first place by developing healthy boundaries — especially for sexual predators who “don’t care about education”— to put policies in place so that abusers can be identified, investigated and appropriately punished. The training will focus on both preventing sexual misconduct and also to deal with predators who somehow slip through the cracks.
It’s not about the fear of looking bad, but about the social, and the church’s need to deal swiftly with criminals. Fortune noted the importance of those investigating to be transparent with congregants so the victims feel free to come forward.
Rev. Darren Roorda, Canadian Ministries Director of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, stated, “People in various levels of the church — women especially — are much more comfortable to say, ‘I have an issue with fill-in-the-blank,’ or ‘my history includes some difficulty or challenge or persecution’… People are much more apt to identify themselves. That comfort level is really, really healthy and good. We’re glad about that.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to Psychology Today, there is an argument to be made that religion is about showing off.
The article states that altruistic acts in some forms have been hard for scientists to explain. These speculations become especially true in the instances of the kinds of self-sacrifice that make humanity seem heroic in some manner.
The people who give to others without a thought for any other hand-back to themselves. This seems at odds with the evolutionary point of view. There is a theory called Costly Signaling Theory. It tries to make some sense of the extreme forms of altruisms.
As reported, “The term Handicap Principle has often been used as a synonym for ‘Costly Signaling Theory.’ This reflects the origins of the theory in research on animal communication. Some animals ‘handicap’ themselves with extremely costly biological features that only individuals in excellent condition can afford to maintain.”
The examples given are the plumage of a peacock or the antlers of an elk. They are handicaps, very materially expensive. The theory proposes that the honest signals of oneself via handicaps can be hard to fake but that this can then have some long-term benefits for us.
It continued, “Costly signaling is very much about truth in advertising. A ‘low-quality’ signaler who attempts to fake a high-quality signal will deplete whatever resources that he may have available, leaving the signaler in such a vulnerable position that the strategy will prove to be counterproductive. “
But if someone is a high-quality signaler, this individual has the resources to burn this signalling. It becomes adaptively beneficially in comparison to the costs of the signalling. The big example is public magnanimity.
Those who are willing to give a lot. It provides the individual a sense of social status among their peers. The argument from Costly Signaling Theory would be that the display shows the person to be of a higher social status than the others, which means the display may not be entirely selfless.
“There is anthropological evidence that individuals who have a history of being magnanimous are rewarded by others when times get tough, and laboratory studies by psychologists have also demonstrated that charitable donations and other acts of kindness are most likely to take place when the behaviors are easily observed and recognized by others,” the article explained.
Many researchers view the conspicuous displays as potential advertisement of personality traits to potential mates. Some research confirmed males display altruism in front of attractive members of the opposite sex. Women did not do the same thing.
The article stated and asked, “It’s no secret that young men are notorious for engaging in foolish, risky behavior. How could this predilection for recklessness have evolved in young men?”
Attention is directed to some of the early human societies, where adulthood comes from a man’s standing in front of the social group. This could not masculinity reset through leaving one group and joining another one.
“For this reason, high-risk competition between young males provided an opportunity for ‘showing off’ the abilities needed to acquire resources, exhibit strength, and to meet challenges to one’s status. Consequently, heroic or even recklessly daredevil behavior was rewarded with status and respect—assuming, of course, that the young man survived the ordeal,” the article said.
One anthropologist, Kristen Hawkes, founded the Show-Off Hypothesis. It is the idea well-replicated within the hunter-gatherer societies research. The men use the risky hunting strategies in order to garner the greater sexual access to the women of the world.
It is costly and a form of heroism in the sexual selection arena. Many experts in the evolutionary psychology field see apparent true heroism as giving advantage to some individuals. The heroism in war time is one example of this.
More can be seen in the signaling in the capitalistic societies with the wasteful spending of resources not essential to the survival or even for comfort of the individual ridding themselves of the resources in costly displays, signaling.
The article described, “A series of seven studies, confirmed that wearing brand label clothing does indeed increase perceptions of a person’s wealth and status, and that this perception leads to all sorts of advantages.”
Individuals who wear the expensive brands will get more compliance in requests and will get better jobs with higher salaries. They get better outcome in some social scenarios and can be more successful in the solicitation of donations from others. People buy expensive environmentally friendly products to see of higher status in the eyes of others. This then leads to ideas about religion and social status, and costly signaling.
“Religion has long been thought of as a social mechanism for enforcing cooperation within cultural groups. One of the ways in which it may successfully accomplish this is by using religious commitment as a costly signaling device,” the article said, “All religions have rituals, taboos, and other requirements that can be very costly in terms of time, money, or effort. Fasting, tithing, frequent and lengthy prayer and/or religious services, and dietary requirements that are difficult to follow require a good deal of commitment.”
That is, the commitment to religion is a signal to the efforts and values of the group. These become hard to fake within the group. Because the people within or the members of the group want to see you as a worthwhile and contributing member of the group. Analysis of communal societies apparently show this to be true, especially for those to have survived a long time. There are costly memberships with religion as one big cost.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to Friendly Atheist, there is an effort ongoing to prevent the mockery of religion by a Kentucky man.
In 2016, the head of the Kentucky Division of Motor Vehicles rejected atheist Ben Hart‘s request for a license plate. It stated, “IM GOD.” He had this plate while living in Ohio. No problem, he lived in Ohio for 12 years. There was no issue there for the same license plate.
But then the Kentucky DMV told Hart that the plate was “obscene and vulgar.” Then this changed, “Not in good taste.” He then made a formal response in a lawsuit. He argued that this was a violation of his freedom of speech.
“…the DMV’s actions were a violation of his free speech. What Kentucky wanted was silly, he argued, because they allow you to buy an “In God We Trust” license plate template. How is that okay while taking a position on God on the plate itself is illegal?” The article stated, “The lawsuit is still working its way through the courts. Earlier this year, the judge rejected the state’s request to toss out the lawsuit. This case will be decided on its merits. We await the judge’s decision.”
Then some intriguing events took place. The DMV is going through all license plates now, or appears to have done so, to tell all those with a previously approved religious message that they are no longer allowed to have them.
This may amount to a tactic for the courts, so that the individuals who are trying to prosecute him can say that they are not simply being bigoted and singling out Hart for his atheism. One Susi Burton has “PRAY4” for her license plate. She had it for 8 years. Now, she is furious.
“… she was stunned the other day — no make that “horrified” — to get a letter from the State Transportation Cabinet telling her that she had 20 days to return her license plate to the Fayette County Clerk’s office or the state would cancel her 2016 Lexus’ registration,” the article explained.
She found this a serious hassle and annoyance. The state law is against license plates that target particular religions. However, the double standard is applied and obvious to Burton.
As the report stated, “Burton said she’s offended by the thought of a plate that says “IM GOD,” but that doesn’t mean the northern Kentucky man shouldn’t have it. That lady gets it. What’s really ironic in all this is that Burton is demanding Kentucky be more accommodating of her religious views.”
The article continues in more depth on the issues of the beliefs of the governor and then Kim Davis. Then also, those who are pushing back against them, but those are direct but peripheral issues to this particular license plate blasphemy news.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to Friendly Atheist, there can even be discrimination around religion against particular members of the community who are normally beloved: firefighters.
The report states, “In 2016, atheist Jeffrey Queen filed an unbelievable lawsuit against the city of Bowling Green (Kentucky) based on what he witnessed while working for the fire department. The lawsuit only came after his complaints were ignored, some by Deputy Chief Dustin Rockrohr (also named in the lawsuit), and he was formally discharged.”
The claims are extensive within the lawsuit. Some of them included the referring to non-Christians as pagans. The asking of the person in question on the job if they would like to join the church. Another stating that he should “get right with Jesus.”
Others included that atheists should burn or that a colleague would be damned if they would be atheists and feels glad that “none of those fuckers work here.” The man, Queen, was forced into participation in a Bible study at the fire station. Then after coming out as an atheist, the Captain, Eric Smith, and one other firefighter stated that they would, therefore, burn down his house.
He was called a faggot almost every day, or queer. He is straight and married, for the record. His colleagues would not touch gay people because of their potential for having AIDS – “probably had…” Then there was a statement that if a homosexual works there then they would make sure he dies in a fire; also, they stated that they would chop his feet off.
One man did not get help with chest pain after hearing he was gay. Some firefighters refused to help out. Then African-Americans were referred as “hoodrats” and “thugs” and even the n-word. As reported, “He witnessed members of the Fire Department refer to Muslims as ‘towelheads,’ ‘jihadis,’ ‘ali-babas,’ and ‘sand n—–.’ He heard those same people say of Muslims, ‘we need to ship them all back where they came from’ and ‘let the bombs torch them, they are going to hell anyway.’”
Queen took an absence from work due to the harassment. He resigned due to the hostility in the work environment. No one would have known about these instances without the Queen’s whistleblowing. He went public and suffered as a result of it, professionally and personally.
“Since that lawsuit was filed, though, the city and Rockrohr have tried to get the courts to throw it out. They don’t dispute what Queen witnessed,” the article explained, “Instead, they claim ‘that jokes, pranks, and teasing are all part of the fraternal environment at the Fire Department that Queen enjoyed and participated in.’”
However, Queen did not enjoy it; he hated it. The fire department is claiming the harassment on the basis of atheism was not a possibility because they did not know, at the time, that he was a closeted atheist in the fire department.
However, Queen states that the statement about the burning down of his house due to his atheism as a result of the colleagues in the fire department finding out about his atheism.
The article continues, “On Friday, however, a judge ruled that there was more than enough reason for this case to move forward. There’s plenty of information regarding religious discrimination and retaliation that a jury would have to sort out, the judge said, and the reasons for dismissing the case are absurd.”
It resulted in a 14-page ruling on Friday issues by the U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley that the allegation of a hostile work environment based on religion and claims of retaliation could proceed reasonably to a proper trial.
In a 14-page ruling issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley allowed the allegation of hostile work environment based on religion and claims of retaliation to proceed to trial.
McKinley stated, “A reasonable jury could find that the harassment and threats were in retaliation for his complaints regarding the workplace…. According to Queen, his work environment got so bad that he had to take a medical leave of absence and eventually forced him to resign.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to The Globe and Mail, the numbers of the most faithful Christians in the forms of nuns is on the decline in Canada.
The news report spoke of several decades of decline in the numbers entering and staying in the convent. Some monasteries, as noted, go back as many as four centuries in Quebec. One is the Ursuline Monastery in Quebec City.
One woman, Andrée Leclerc, stated, “We know we are going off there to die…. This was my home, where I lived, I slept and I prayed. My whole life is here.”
There has been a massive decline taking place over decades in the numbers of the faithful of the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec. The nuns would run the provincial schools and the hospitals. But those are going away.
The number of Catholic nuns peaked at 47,000 in Quebec in 1961 and now sits at fewer than 6,000. The majority of the extant nuns are in their ninth decade. The numbers, at face value, may not tell the entire story of the religious community.
If one looks at the 76% of Roman Catholic population numbers, and if one then looks at the level of those practising in a serious way, most are not practising in a serious way. It is a secular province and, overall, country and culture.
As reported, “With little new blood, Catholic religious orders are shrinking. The last novice joined the Ursulines in the mid-1990s. Only 215 nuns remain in the order across Quebec today, down from more than 900 in the mid-sixties.”
The origins of monasteries such as this one began as far back as a voyage from France in 1639. It truly is a remarkably long history for the religious institutions of the world, but it is also a story coming to an end or a transformation on many fronts.
“They set up a school that has become the oldest institution of learning for girls in North America. Centuries on, the École des Ursulines’ interior courtyard still rings out with the shouts of uniformed schoolgirls (boys were admitted in 2010 and a secular board took over four years later, a nod to changing times),” the article stated.
One nun, Sister Suzanna Pineau, was a boarder at Ursulines at the age of 8. She is now 82. She said, “We don’t wear makeup or jewellery. We’re not in the latest fashions.” She made some remarks about the Muslim veil, pointing to the 300 years of veils by nuns while no one said anything.
“There are difficulties in all walks of life…. I committed myself to the Lord, like others commit themselves to a marriage or to working for a company,” Pineau opined.
Their average age in the monastery is 87. It is an ancient collective of women who themselves are well into their elderly years. With the decline of religion in Canada, and in Quebec in particular, we are seeing the decreased prominence of once powerful institutional forces including the nuns in monasteries.
The nuns will be entering a modern facility in the fall with a forced downsizing to the Soeurs servantes du Saint-Coeur de Marie. In September, these nuns will make their last trip from the monastery to then begin a downsized life in another one.
Sister Andrée opined, “I’ll miss the soul of this place…. The idea of living differently brings tears to my eyes. It’s physical. It’s psychological. My entire being is affected. When I was a teenager I left my family home in the Charlevoix. Leaving here is harder.”
This becomes the trace of religiosity with the increased secularization of the province and, indeed, the nation of Canada. There are real people behind these declines, who have their hearts in these institutions.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to Rome Reports, Cardinal Antonio Marto argued that the main issue for the religious is the actual lack of interest in religion. It was a short news article on the story of the cardinal and bishop, and his perspective on the waning interest in religion now.
Marto was the one who welcomed Pope Francis to Fatima – his city – in 2017 and the then-pope Benedict XVI in 2006. Coming from a family of deep faith, Marto knows the Roman Catholic religion and theology, and cultural and social life.
Marto was ordained as a priest with a doctorate in Theology with Benedict appointing him the bishop of Fatima, of the city. He was reluctant to take the position; however, the pope, at the time, wanted Marto to be the bishop.
As reported, “Fatima receives thousands of people from all continents every year. For this reason, it’s interesting to get his opinion about what should be the Church’s priority.” Marto is concerned about the state of the Church. This is someone with authority, education, and influence within the Roman Catholic Church from a Catholic news source.
“At this moment, the priority is to bring God to the hearts of men and women, and men and women to the heart of God, and this is part of the message of Fatima,” Marto opined, “This is because we live in a time of religious indifference. Our greatest enemy is not militant atheism but religious indifference. This indifference is fought with the joyful and convinced testimony of faithful Christians.”
The decline in the global interest in religion – though continued growth in the numbers – remains a concern for the individuals within the Roman Catholic Church including the hierarchs such as Marto.
The article concluded, “It’s this issue he hopes to continue working on as cardinal and theological bishop of Fatima one who finds rests by walking in the mountains or spending time with his family and friends.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
In Cranbrook, British Columbia, two men took many wives, some as young as 15.
The two men will not serve any time in jail based on the decision of the B.C. Supreme Court judge. They were given conditional sentences. The two men were Winston Blackmore, 61, and James Oler, 54. They are part of a breakaway Mormon sect.
These became of the first Canadian cases of polygamous arrest in over a century. The judge was Justice Sheri Ann Donegan. She sentenced the Blackmore to 6 months and Oler to 3 months. The men are serving house arrest with the exceptions for work and other necessary errands and medical emergencies.
Blackmore will serve 150 hours in community service work. Oler will do 75 hours.
Donegan stated, “Determining a proportionate sentence is a delicate task … Sentences that are too lenient and sentences that are too harsh can undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.”
Blackmore’s relatives cried and embraced with the announced sentence.
“The court heard Blackmore married his first wife, ex-Bountiful member Jane Blackmore, in 1975 and went on to marry 24 more women in so-called celestial marriages. Nine wives were under the age of 18, and four were 15 at the time they were married, Donegan noted in her decision,” the article reported.
Oler had five wives, one as young as 15 with another turning 17 at the time of the marriages to Oler. Blackmore and Oler were raised in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It is a tradition of some sects of the Mormon church to practice “plural marriage.” Men marry lots of women.
There was a schism in 2002, which led to the rival factions growing into what is known as the community of Bountiful in the south east of British Columbia.
Oler had five wives, Donegan said. One was 15, and another had just turned 17 at the time of their marriages. Oler got excommunicated from the church in 2012. He lives in Alberta now. Blackmore lives in the original community.
The judge described both men as hard working and law abiding citizens. But they practice polygamy due to their deeply held religious convictions.
Donegan stated, “He’s made it clear that no sentence will deter him from practising his faith. … The concept of remorse is foreign to him in this context because … he cannot feel remorseful for his family.”
One reference case confirmed the illegality of polygamy in Canada in 2011 but Blackmore continued to practice it. Blackmore failed to heed the fair notice in the reference case. Donegan has no doubt that Blackmore was practising polygamy based on fundamentalist beliefs inculcated at a very, very young age. Therefore, Blackmore feels no remorse for any of the victims or for any harm caused via his offense.
Donegan stated, “He does not feel any remorse for his offense because he feels he did not know any other way of life and sees no harm or victims in his offense.”
The maximum prison sentence for polygamy is five years based on the Criminal Code. Only two other convictions have occurred in the history of Canadian law. Those happened in 1899 and 1906. They did not set a precedent.
Blair Suffredine, the lawyer for Blackmore, said, “It’s a light at the end of the tunnel… He’s had 25 years of government coming after him for something he wasn’t sure was a crime and he felt it was only because of his religious beliefs that he was doing it.”
This sentence, hopefully, sends a moderate to strong message to the members of the bountiful British Columbia community about practicing polygamy and how this may result in jail sentences.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Christian religious leaders gathered in Russia over concerns of a purported spiritual and moral crisis.
The Moscow Patriarch Kirill (secular name: Vladimir M. Gundjaev) sent some congratulations to the World Council of Churches (WCC) for 70 years of establishment since the original August 23rd, 1948 gathering after WWII. The WCC gained the Russian Orthodox Church, part of the Eastern Orthodox Church and subservient to Putin.
The article stated, “Addressing the WCC secretary, the Norwegian Lutheran theologian Olav Fykse Tveit, and the entire Central Committee, the Russian Patriarch recalled that the Council is ‘a major international organization and unique platform for dialogue between Christians of various confessions. For the years of its work, the World Council of Churches has done much to develop inter-confessional dialogue, to promote justice in society and peace among nations.’”
Kirill recalled how this was important to the Christian community because it provided the opportunity for joint efforts to work in international relations. Typically, this will translate into Christian churches working globally to undermine secularism or gain political power.
It continued, “The message also thanks the WCC ‘for the solidarity that our brothers and sister shared with us in the desire to overcome the restrictions of religious freedom as a consequence of the state policy formed by the ideology of militant atheism.’”
The phrase “militant atheism” insofar as I know started with the TED Talk presentation by the distinguished science educator and zoologist Dr. Richard Dawkins. Apparently, Kirill was known to speak on the ecclesiastical propaganda used to conceal religious persecution. That raises all sorts of questions about Kirill’s time as a young “Soviet” bishop in the Nairobi assembly in 1975. He denied religious persecutions in the USSR at the time.
“However, the head of the Russian Church does not indulge in the re-evocation of those difficult times, but turns instead to future prospects, where the patriarchate of Moscow has every intention of being a leading player,” the reported explained.
Kirill argues that the purported problems for religion back in the days of the USSR are no different than the alleged problems for religion today. That is, the asserted existence of spiritual and moral crises that are deviations of the Christian faith’s values and traditions.
Kirill argues the world is on the brink of a global war. He continued to state that there is a threat of Christian communities in the region. Apparently, that created the foundation for the meeting of the Roman Catholic Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill to meet in Havana during 2016.
“The other reason for the rapprochement, in conclusion of Kirill’s message, is the gratitude to the WCC ‘for the firm position expressed by the Secretary General in his appeal to the state authorities of Ukraine, in defence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church,’” the article said in its concluding parts.
The meeting seemed as if an attempt to prevent the dissolution of the Christian church religiosity levels seen in the region and then casting people shedding religion as persecution and discrimination against the church. Christian leaders seem on the defensive.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
A court in Sudan overturned the prior death sentence of a teenager named Noura Hussein Hammad.
Hammad murdered her husband. The claimed reason for the murder has a background. Hammad was forced into a child marriage and then underwent marital rape in Sudan. When the husband tried to rape her again, she killed him.
The article stated, “Her legal team told CNN on Tuesday that Hussein, now 19, has been given a five-year jail term for killing the 35-year-old man. The court ordered her family to pay 337,000 Sudanese pounds ($18,700 or €15,970) in “blood money” to the man’s family.”
The lawyers for Hammad want to appeal the jail term and payment of Hammad, even though she was not killed. She was given the prison sentence and blood money fine. According to Hammad, her family forced the marriage on her at age 15.
She did finish school. Then there was a public wedding three years later. The husband wanted to consummate the marriage. However, she refused his sexual advances. At that point, several of his family members held her down as he raped her.
He raped her again one day later. She went to her family for help, but her family turned her over to the police. She was forced to live with the man. She did not eat or leave her room for the first days of being with him.
Hammad said, “On the ninth day his relatives came, his uncle told me to go to the bedroom. I said no so he dragged me by my arm into the bedroom and his cousin slapped me. All of them tore at my clothing. His uncle held me down by my legs and each of the other two held down my arms. He stripped and had me while I wept and screamed. Finally, they left the room. I was bleeding, I slept naked.”
The following day, Hammad recounts, was when he grabbed her, threw her on the bed, and attempted to climb on top of her. She fought back. She found a knife under the pillow. He cut her hand and bit on her shoulder.
The court overturned the decision based on the acceptance of Hammad’s recall of the events. One key point of the narrative was finding the knife under the pillow prior to the stabbing. It was not from the kitchen.
The case has garnered the attention of the international world with an enormous number of petitions from around the world calling for Hammad’s case to be dropped. The legal marriage age in Sudan is 10. Marital rape is not seen as a crime.
Amnesty International called Hammad’s case a need for a call for change in Sudan.
“While the quashing of this death sentence is hugely welcome news, it must now lead to a legal review to ensure that Noura Hussein is the last person to go through this ordeal,” said Seif Magango, Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director for East Africa, the Horn and the Great Lakes, “Noura Hussein was the victim of a brutal attack by her husband and five years’ imprisonment for acting in self-defense is a disproportionate punishment … The Sudanese authorities must take this opportunity to start reforming the laws around child marriage, forced marriage and marital rape, so that victims are not the ones who are penalized.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to Dead State, there was a bizarre claim by Rick Wiles about a “brown invasion” as a punishment from God for abortions in America.
Rick Wiles, a well-known fundamentalist conservative Christian radio host and conspiracy theorist, took on a stance associated in the report with Christian-styled anti-abortion/pro-life position tied to white nationalism.
Wiles runs the show called TruNews, where he holds forth on his fundamentalist and conspiracy theorist ideas. In one short reported-on segment, he spoke on what he characterized as a “brown invasion” from Latin America.
This, he surmised, was a punishment of white people for the sin of abortion. He stated that this was a soil soaked in babies’ blood and so the soil is making a cry for some form of justice.
Wiles opined, “Four thousand babies killed every day, their guts, their intestines, their brains, their blood flushed down the toilet in the baby butcher shops … [it] goes into the sewer system, carried in the sewer pipes under the city streets, into the sewage system. Our country is soaked in blood and the soil is crying out for justice.”
He argued that there needs to be repentance based on these assertions. Otherwise, another people, presumably not white people, will take the land. He is known as an End Times conspiracy theorist who is pro-Trumpism.
He originally considered the people to take over the United States of America would be the Chinese or the Russians. However, he changed his mind. The purported “invasion” comes from those who are from Central America. They are the source of God’s punishment.
“It just hit me in the past week … We’ve already been invaded. We’re already being pushed off the land. It’s already happened … The judgment has been underway for years and we didn’t see it,” Wiles stated, “God is bringing another people in to America and pushing the white Europeans off the land … We have a brown invasion that has come in … This is the land vomiting the people out.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Big Think reported on the increasing non-scientific beliefs of the Millennial generation. The blog talked about the wonderful developments in the sciences over the centuries, especially the great minds and mathematicians such as Isaac Newton.
Although, he spent a long time trying to decode the Book of Revelations from the Bible. He also did foundational work in mathematics and physics, and so engineering too – used to this day as far as I know.
Now, with the era of computers, Google, and the like, we, especially the younger generations such as the Millennials, can search the internet for more information. “Today, we have the entire wealth of human knowledge literally at our fingertips. You’d think that’d pave the way for a cultural renaissance of sorts that might eclipse our 15th-century Florentine forefathers,” the article opined.
However, when it comes to the numbers of those in fringe informal disciplines long abandoned, the Millennial generation has begun to adhere to them more and more including Astrology, flat Earth theories, and the denial of the moon landing. Why is this an increasingly common belief system among the Millennials? Asks the article implicitly.
“Astrology as a system of belief has been around for thousands of years. It implies that the location of the stars and planets at the time of someone’s birth determines their personality and life course. Those astrologers dedicated to the process write horoscopes and claim that they can predict your fate and reveal your true nature through zodiac charts,” Big Think stated.
It amounts to an allure, a charm, and lure for the young and naïve full of youthful vibrancy who may excitedly grasp as bad explanation rather than no explanation. Younger generations identify less with formal religion and more with the pseudoscientific. It appears to have replaced the formal religious pseudo-explanations of the ways of the world.
After some commentary, the article continues to talk about the citation of a Finnish research study, where question sets were given “to people signed up for adult education classes, explains that those signed up for astrology courses were more prone to have recently experienced more crises in their life.”
Astrology and other beliefs, when people lose footing in their lives, become helpful for people to garner some sense of internal locus of control, internal order, in their own lives.
Big Think opined, “Astrology is arguably an inane and harmless belief. Aside from you wild Scorpios butting heads with a quick-tempered Aries, it’s safe to say that astrology isn’t that big of a problem. Rather, it’s the underlying mindset that leads to trouble.”
Another phenomenon among the young came in the form of superstitious thought and the idea of all-encompassing conspiracies about the world. The critical thought is important. However, excess skepticism in the wrong degree, applied to the incorrect areas, and not in the right way can lead to all-encompassing theories.
Mono-explanations for the nature of the world, even though no evidence exists or sufficient evidence does not exist for the conspiracy theory. “Challenging questionable status quos of history and scientific inquiry is good for the advancement of knowledge,” the article argues.
However, according to the opinion piece, “unfounded claims and arguments that we never landed on the moon and that Earth is flat have tired themselves out to any rational-minded person. There’s really no need anymore to defend against these ridiculous claims.”
The reason for these explanations about the world tend to be the powerlessness over personal life. It makes one feel as if they have special knowledge not held by others too. More education leads people to feel more control and so less likely to believe or adhere to all-encompassing conspiracy theories.
“One reason for the pervasiveness of groundless ideas and theories is that they serve as a way to make sense of a chaotic world. People would rather believe that they’re ill-fated by a bum roll of the astrological dice or that a secret order is the reason they can’t get ahead in life,” Big Think explained.
If one can feel more agency in their lives and have a greater and firmer knowledge about the world, then that someone can be less inclined to believe in or adhere to the conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific theories.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Camille Beredjick announced a new book earlier in 2018 entitled Queer Disbelief. She was a former frequent writer for Friendly Atheist back in the day.
Beredjick wrote on the important topic of the rights of sexual orientation and gender identity minorities under the banner of LGBTQ rights.
As noted by the Friendly Atheist article reporting on the announced book, “The book was called Queer Disbelief and it was all about the LGBTQ and atheist communities: how they overlapped, where the comparisons broke down, how religion hurt (and helped!) LGBTQ people, and why atheists couldn’t ignore this issue.”
With June as Pride Month, the cost of book has been lowered now. It has been listed at only $9.99 in paperback version and $6.99 in Kindle. This deal, as per the month of Pride, will end at the completion of the month.
If you have not read it, and have a deeper interest in the LGBTQ rights, and the activism and writing of Beredjick, then you may want to take a look into it.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Independent Catholic News reported on Pope Francis’ Synod on Youth for this fall. Recent research indicates the change in the faith and lifestyle stances of the young Catholic adult population. There appears to be a decrease in agnosticism and atheism.
The decrease, according to the reportage, comes to about 7% between 2009 and 2017 from 49% to 42%. There has been an increase in the frequency of Mass attendance from 25% in 2009 to 36% in 2017. The data comes from Research Now for the Catholic Youth Ministry Federation and Camino House (strategy consultancy).
The polling was done between September and October of 2017. The results showed about “10% more young adults in 2017 are likely to have experienced stress across a range of factors than the comparable group in 2009.”
Young women Roman Catholics will feel anxiety more frequently than their male peers during the week on all measured factors, especially regarding personal appearance with a 79% for female and 54% for male split in the data.
Also, women felt more anxiety about having enough money for themselves and their families (66% female vs 50% male). 2017 young Catholics view the helping of others as an aspiration and expectation of their lives more than those from 2009.
However, this comes to an attitudinal stance because there was no real change in volunteering or campaigning activity. “Female young Catholics say that they have taken more action on social issues in the past year than their male counterparts,” the Independent Catholic News stated, “whilst young male Catholics are more likely to say that they attend Mass (either regularly or irregularly at 82%) than females (71%).”
The report with the data was called “Complex Catholicism.” It was intended to look into the issues import for the young Catholic population. Their “willingness to identify as Catholic/Roman Catholic, beliefs about Jesus, and maintaining contact with young Catholics through life transitions.”
The identification of the spiritual experiences for the young Catholics showed wide range of self-identified experiences. 10% claimed to sense the presence of an angel.
“Through this research, young Catholics have articulated a strong openness to Christian belief, to social action and to belonging to the Catholic community; but they are also living complicated lives with some perhaps paralysed by pressure,” Matthew van Duyvenbode, the author of the report, explained, “The Church today has an opportunity is to follow the call of Pope Francis to reach out to those on the peripheries and demonstrate an authentic, dynamic and humble expression of Catholicism for the 21st century.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
The Religion News Service reported on the godless choir entitled the Voices of Reason. 8 years ago, a woman signed up for a course in singing at the Santiago Canyon College. It is a community college. She works there in Orange, California. The students had to sing as a choir.
When the hymns and the performances at various religious events were mandatory, the woman, Amanda MacLean, did not like it. The final straw, or song, was the singing of the City of Orange’s Christmas tree lighting three years back-to-back-to-back.
MacLean stated, “I knew there had to be nonbelievers out there who felt like I did, who had no place to sing without being forced to sing about Jesus… I actually thought atheist choirs were a thing.” As she went to look for those choirs, she found Bobbie Kirkhart.
MacLean and Kirkhart founded the Voices of Reason in 2001. One other non-religious person, Michael Jordan, was one of the co-founders. After three years, the Voices of Reason separated. However, one 450year-old IT consultant who worked for Apple, Yari Schutzer, got a new group of singers together.
Schutzer was one of the original members before the group originally disbanded. As far as the reported from the Religion News Service goes, the Voices of Reason is the “only atheist choir in the United States, its members say, and one of only a very few in the world.”
The merry band of disbelievers spread their cheer and songs at various atheist events, public libraries, science events, and Unitarian Universalist churches. The plan is to do outreach to schools and nursing homes for future performances.
The executive director of the Center for Inquiry-Los Angeles, James Underdown, described the Voices of Reason choir as a good fit for the organization. The purpose of CFI is to foster a secular society. Underdown stated, “There’s a lot of music out there that celebrates religious beliefs… appreciate hearing something that lands in their perspective every once in a while.”
With a rehearsal, recently, one dozen people wrap in stance around a piano with sheet music reading and singing in order to warm up.
The article said, “Voices of Reason members say they don’t simply avoid religious references. They draw attention to their rejection of religion, often picking songs that comment on its shortcomings. They have been in touch with members of Britain’s London Humanist Choir, which calls itself atheist as well, but doesn’t go for the jugular as they do.”
One “quintessential” atheist song, according to Schutzer is the song “Imagine” by the late John Lennon. Also, the “Evolution Chorus” in place of the “Hallelujah Chorus” by Handel. Another favorite is the Monty Python song from Meaning of Life the movie called “Every Sperm is Sacred.”
Schutzer opined, “There’s this fine line between humor and offense and we try to walk that line.” The point, according to the reportage, is not to denigrate religion. The intention is to defend atheism.
An Annenberg Public Policy Center from the University of Pennsylvania stated 1 in 7 Americas, wrongly, hold the belief that atheists do not have the same First Amendment protections as people who are religious. Although, a Gallup poll found that 58% of Americans would vote for an atheist president.
“We’re still human, we still want some sort of entertainment,” Schutzer explained. The Voices of Reason may fill a void in people without the cost of mandatory belief. Many of the choir members spent their youth in religious homes.
Kirkhart stated, “Music is common to all humankind and is extremely important to bonding groups… Church has this way of bringing people together, to sing together and that connect to the person next to you, connect to the meaning of the songs.”
One study in 2016 from the journal Psychology of Music found that choral singers had higher well-being than those who were solo singers. It is seen as more meaningful to its participants than those involved in team sport. Other research found singing in a choir can increase endorphins and can regulate the heart rates of those involved in it.
“Voices of Reason is there to build a community,” Schutzer concluded.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
CBC News reported on one known controversial Christian group. It wants to host an event. It acquired critique from LGBTQ or sexual minority activists. Following that, it was cancelled for unknown reasons.
Journey Canada wanted to host a retreat at the Villa Madonna Retreat House. It is operated by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Saint John.
The Canadian group was formerly called Living Waters and based in Vancouver. It is a non-denominational religious sect. It is focused on the healing of the “relationally and sexually broken.” The group has spoken on their values being against those acts seen as violations of God’s bounds for proper sexual expression.
These include compulsive masturbation, mutual masturbation, oral sex, and pornography use. The retreat for the group was scheduled to happen between July 22 and July 28. The Administrative Director for the Villa Madonna, Dianne O’Dell, stated, in an email to the CBC, that the event was cancelled.
The reasons for the cancellation were not given to the CBC. As stated in the article, “CBC News tried the Diocese of Saint John and Journey Canada on Wednesday afternoon but did not receive an immediate response. Critics, including St. Thomas University professor Erin Fredericks, said the courses offered by the group amounted to ‘anti-LGBTQ therapy.’”
Fredericks considered this an organization the community does not want training local leaders. Those local leaders who would work with youth, even working with members of other faith groups. She was happy to hear about the cancellation of the Rothesay event.
Fredericks stated, “We were surprised to see that they were coming to New Brunswick, because they haven’t before, and we’re upset that this message was coming to a province that we believe had made some real steps forward in the last couple years toward supporting LGBTQ New Brunswickers,” Fredericks said.
The concern from Fredericks was the potential ripple effect of the event. In that, the event could inspire the spread of a message of intolerance and even hate. “It’s not just about people who attend the event, it’s about the influence that they have after,” Fredericks opined.
Journey Canada is Living Waters, but Living Waters became Journey Canada in 2015 through a name change. It received $666,548 in donations in 2017. More than 9,100 people in 42 cities across Canada were ministered based on the annual report for 2017.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Spain made the headlines with the recent election vote results against the current leader of Spain, Mariano Rajoy, and for the political opposition, Pedro Sánchez. Sánchez has been sworn in as the new Prime Minister of Spain.
Sánchez is the leader of the opposition party called the Spanish Socialist Worker’s Party. When Sánchez took the oath to be sworn in as the Prime Minister, there was no crucifix or Bible to place a hand on at the time. By which the report means, Sánchez is an atheist, even though 2/3rds of the country are Roman Catholic.
In a 2014 interview, Sánchez stated, “I am an atheist and I believe that religion should not be in the classrooms, it has to be in the churches, in the classrooms you have to form citizenship, not people with religious beliefs, that corresponds to the private sphere.”
When Sánchez gave a godless oath as well, however, he only has 84 members of the Spanish Socialist Worker’s Party in the 350-seat Parliament. The question of success for an atheist leader in a majority Roman Catholic Church nation remains to be seen.
In the oath, Sánchez stated, “I promise by my conscience and honor to faithfully fulfill the obligations of the office of President of the Government with loyalty to the King, and to keep and enforce the Constitution as the fundamental norm of the State.”
He switched the word promise in place of swear and emphasized conscience and honor rather than Christian Theity who intervenes in the world.
The article concluded, “But when you have someone who looks to evidence and reason for guidance over internal religious dogma, it’s at least a good starting point.”License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
A Cincinnati, Ohio, reportage on a federal appeals court decision talked about the rejection of an atheist’s attempts to have “In God We Trust” removed from American currency.
The federal court concluded that the phrase is not compelled speech. This was a decision in agreement with the lower court ruling. That the complainants in the case have other alternatives in cash if they do not prefer this motto.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated, “Plaintiffs’ complaint does not allege that anyone has ever attributed the motto to them. And the Supreme Court has strongly suggested that the motto’s inscription on currency does not compel speech.”
It continued to talk about the lack of universal access to credit or bank accounts. However, the financial situation for the plaintiffs does not foreclose the opportunity for the access to checks or credit. Michael Newdow has filed several lawsuits to challenge the admixture of government and religion.
He submitted one in the Southern District of New York in March, 2013. He claimed the motto – In God We Trust – violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. Why? It is a means by which there is a proselytization to the non-religious or unbelievers.
“But in September of that year, U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer, Jr., nominated by Bill Clinton, rejected Newdow’s arguments, opining that “the inclusion of the motto on U.S. currency . . . does not violate the Establishment Clause [of the Constitution],” the reportage said.
Then Newdow made a case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, New York in May, 2014. The court ruled against Newdow once more. The claim by the court is that the inclusion into the design of the U.S. current is a religious heritage reference.
Newdow went to find some plaintiffs. The plan was to challenge the motto of “In God We Trust” from a different angle. Bill Clinton signed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in the 1990s. Newdow filed a suit with 43 plaintiffs. Nine were children.
They claimed the phrase was a burden on the beliefs of atheist, of them.
Their complaint said, “When [the child] is confronted with ‘In God We Trust’ on every coin and currency bill she handles or learns about in school, the power and prestige of the federal government is brought to bear upon her with the message that her father’s (and her own) atheism is false.”
Judge Benita Pearson – on December, 2016 – was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama. Pearson ruled against the complainants. She argued that a reasonable person would not see the handling of the money with the motto would be an attempt to spread a religious message.
Pearson wrote, “A person does not own the bills and coins printed by the United States Treasury. The government does not require citizens to display money. Money does not exist for the express purpose that it be observed and read by the public.”
Newdow and others then appealed to the Sixth Circuit. This court also upheld the decision made by Pearson. Why? The plaintiffs are not being forced to pay for various purchases with cash.
The three-judge panel said, “Plaintiffs do not allege that they must engage in cash-only transactions; rather, they allege merely that they use cash frequently and prefer to do so. For example, one plaintiff, as an octogenarian, ‘often feels more comfortable using cash rather than credit cards or checks,’ while one child plaintiff ‘uses money almost every week to buy books, magazines, treats and gifts.’”
The panel continued to say that the allegations by the plaintiffs do not show that the government has forced them to violate their religious beliefs or had any significant suffering as a result.
1956 was the year when Congress passed a resolution for “In God We Trust” to be made the national motto. The U.S. House of Representatives upheld this in 2011 396-9 in a vote.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to the Wichita Eagle, one Sedgwick County commissioner stated atheists “[can] go to hell.” This was based on the atheists wanting to deliver an invocation at commission meetings.
One online commentator said, “I heard they’re not so closed minded in hell. And there’s less Police per capita than Wichita so it can’t be all bad.” While another opined, “Some one needs to tell this guy that atheists don’t believe in Hell and that’s literally the point.”
The commissioner David Unruh stated that atheists can go to hell based on a personal feeling from a letter sent by the Freedom From Religion Foundation or the FFRF. The FFRF argued that the county violated the Constitution with the denial of an atheist to provide a commission meeting invocation.
The FFRF is devoted to the secularist ideals of the separation between church and state. Unruh said, “If you don’t believe in (God), that’s fine with me… I don’t care, go to hell. It’s fine.” Richard Ranzau, another commissioner present, supported the “encouraged Unruh’s remarks,” according to the Wichita Eagle article.
The local publication wrote about the prayers of the county before stating concerns about the exclusion of non-Christians.
The President of Wichita Oasis, Alex Simmons, was surprised by the inability of an atheist to perform the invocation. Oasis is part of a larger network for the religiously unaffiliated to find community of common values.
A local Wichita atheist, Mike Marlett, was offended. He opined, “No atheist wants to sit there and listen to have someone have a prayer and nobody who’s religious wants to sit there and hear an atheist talk about atheism… And that’s OK. This is not a forum for religious discussion.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Hement Mehta, and the best Friendly Atheist around, reported on Alabama State Rep. Harry Shriver considering the arming of schoolteachers as a ineffective overall methodology to protect middle and high school students.
He thinks that since many women are teachers; women are scared of guns; and so teacher should not be armed with guns.
Shiver said, “I’ve heard… that 75 percent of Republicans support it, but I was there live and in person and I know what it is like in the schools… Most women wouldn’t like to be put in that position.”
In a conversation with Al.com, Shriver continued with the same comments. He talked about not all women but most schools having the majority of teachers as women. Mehta stated the right position was taken for the wrong reasons.
In an interview, Shiver said, “I’m not saying all (women), but in most schools, women are (the majority) of the teachers… Some of them just don’t want to (be trained to possess firearms). If they want to, then that’s good. But most of them don’t want to learn how to shoot like that and carry a gun.”
Mehta argues more guns in teachers’ hands will create more fun violence, not less.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What was family background and personal background in terms of becoming started in activism that is against violence against women?
Humberto Carolo: It dates back to my student years. Even as a boy and young man, I have always been interested in social causes and in the helping profession. It is an early interest of mine, back in the early years when I lost my mother when I was 6-years-old.
It led me on the path to begin studying social sciences, studying the gender relations and sociology, human sexuality. I did a lot of volunteer work while I was in university. I got in student council and student politics.
I was the human rights officer for our student council here at the University of Toronto. When I graduated, I started working in the community in HIV prevention. I have gone to White Ribbon when it officially opened up to coordinate initiatives between Canada and Brazil on the topic of engaging men and boys in gender equality and reducing violence against women.
That opened the pathway into this work.
Jacobsen: It is the largest organization of men and boys looking to prevent and eventually end violence against women and girls. With that as its mandate, what is its current status since it was started in 1991 in Toronto?
Carolo: It was created by 3 men 2 years after the December 6th Montreal Massacre. Our founders felt men needed to come forward, step up, and speak out against violence against women. The White Ribbon as a symbol to pledge for men to never commit or condone or remain silent about violence against women.
It was a grassroots movement. It started in Toronto and spread across Canada and the United States. Further from there, today, we counted about 65+ countries around the globe where initiatives of White Ribbon, e.g. campaigns, have been implemented.
Jacobsen: How can people become involved with it?
Carolo: I would encourage everyone to visit our website at whiteribbon.ca, connect with us on Facebook or Twitter. There is a pledge people can take online on our website. Then there are specific campaigns that we ask people to get involved with to make change and accept change for the individual and collective levels.
It Starts With You campaign starts with a series of things including fathers and family members and how they can promote gender equality and healthy relationships, and what people can do in everyday life.
We also provide tools for educators such as male teachers on how to engage students and how to be good role models on gender equality and respecting women in schools, in the community, and in the home.
It is engaging young people and young men on this issue because for us we know that most of the violence committed against women and girls is committed against men, but not all men believe in or use violence.
A lot of men stay violent because they do not know what to do or what to say. We try to encourage everyone and try to give men and everyone the tools and language to speak on these issues in the community, in the schools, in the workplace, and so on and so forth.
We ask people to check out our resources and campaigns to see how they can get involved in a way that makes sense for them. In a workplace, they can organize an event or a working group. Same at the universities with the campaign or starting a club.
They can start a task force and bring in speakers and organize events to help raise awareness. Or in our case here in Toronto, we help organize a Walk a Mile in Our Shoes. We invite everyone to literally walk a mile literally in the shoes in order to show support, raise awareness, and to stand in solidarity with women and girls.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
One Canadian professor has become popular, according to the reportage in The Vermillion, as a popular person among the far-right in the United States.
His popularity extends to the disaffected and insecure men, which, apparently, is a “key demographic in the modern conservative movement.” As with a host of public intellectuals, many will enter into domains outside of their expertise.
The article talks about the lobsters and social behaviour example, which was taken on by some marine biologists. In a Reddit Ask me Anything, the claim by Peterson was Nazism was, in fact, an atheist doctrine. When confronted on the answer with more questions, Peterson reaffirmed the claim.
The article retorts by stating that the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany were “very clearly Christian. By 1939, at the start of the Second World War, only 1.5% of Germans identified as atheists. Even if some atheists were pretending to be Christians to avoid persecution, that’s still a low number compared to the 95 percent that identified as Christian. This fact alone debunks the lie that Nazism was atheistic.”
On the belts of the Nazi soldiers, there was a phrase: “Gott Mit Uns” or “God is With Us.” It started with the Prussian military, but carried over into the Nazi Germany one. Hitler declare that Christians and not the international atheists who are the head of the nation (Germany) at that time.
Hitler, in translation from German to English, said, “I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity.” Hitler abandoned some beliefs later in life. However, he appealed to the religious sensibilities of the general populace in order to win support.
Germany had an intriguing movement. It was called Positive Christianity. The purpose was to purge the Jewish roots of Christianity to merge state worship and Christianity.
The article stated, “Although its attempts to ultimately separate its belief from both Catholicism and Protestantism makes this sound like a heretical Christianity, it still shows how the Nazi party found religion useful in establishing their dictatorship.”
The Vermillion clarifies. Christians were Nazis, but not all Christians were Nazi – not all Nazis were Christians. Nonetheless, the Nazi Germans leveraged religion to enforce worship of the state. “Blasphemy would be equal to treason, and vice versa. Eradicating dissenting opinions is how one ideology conquers a country,” the article explained.
The author concluded on state and religion separation. That these can “short-circuit empathy and rationality,” which can be some of the most toxic beliefs around us. “When pseudo-intellectuals try to lie about what dictatorships enforce to exercise control, they pose a danger to the rest of us.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Baptist Global News spoke on the rise of the Nones, not only in the US but around the world.
They reported that the renunciation of religion does not necessarily limit itself, as a phenomenon, to North America and Western Europe. In particular, the young adult groups throughout the world have begun to give up their faith in the efficacy and veracity of religion.
The Pew Research Center data is cited in the report. In general, the Nones are on the rise around the world. The leaders of most traditions are struggling with a decline in affiliations and memberships in their respective religions.
“In a June 13 study titled ‘The Age Gap in Religion Around the World,’ Pew found that young adults globally tend to be less religious than older people, and that ‘the opposite is rarely true,’” the article reported. “The expansive report delves into a range of factors that predict religiosity. Those include income levels, lifespan, geographic region and social standing.”
It remains a complex phenomenon, but it shows a clear a trend in the reduction of religiosity over time around the world and not in the United States alone. One issue noted for the American religious leaders is the disjunction between the old and the young.
The old tend to adhere to a religious faith. The young tend to reject faith. Then the average age for the religious tend to go higher and higher, but the mean age for the Nones remains lower than the average age for the religious.
Not only in self-identification, the young tend not to practice their faith as fully as the older generations even if they do identify with a religious belief system.
The Pew report stated, “But this is not solely an American phenomenon … Lower religious observance among younger adults is common around the world.”
While there is that split between the generations, it does depend on the country with some countries showing bigger or smaller gaps than others. Some with the adults who are 40-years-old or younger view religion as less important or are “less inclined to view religion as ‘very important.’”
That data arises in Canada, Iran, Nigeria, and Switzerland. Exceptions to that rule exist too.
“While this pattern is widespread, it is not universal … In many countries, there is no statistically significant difference in levels of religious observance between younger and older adults,” Pew explained, “In the places where there is a difference, however, it is almost always in the direction of younger adults being less religious than their elders.”
About 41 countries have 18-to-39-year-olds who feel less attached to religion.
Pew identified 41 nations where people 18 to 39 years old “are significantly less likely than their elders to have a religious affiliation.” These include Canada, Mexico, much of South America, and the United States of America.
The young do not pray as much. Only Chad and Liberia showed that the young adults prayer two times per day. In 53 out of 102 nations, the under 40s are much less likely to go to a weekly religious service than the over 40s.
However, Armenia, Liberia, and Rwanda were exceptions to that trend in in attendance at weekly services.
The article said, “The gaps between generations are small in many countries. The overall average is 5 percentage points for affiliation, 6 percentage points for worship attendance and 9 percentage points for prayer.”
The US is one of a number of countries where the differences remain larger. Finally, there is a gulf of a minimum of 10% between the old and the young who identify with a religious group, mostly Christian populations, in the Americas and Europe.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to an article in The National Post, there has been an alleged humbling of the atheists as of late. Others disagree.
The opinion piece spoke about the event in the O2 arena of London. Here, Sam Harris, world-famous New Atheist and neuroscientist, and Jordan B. Peterson, clinical psychologist and professor at the University of Toronto, sat and had a discussion.
The article stated, “There is a pop cultural title belt on the line, and for the first time in years, the atheist will be the clear underdog. Peterson is a psychologist whose popular appeal is partly based on his repurposing of religious myth for modern life.”
Peterson claims a complicated relationship with the Christian faith in terms of self-identification, where he does not believe in the Abrahamic God but acts as though such a God exists. The argument proposed in the report is that the publications of the New Atheists – Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris – should indicate a declining interest in the questions of religion and faith.
However, the latter 2010s represent a re-emergence of interest in faith-based topics from within the framework of the faith-based topics.
The article accused, “The New Atheists — the hyper-rationalist anti-religious movement of which Harris was once a star — are not new anymore. Quite the opposite. The enlightened, progressive, secular left wing has turned on them as they struggled with their own scandals of intolerance, Islamophobia, sexism, and sophist sloganeering.”
Going on to quote the philosopher of biology Michael Ruse, who opined the movement was akin to a balloon that once “pricked, it went nowhere,” the article reflected on the timeline of observation for Ruse, where the dynamic of atheism into the New Atheism comes with a history.
In particular, a history with the “crisis point in 1982” with Ruse’s attendance in Arkansas as an expert witness for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The purpose was to challenge the teaching of so-called “creation science” or, more properly, Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism – in the majority of cases.
Ruse attended alongside the prominent evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould. Gould considered science and religion compatible insofar as they consist of “Non-Overlapping Magisteria” or independent domains of inquiry or universes of discourse.
That is when one speaks of religious themes and moral narratives, they not contradict the empirical evidence and theoretical groundings of science, for example with Evolutionary Theory, because these are areas that do not mutually contradict one another.
The article covering the case later stated, “It was like the Scopes Monkey Trial all over again. Ruse compared this experience to ‘going over the top at the Somme,’ and said it gives him ‘street credentials” in the atheism ‘world. More recently, he has found himself using that cred to criticize those who take atheism too far, especially Dawkins, whom he compared to Donald Trump as someone who argues by ‘trivializing the stuff into slogans.’”
Ruse, apparently, sees a shift in the cultural zeitgeist happening since the tragedy of 9/11. The time when the then US President George W. Bush proposed a religious framing for a clash of civilizations. There were fears around then prime minister of Canada Stephen Harper harboring a Christian agenda and that anti-evolution was being proposed in American schools, all at the same time.
“In those times, there was a countercultural boldness in standing up for atheism. People were especially keen for a coherent opposition to Islamic extremism that was fair and humanistic, distinct from the Islamophobic Christian right wing that was keen to rouse a new crusade,” the article asserted.
Then some of the New Atheist leading lights began to rise and the push back against religious fundamentalism, and pseudoscience became important as a public criticism. With the developments into the present, the article claims that the trend has been a humbling of the New Atheists, where the social meaning or force of New Atheism declines in its “urgency.”
The report continued to note that the prominence of creationism at one time has waned and alongside this decline in urgency of a reaction came the decrease in the prominence of New Atheism. It quoted Ruse once more stating the two sides have been cooling, where it “takes two to tango.”
“Sociologically, the expectation was that religion would decline and atheism increase as science literacy increased, and as older people who were raised with religion at home are replaced by younger people who were not,” the article explained, “But that is not what has happened. On the contrary, supernatural belief in things like miracles and angels seems to actually decline with age, according to recent surveys. Among Canadians who tick “none” for their religion on sociological surveys, which have risen from 10% in 1985 to about 25% today, about two fifths say they believe in God all the same.”
This then leads to commentary by the University of Waterloo sociologist Sarah Wilkins-Laflamme. She commented on the context with the non-religious not being atheists by necessity and the unaffiliated having more than the average amount of religious sensibilities with “individually constructed belief systems and personal spiritual practices.”
That points to the main assertion of The National Post that the individuals involved in the work atheism as a modern movement work within a context of religion and science being seen as more often compatible compared to the prior decade or two.
The article asserts and concludes, “This is why religion has survived not only the progress of science, but also the attacks of atheists. Their arrows miss their mark, and as the dangers of religious extremism fall down the list of cultural preoccupations, so too does movement atheism.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
The problems for the non-religious community in Bangladesh for blogging continue into the present. The issue has been reported on since at least 2015. As noted in an old but not outdated article by Daylight Atheism, it reported on the problems ongoing in Bangladesh in 2015. There have been recent reports on the ways in which Bangladeshi activists, freethinkers, and humanists continue to be killed simply for exercising one or all of the following rights: freedom of expression or speech, freedom of (ir)religion), freedom of belief, and freedom of conscience.
In particular, the report pointed to the continuing murder of the atheists and freethinkers within the country at the hands of political Islam, or Islamist, followers: those who want to impose theocracy with use of violence, sometimes, fatal, and other means.
One person who died was Shahzahan Bachchu. He was assassinated earlier in June. Now, the Bangladesh government is doing nothing to protect the non-religious activist community against the outright murder of them, including people who have some leverage for providing a platform for voices, e.g. the publisher Bachchu.
The article stated, “Since Bangladesh’s government can’t or won’t protect its citizens, the only recourse I see for secularists is to leave the country. Thankfully, the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is making this possible, there and elsewhere, through its Protect Humanists at Risk crowdfunding campaign.”
IHEU is an important and bright light in the work to expose theocratic overreach and abuse of citizens around the world. The campaign by IHEU is intended to provide support for the humanists at risk of violence.
Also, it is intended to help with advocacy and political campaigns for those who are at risk of governmental persecution. This can include blasphemy or apostasy laws. This is all included in a comprehensive research report entitled “Freedom of Thought Report.”
Bob Churchill and others are the brains behind this huge research project. The crowdsourced funding campaign is aiming to raise $26,000. In 12 countries, the penalty for a belief – in violation of the freedom to believe – or more an affirmation of atheism, is death.
This is based on so-called apostasy laws.
“In many more countries, ‘blasphemy’ laws are used to stop humanists promoting human rights, including women’s rights, LGBTI rights and non-religious rights, when they are accused of ‘insulting religion,’” the report explained. “In recent years, freethinkers have been attacked in countries including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Maldives and India. Humanists have been threatened with prosecution or violence in countries including Malaysia, Egypt, Afghanistan and Iran.”
The state has punished people for purported or alleged crimes including apostasy, the enmity against God, and the promotion of atheism. This has occurred in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan.
However, if one looks at nations including Bulgaria, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Russia, Turkey, or the United States, some demagogues and ultra-conservative populist movements work to undermine both democracy and secularism.
In the process, this can harm the rights of the non-religious in general who really need secularism. IHEU may provide a bulwark against these regressions against and infringements on the rights of the non-religious around the world.
The Freethinker talked some more about it. It noted the fatalities connected to the threats against humanists and freethinkers. In 2015, the freethinking community lost Avijit Roy, Washiqur Rahman, Ananto Bijoy Das, and Niloy Neel.
There were coordinated attacks on publishing houses in October of 2015 in Dhaka. Secular activists and LGBT publishers continue to be victims too. Note, this seems clearly religious individuals killing secular people, humanists, freethinkers, and sexual orientation and gender identity minority people.
It does not seem to happen the other way around. However, and to conclude the report, the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina stated that the attacks against the non-religious activists was because of the criticisms against religion and then the prosecution threatened under the ICT Act, which is an act that makes the hurting of religious sentiments a criminal offense.
If there is not a criminal indictment, then the public goes for its own bloody justice. We should do something about this for their and our sakes.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
One infamous text in the history of the 20th century and right into the 21st has been the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It is widely regarded as a fabrication and a fundamentally anti-Semitic and racist book. It is purportedly, and falsely one might add further, the description of the Jewish plan for world domination.
The whole basis is that the text is a collection of discussions among Jewish leaders about their plan for Jewish international hegemony through the subversion of the morals of the Gentiles alongside the control of the world’s economic systems and media.
That leads to a recent assertion by an Egyptian man. According to Memri TV, Dr. Samir Taqi Al-Din, an Egyptian scholar, made recommendations for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
He further went on to assert that the fact of Freud being a Jew, a Zionist, and a Freemason were non-coincidental. Furthermore, he extended this to Sartre as being the father of existentialism and being a Jew as well.
Al-Din stated, “… people who came up with the materialistic, secular, atheist ideologies were all Jews … When you read The Protocols [of the Elders of Zion], you will know that what I’m saying is true.” His address was broadcast on the Egyptian Al-Rahma TV channel on April 20.”
Al-Din talked about how Freud had the focus on human activities originating in sex. That Emile Durkheim being the father of collective consciousness and so on. That the ideas of a democracy, where the people are the final arbiters in a society of the “source of all authorities.”
Freud, Sartre, Durkheim, and democracy as sourced in materialistic, atheistic, and secular ideologies. So, he recommends the text.
Al-Din continued, “Of course, you should read The Protocols of Whatever Zion… I don’t want to say ‘Wise Elders’ because they weren’t wise or anything … When you read The Protocols, you will know that what I am saying is true.”
The book has been used by racists and anti-Semites for some time now.
Please see some of the transcript below as provided by Memri TV:
Samir Taqi Al-Din: “Freud said that all human activities originate in sex. It is no coincidence that Freud was a Jew, a Zionist, and a Freemason. It is no coincidence that Sartre, the father of existentialism, was a Jew too. It is no coincidence that [Émile] Durkheim, the father of collective consciousness… After that, we had democracy – one thing leads to another – in which the people is the source of all authorities.
[…]
“It is no coincidence that the people who came up with the materialistic, secular, atheist ideologies were all Jews. Of course, you should read The Protocols of Whatever Zion… I don’t want to say ‘Wise Elders’ because they weren’t wise or anything… When you read The Protocols, you will know that what I am saying is true.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Dr. Leo Igwe in AllAfrica states that the influence of religion on education and learning within Nigeria is net negative.
Dr. Igwe talks about the ways in which the religious organizations within the country formed the construction and foundation of educational institutions throughout Nigeria. He notes the Christian and Islamic proselytizers introducing formal educational institutions within Nigeria.
“In fact, today over 80 per cent of the private schools in the country are owned or managed by mainly Christian and Islamic religious individuals or groups. However, little attention has been paid to the negative effects of religion on the educational system, especially the fact that religion undermines academic programmes,” Igwe said.
The almost mandatory incorporation of religion into education has been at times non-promotional of good performance in academics. That is, the religious texts, and so on, restrict good teaching and repress knowledge about the world.
Igwe said, “Recently, students from some universities across Nigeria responded to interview questions on the state of religion and free thought on the campuses. According to one student, campus religiosity had become a nuisance to the environment … Actually, universities have sections in their premises where places of worship could be constructed.”
The questions remain, however, and Igwe ponders about the reasons for universities, or postsecondary institutions in general, that have not created further order in the institution with the obstructions to student learning, with the places of worship causing nuisances of various forms for different students of different faiths and non-faiths.
Igwe continued, “University authorities should be able to demarcate and ensure a separation between prayer and study/reading/lecture halls. But a student pointed out that such a measure could not be taken because many university lecturers were usually behind these prayer meetings.”
Religion and education in one seems unhealthy. One student connected the highly religious nature of the students to the post-secondary institutions’ management also holding deep religious faiths. Then the bias gets replicated throughout employment and admission into the universities.
Religion gets free reign and range for expression and proselytization in these contexts. There is a correlation between the level of religiosity on campus and the amount of noise pollution.
“In fact, some students observed that the noise that emanated from students religious observance could not allow others to adequately prepare for their examinations. The noise from the prayer grounds won’t even let students who have come to study understand anything,” Igwe explained.
Then many students do not perform as well in their academics as they could have otherwise. Many students argued that there will be a viable future for atheism and freethought in the campuses in Nigeria, which seems like an optimistic sign for the young Nigerians in the educated classes.
“Religion is used to sanctify lack of academic diligence and intellectual laziness,” Igwe said, “Students noted that this kind of reasoning was rampant and that the spread of atheistic viewpoints would at least mean fewer people subscribing to this mediocre way of thinking; otherwise the university would keep producing half-baked graduates.”
Igwe laments the low ranking of the Nigerian universities compared to the rest of the world and the low-quality graduates coming out of its postsecondary institutions. He views the religious climate as part of the problem.
Where a potential remedy may be the inclusion of the room for freethought for freethinkers and atheists on the campuses, he views the university being full of intellectuals in the 21st century who are highly religious to be “unbelievable!”
Further details in the article link to AllAfrica replication of The Guardian article.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Big Think reported on the increasing non-scientific beliefs of the Millennial generation. The blog talked about the wonderful developments in the sciences over the centuries, especially the great minds and mathematicians such as Isaac Newton.
Although, he spent a long time trying to decode the Book of Revelations from the Bible. He also did foundational work in mathematics and physics, and so engineering too — used to this day as far as we know.
Now, with the era of computers, Google, and the like, we, especially the younger generations such as the Millennials, can search the internet for more information. “Today, we have the entire wealth of human knowledge literally at our fingertips. You’d think that’d pave the way for a cultural renaissance of sorts that might eclipse our 15th-century Florentine forefathers,” the article opined. However, when it comes to the numbers of those in fringe informal disciplines long abandoned, the Millennial generation has begun to adhere to them more and more, including Astrology, flat Earth theories, and the denial of the moon landing. Why is this an increasingly common belief system among the Millennials? asks the article implicitly.
“Astrology as a system of belief has been around for thousands of years. It implies that the location of the stars and planets at the time of someone’s birth determines their personality and life course. Those astrologers dedicated to the process write horoscopes and claim that they can predict your fate and reveal your true nature through zodiac charts,” Big Think stated.
It amounts to an allure, a charm, and lure for the young and naïve, full of youthful vibrancy, who may excitedly grasp as bad explanation rather than no explanation. Younger generations identify less with formal religion and more with the pseudoscientific. It appears to have replaced the formal religious pseudo-explanations of the ways of the world.
After some commentary, the article continues to talk about the citation of a Finnish research study, where question sets were given “to people signed up for adult education classes, explains that those signed up for astrology courses were more prone to have recently experienced more crises in their life.”
Astrology and other beliefs, when people lose footing in their lives, become helpful for people to garner some sense of internal locus of control, internal order, in their own lives.
Big Think opined, “Astrology is arguably an inane and harmless belief. Aside from you wild Scorpios butting heads with a quick-tempered Aries, it’s safe to say that astrology isn’t that big of a problem. Rather, it’s the underlying mindset that leads to trouble.”
Another phenomenon among the young came in the form of superstitious thought and the idea of all-encompassing conspiracies about the world. The critical thought is important. However, excess skepticism in the wrong degree, applied to the incorrect areas, and not in the right way can lead to all-encompassing theories.
Mono-explanations for the nature of the world, even though no evidence exists or sufficient evidence does not exist for the conspiracy theory. “Challenging questionable status quos of history and scientific inquiry is good for the advancement of knowledge,” the article argues.
However, according to the opinion piece, “unfounded claims and arguments that we never landed on the moon and that Earth is flat have tired themselves out to any rational-minded person. There’s really no need anymore to defend against these ridiculous claims.”
The reason for these explanations about the world tend to be powerlessness over personal life. It makes one feel as if they have special knowledge not held by others too. More education leads people to feel more control and so less likely to believe or adhere to all-encompassing conspiracy theories.
“One reason for the pervasiveness of groundless ideas and theories is that they serve as a way to make sense of a chaotic world. People would rather believe that they’re ill-fated by a bum roll of the astrological dice or that a secret order is the reason they can’t get ahead in life,” Big Think explained.
If one can feel more agency in their life and have a greater and firmer knowledge about the world, then that someone can be less inclined to believe in or adhere to the conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific theories.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
LifeSiteNews reported on the American pundit and Roman Catholic blogger Matt Walsh. Recently, Walsh spoke on the alleged plan of the purported Satan.
He spoke on his surmising of the battle plans of the alleged Devil. He asserted the first methodology would be the old school paradigm with the persecution of Christians, who were martyrs. He stated this was a tactic of killing the Christians.
The report stated, “Walsh told his audience that Satan is using this tactic on Christians who are being persecuted across the world on an ‘unprecedented scale.’ Although the media and the Church in the USA largely ignore it, ‘the reality is that the ground all over the globe is soaked in Christian blood.’”
He stated that the Christian persecution and genocide is worse than the rest of its history. Walsh sees this as an “astounding fact.” In America, Walsh stated, the attack on Christians comes from a different angle.
That is, he compares the sacrifices of Egyptian Christian pilgrims who gave all they could for Jesus Christ against Islamic extremists. Walsh asked the audience during the speech about the amount they would be willing to give up for Christ.
“Most of the so-called believers in this country will lash out angrily is you so much as suggest that they give up watching certain TV shows or listening to certain music,” Walsh stated, “They’ll explode in fury if you urge them to change their lifestyles to any degree whatsoever… And yet we think we possess the conviction and the faith to just give up our lives for Christ.”
He continued to explain, from his point of view, that the American Christians would “grovel and weep at the feet of our Muslim captors.” That they would recite the Quranic prayers demanded by these purported captors.
LifeSiteNews asserted, “Therefore, to the Satan, American Christians simply aren’t worth killing, Walsh theorized. These ‘Christians’ are so spiritually lazy and so comfortable with their sinful ways that they aren’t any threat to Satan.”
Walsh went on to elaborate about the Plan B or the second strategy of Satan for the life of the Christians in America. That being, the work to make them subjugated inside of America by the forces of evil.
Walsh asked, “Why would the demons waste their time tormenting someone who’s already walking to hell of his own volition?” He assumes the church in America, broadly speaking, has allegedly been infiltrated by the forces of evil, by the American church’s enemies.
He brings attention to those who argue for acceptance, being welcoming, tolerant, and preach a live and let live lifestyle who do not worry about “sin.”
“Satan himself speaks from the mouths of many priests and many pastors in this country… urging their flocks to conform with the culture, making the orthodox feel silly, or even bigoted, for trying to rise above the standards of this world,” Walsh said.
He notes the ways in Christians struggle to excitedly go to church. It becomes a chore for them. He views this as a materialistic Christian community in America, who are soft. He asserts this is something that prevents the Christians from meeting God.
Walsh provided a purported cure to this alleged problem with the use of prayer above all. He sees prayer as making us less sinful and more holy. Walsh said that when Christians do drag themselves to church, desperate for guidance, they are given “nothing” from most pulpits.
“… You start to find that a lot of music you listen to, that a lot of shows that you watch…no longer appeal to you… You find that certain sins and temptations have less of a hold on you,” Walsh stated, “That desire [for God]… is kindled, and we know it, and we start to feel it. And that’s the crucial thing: for us to want the right thing.”
The article concluded on the further assertion by Walsh that he considers this to be the truth and a “terrifying reality.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
The Boy Scouts of America remains closed to the non-religious population, i.e., the atheist population in the United States.
Over time, especially in recent history, the Boy Scouts of America have begun to accept a broader palette of child and adolescent into their ranks. This includes, increasingly, gays, trans, and girls. They may change their name.
The work is based on pressure to have an inclusive environment. There has been an increase in the tolerance of the organization while also seeing a decrease in the number of people who join in the organization.
In essence, it alienates the evangelical Christians and Mormons of the organizations in the process of greater inclusivity. One large and growing group in the United States is the Nones, the ever-famed and defamed ones.
The Scout Oath mentions the “best to do my duty to God” alongside the Scout Law that talks about a goal of reverence for God. These become the basis for exclusion of atheists or non-believers. Only a few weeks ago, the Boy Scouts of America declared, or re-declared, their belief in the no atheists permitted in the organization policy.
Because it is an organization for a belief in God, essentially. The National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America accepted a resolution, stated as follows:
A couple of weeks ago, the BSA doubled down on their pledge to keep atheists out of the fold. At the group’s annual meeting, the BSA National Executive Board adopted a resolution that effectively blocks open atheists from joining. It reads as follows:
Boy Scouts of America National Executive Board Resolution Reaffirming Duty to God
WHEREAS the foundational values of the Boy Scouts of America are reflected in the Scout Oath and Scout Law;
WHEREAS the first part of the Scout Oath declares “On my honor I will do my best to do my Duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;”
WHEREAS the Declaration of Religious Principle in Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America states that:
The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgement of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members. No matter what the religious faith of the members may be, this fundamental of good citizenship should be kept before them.
WHEREAS the twelfth point of the Scout Law is Reverent and while the Boy Scouts of America is absolutely nonsectarian in its view of religious training, Reverent means that a Scout is faithful in his or her religious duties and respects the beliefs of others; and
WHEREAS these faith-based tenets have been a part of the Boy Scouts of America since it was
founded and, notwithstanding any changes to Scouting programs, the commitment of the movement to Duty to God is unwavering;
Now therefore be it resolved that the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America hereby reaffirms its unequivocal commitment to the Declaration of Religious Principle as a fundamental component of the mission of the Boy Scouts of America.
Somehow, welcoming girls doesn’t affect the “fundamental component of the mission” of the BSA, but slightly rewriting the Oath and Law is a bridge too far.
As noted in Friendly Atheist, “They don’t want your kid. If you’re atheists, they don’t really want your involvement, either. It’s also why the BSA shouldn’t receive government funding or access to public schools. No organization that discriminates on the basis of religion should be rewarded by the government.”
The organization continues to open the doors to more and more types of people from diverse identities and backgrounds. However, this area continues to remain closed, purportedly on the need for God and reverence in the Scout Law and the Scout Oath.
“The strangest thing about this resolution is that the BSA has done a good job of opening the doors to more and more people even when it meant changing the very nature of what they’ve always been. They were willing to break with tradition because the old restrictions no longer made any sense,” Friendly Atheist stated.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
A representative from The Good Men Project gave an interview with the co-founder of the United Atheists of Europe. It is an organization devoted to the coordinated efforts and community building for atheists in Europe. The co-founder is Nacer Amari, who comes from Tunisia and lives in Europe.
Amari talked about the living in the southern region of Tunisia as a youth; the ways in which religion has its own customs, norms, and traditions.
Amari said, “I grew up in a Berber family with Arab culture where parents are illiterate and not religious… Usually, it has a negative impact on the child’s personality, but I consider myself to be lucky compared to the children where I grew up, even though my parents were illiterate and managed to raise me without being affected by religion.”
He began to have some doubts as he entered into and during high school. He noticed that classmates would pray during high school while his parents did not pray at all. He noticed the purpose of prayers, religion, and God and began to question them.
“Then I completely lost my faith in God during the 10th class, identifying myself as an atheist,” Amari remarked. At some point, he and friend, named Karrar Al Asfoor, founded a social fraternity, United Atheists of Europe.
He described the organization as a means for the secular world and the ex-Muslim community to work together. “In the meantime, it is considered a small-sized social fraternity, but it’s open for every atheist who is interested to join. Our future goals are to have the effective means to challenge religions and protecting secularism in Europe and to empower atheists in the Islamic world pushing it into secularism there,” Amari said.
Amari, in a small critique on one facet of Islam, Ramadan, described the ways in which ex-Muslims and others protest by not eating during Ramadan, and then explained some of the background. In Tunisia, as an example, people have to not eat during Ramadan. The basis for this is in the constitution but, of course, this relates to the religion as well.
Amari explained, “…there was a ban from the Ministry of Interior requiring restaurants and cafes to obtain touristic permits to be able to serve food and drinks during Ramadan with the windows covered. The constitution has been updated after the revolution with a new chapter, which is called ‘the good ethics chapter’ giving the ban legal status.”
He went on to explain how this started 1,400 years ago with the ancient religious rites. Those rites that exist to this day. Amari said, “This is a holy month par excellence for Muslims. It is one of the five pillars of Islam, as they believe that the revelation of the Qur’an was a ‘night of fate’ this month, also the only month of which the name appears in the Koran.”
So, to be a good Muslim or a good citizen as per the constitution, a person must refrain from eating during Ramadan. Expanding on this point, Amari went into religion in Tunisia in general. That is, the social environments and the borders of Tunisia link to political and religious conflict.
Amari argues this has been the case since the independence of Tunisia. The Islamists took the country over. This led to increases in terrorist activities and assassinations. It continues to this day, even with the critique of religion.
Amari concluded, “The freedom to criticize religion in Tunisia is complicated, because in the new constitution, there is a contradiction in the laws, where we find in the first chapter mentioned that ‘Islam is the religion of the state’… However, in chapter six, ‘The State protects the religion (Islam), guarantees the freedom of belief, conscience and the exercise of the cults.’”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to the Friendly Atheist, there exists a common meme. One can see this in social media in general. It states atheism as a non-sense belief, the basic assertion being that atheism does not make any sense. As noted by the article, the intention is to show atheism as a ridiculous belief through a straw-manned representation.
It goes as follows:
Atheism
The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.
Makes perfect sense.
It represents evolution as not really evolution because the gradual steps do not seem implied but, rather, a leap in change is purported over an instant from “self-replicating bits” into “dinosaurs.” Of course, the world is several billion years old and evolution took several billion years to evolve organisms as complicated as dinosaurs.
“Anyway, it’s the sort of statement you expect to see in a Ken Ham lecture or in a sermon from a pastor who didn’t do his homework that week and is desperately searching for material. It’s a cheap laugh for ignorant people,” the article states, “You don’t expect to see it in a public school classroom. Yet a sign with those words was seen inside a classroom at West Stanly High School in Oakboro, North Carolina.”
Somehow, a picture was sent to WSOC-TV in Charlotte. Then the superintendent of the district was contacted, which led to the sign being taken down immediately. Apparently, the superintendent said that “personnel action was taken.”
No person or reason is known as to why the sign was placed there in the first place. Friendly Atheist rhetorically asks, “Imagine if an atheist teacher put up the Christian version of the same sign in a classroom? We’d never hear the end of it.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to the Tehran Times, the New Atheist writers and thinkers tend to “misread and misrepresent Islamic sources” based on the interpretation of their work by one Michigan Professor, Mohammad Hassan Khalil.
Khalil is the author of Jihad, Radicalism, and the New Atheism. He is the Director of the Muslim Studies Program of Michigan State University. He said, “In fact, their [the New Atheists’] portrayals of Islam are sometimes even more extreme than those of violent radicals themselves.”
In a brief interview, Khalil described the New Atheist writers including Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins, as seeing Islam primarily as a violent religious ideology. That members of al-Qaeda and ISIL who engage in the acts of terrorism are acting in the name of Islamic scripture when they commit the acts of terror.
Khalil argues that the terrorists and extremists are in fact deviating from Islamic scripture. In response to a query about the main message of his book, he responded:
My central argument is twofold: (1) Violent radicals cannot be considered “literalists” who adhere carefully to Islamic scripture and tradition. I offer various examples of radicals diverging from and misreading Islamic sources. (2) Prominent New Atheist writers also tend to misread and misrepresent Islamic sources. In fact, their portrayals of Islam are sometimes even more extreme than those of violent radicals themselves.
In other words, first, Khalil argues violent radicals are not “literalists” who deviate and misread Islamic scripture; second, the New Atheists portray Islam in a more extreme way than the radicals or extremists themselves.
Further on the second point, he argues the Western world’s academics who have been influenced by the New Atheist interpretations take the same extremist interpretation approach. Khalil, as far as can be ascertained from the interview, argues against New Atheists’ and the radicals’ interpretations rather than providing a full-breadth alternative.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Hement Mehta, the best Friendly Atheist around, reported on Alabama State Rep. Harry Shriver considering the arming of schoolteachers as a ineffective overall methodology to protect middle and high school students.
He thinks that since many women are teachers, women are scared of guns, and so teachers should not be armed.
Shriver said, “I’ve heard … that 75 percent of Republicans support it, [the arming of teachers,] but I was there live and in person and I know what it is like in the schools … Most women wouldn’t like to be put in that position.”
In a conversation with Al.com, Shriver continued with the same comments. He talked about not all women; but most schools have the majority of teachers who are women. Mehta stated that the right position was taken for the wrong reasons.
In an interview, Shriver said,
“I’m not saying all (women), but in most schools, women are (the majority) of the teachers. … Some of them just don’t want to (be trained to possess firearms). If they want to, then that’s good. But most of them don’t want to learn how to shoot like that and carry a gun.”
Mehta argues more guns in teachers’ hands will create more gun violence, not less.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
The nation of Morocco is known as a hotbed for the creation of recruits for terrorism. However, Morocco has not had a significant attack on its country since 2011. The last terrorist incident or attack happened when there was a bombing of Marrakesh café. Many ISIS attackers in Europe have been Moroccan Islamic terrorists. It may feel offensive to some, but this is true.
The only purported survivor of the 2015 Paris rampage is the Moroccan-Frenchman. The Brussel airport and tram bombings were coming from the ethnic Moroccans. Same with the suspected driver of the van who drove over shoppers in Barcelona: Moroccan ethnic background.
Since 2012, 1,600 Moroccans have joined mostly ISIS and some other fledgling terrorist groups. Although it does not compare to the 7,000 coming from Tunisia to join the terrorist organizations, the public debate is around the ways in which to prevent the embrace of radical Islam on young minds.
The Atlantic said, “Germany, Britain, and Belgium have developed programs that focus on further integrating radicals into their community. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, focuses on finding jobs and wives for recruited jihadists.”
As with gangs, once an individual has joined, it becomes nearly impossible to get them out. They are now part of an organization devoted to extremist ideologies and terrorist acts. Under the Obama Administration, the article states, there was the CVE (Countering Violent Extremism) approach that focused on community leaders and groups rather than government officials in order to combat the extremism and potential terrorism.
The Trump Administration has defunded some of the programs devoted to counter-extremism. But there are many other programs that have taken on the tasks. There are those in Morocco who continue to fund similar initiatives as those found under the Obama Administration with the prevention of extremism and terrorism through the community leaders and groups.
To be clear, ISIS attackers with Moroccan backgrounds are bad. Moroccan initiatives to prevent extremism or terrorism are good.
One Moroccan counter-extremism initiative comes with an emphasis on women. At the elite new school, L’Institut Mohammed VI Pour La Formation Des Imams, Morchidines, et Morchidates, there are religious scholars being training in order to take on the radical Islamist pockets of the country.
Those little enclaves on the Moroccan landscape are known to be prime recruitment ground for disenfranchised youth to join the extremists. It is through the utilisation of spiritual teachings and guidance in order to reach them and prevent further recruitment into the extremist and terrorist organizations.
Each trained woman is a spiritual guide. The program director, Abdeslam El-Azaar, said, “I’ll tell you frankly, the women scholars here are even more important than men. … Women, just by virtue of their role in society, have so much contact with the people — children, young people, other women, even men. … They are the primary educators of their children. So it is natural for them to provide advice. … We give them an education so they can offer it in a scholarly way.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Sophie Tatum from CNN: Politics reported on an allegedly anti-Semitic speech by Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan has been the leader of the Nation of Islam since 1977.
Often, he is deemed rather extreme in his remarks, especially around Jewish people around the world. He has stated, “The Jews are my enemy.” Also, he has said, “White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through.”
Tamika Mallory, a Women’s March Co-Chair, was in attendance at the time. The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam a hate group with “deeply racist, anti-Semitic and anti-LGBT rhetoric.”
It often teaches, according to the reportage, black racial superiority. Rep. Keith Ellison has faced pressure in the past because of his ties with the Nation of Islam in the past. In previous years, Ellison had a relationship with the group for about ten years or more.
In December of 2016, Ellison spoke out and said that he “rejects all forms of anti-Semitism … the right wing has been pushing these stories for years to drive a wedge between Congressman Ellison and the Jewish community.”
When Ellison ran for the DNC Chair, the Anti-Defamation League and J-Street defended him.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported on a the first Jew and woman working to take a US group into the secularist world through advancement of the separation of religion and government.
Rachel Laser, who is 48-years-old, is the Executive Director of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Laser is working on something important to her, which is the cause of secularism. Through the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, she will work to separate religion and government.
She said, “I appreciate that ‘separation of church and state’ is a term of art, but as a Jewish person it doesn’t always work perfectly for me as a shorthand.” Barry Lynn, the previous director, retired from the organization.
Lynn was a United Church of Christ minister, which makes the switch to a Jewish woman bigger than either a non-Christian or a woman alone.
Laser comes from Chicago and is a lawyer. She has worked with “the Reform movement’s Religious Action Center, Planned Parenthood and the National Women’s Law Center. Her work has centered on fighting for issues such as women’s rights, LGBTQ equality and promoting interfaith relations.”
She considers these federal policies and laws the most important and pressing issues of the day because these permit the discrimination against sexual minorities while also denying the safe and equitable access to reproductive health care. Often, religion restricts these.
Laser explained, “We’re witnessing an alarming moment in American history, where our country’s top leaders are failing to honor America’s promise to separate religion and government.”
Americans United for Separation of Church and State is concerned about the newer policy from the government that permits taxpayer money to be used for the reconstruction or repair of houses of worship in the case of natural disasters.
Laser came from a home filled with social justice activism and work. She values building bridges between communities. “I entered that work with fear and trepidation, and I ended that work convinced that there is remarkable space to bring unusual bedfellows together,” Laser acknowledged.
As Laser is a member of the religious minorities, she works that much harder for the secular ideals of the separation between religion and government.
She has three children with her husband, Mark Davies. Interestingly, Americans United for Separation of Church and State’s membership came from the political conservative before. Now, the larger population of the membership comes from the progressives.
“I don’t think it’s intuitive anymore to a lot of Americans that what separation of religion and government is about is freedom of religion,” Laser opined. “[It] is your ability to believe what you want to believe and to practice your own faith or to choose no faith.”b
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to The Hill, one of The View hosts apologized for comments about those who claim to speak personally to Christianity’s Jesus Christ.
Joy Behar, the co-host, said, that if you are experiencing Jesus talking to you that this was a sign of mental illness. Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, said that Behar apologized for offensive comments about the Trump Administration and Christians.
Joe Flint of the Wall Street Journal was in attendance at the shareholder meeting in Houston, Texas, and did tweet that Behar had directly apologized to Pence. One White House source, according to The Hill article, confirmed an apology for Pence by Behar.
“It’s one thing to talk to Jesus. It’s another thing when Jesus talk to you,” Behar had said, “That’s called mental illness, if I’m not correct. Hearing voices.” Vice President Pence criticized the comments one day after they happened (Feb. 13) on February 14.
VP Pence said, “To have ABC maintain a broadcast forum that compared Christianity to mental illness is just wrong. … It is simply wrong for ABC to have a television program that expresses that kind of religious intolerance.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to Ahval, a Turkish Cleric argued that Islam and reform do not go together. The Turkish cleric is the head of Turkey’s Directorate of Religious Affairs.
Ali Erbaş proposed that the Fiqh or the philosophy of Islamic law cannot be updated, as he talked to CNN Türk television. “It is not correct to put the words of Islam and reform next to each other in any way,” he said, “But Fıqh is always subject to update and needs to be updated.”
Erbaş’s statements follow from a call that he had with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan about the adaptation of the religious practices and worldview within the context of the modern socio-cultural world.
Erdoğan talked at the time when, recently, some Islamic preachers in his own country were speaking in support of violence against women.
“We, as the Directorate of Religious Affairs, reject every kind of interpretation and thought that condones violence against women,” Erbaş said, “There is not one single source in either our Prophet’s teachings or in Islam that condones violence against women.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
ABC News stated that the Zoroastrian religion may be saved by the use of modern technology to couple people up into eventual marriage and family life, which is an interesting commentary international minority religions and the maintenance of the religious community broadly speaking.
Zoroastrianism is an ancient monotheistic faith older than Islam and Christianity, but with far fewer members. It was birthed in Persia. One Mumbai-based mother of two manages a database of Zoroastrian singles, bachelorettes and bachelors.
Her name is Zarin Havewala. She said, “So far, 55 couples have found their partners through my efforts — 53 couples are already married, and two more couples are engaged to be married soon. … About seven years ago, it struck me very badly [that] a lot of our youngsters are getting married outside the community. … I thought maybe they are not having enough avenues to know that there are other young Parsis available.”
The database is quite extensive and incorporates ages, careers, email addresses, names, numbers, and qualifications for the single coupledom-searchers. Originally, it was an idea for Indian Parsis, but then this extended to the globe with people from “Austin to Auckland and Iran to Oman.”
People simply started contacting Havewala. One woman, Auzita Pourshasb, said, “When you’re taught that you’re a part of a diminishing community … you feel like you’ve got a sense of responsibility to meet a Zoroastrian and to help those numbers grow.”
Based on the census information from 2016, there were only 3,000 Zoroastrians living in Australia, for an example. Pourshasb, herself, married a Christian man. Now, she is 30.
Around the world, the global Zoroastrian community is estimated to only be 200,000 with as many as 30 percent living in India alone. There are converts to some of the communities, but many of the orthodox Zoroastrians do not like the conversions into the faith.
The community is concerned about how best to bring about a maintenance and even growth of the 4,000-year-old faith. What does this also mean for other faiths and traditions with similar small or dwindling global numbers in proportion to the other dominant faiths of the world?
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
One Indonesian state Islamic University is facing some heat from Muslim activists and groups because it banned women from wearing the full-face veils based on the fear of radical Islamic ideology spreading on the campus of the post-secondary institution.
Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world with most of them practicing as ordinary or moderate followers of the faith. However, in the recent years, there has been an upsurge in the number of the more conservative and fundamentalist, sometimes called literalist, strains if Islam.
This has been seen as a threat to the “religious tolerance and diversity” of the country that has been a cherished value set for a long time. The State Islamic University or UIN in Yogyakarta City on Java Island said that 41 students would have to remove the full veil also known as the burqa if they want to graduate.
One group, the Islamic Defenders Front, is a conservative set of campaigners who look for activities that may be un-Islamic, so that they can then work against them. One women’s rights activist argued this is a restriction on the ability of women to wear what they want.
Lathiefah Widuri Retyaningtyas, the women’s rights activist, said, “Using full-face veils is a choice and we cannot interfere in their choice and their freedom… Female students wearing the burqa, and radical groups, they are disturbing the teaching process.”
Retyaningtyas argued women should be able to wear the headscarves that do not cover the face. One recent social survey found that 1/5th of the high school and university students would support a caliphate over a secular government including the one in place right now.
This data has been an alarming point for the authorities. The Indonesian government has been struggling to keep boundaries on the growing Islamic elements of its own society.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
In Nairobi, Kenya, there is a move to close over 700 churches in the capital city for the safety, noise, hygiene, and other alleged concerns described by the President, Paul Kagame.
In reality, many consider this a way to trample on religious freedom. On March 6, the police detained six pastors with the charge of “conspiring to rally other clergy in defiance of the government’s shutdown orders.”
After he ordered the closures, the Chief Executive of the Rwanda Governance Board, Anastase Shyaka, said this was about ‘honoring God’.
“It means that if we are Christians, where we worship must meet standards showing respect for God,” Shyaka explained, “It means that if we are Christians, where we worship must meet standards showing respect for God.”
Of the 714 shutdown church sites, most were Pentecostal churches such as the ones that have multiplied throughout the continent of Africa for decades. The Lutheran Bishop Evariste Bugabo argues that the closure did not target any particular denomination.
In Kigali, the capital of Rwanda, there are more than 1,300 churches servicing the 1.2 million people there.
“Are these boreholes that give people water?” Kagame asked, “I don’t think we have as many boreholes. Do we even have as many factories? This has been a mess.” One Rwandan international development advocate from Canada, David Himbara, said the official reasons for the closures are bogus because fear and paranoia mount to the real reasons.
David Himbara, a Rwandan international development advocate based in Canada, called the government’s justification for the closures bogus and said the “real reason … is fear and paranoia.”
“Kagame tightly controls the media, political parties, and civil society at large,” Himbara said, “The churches constituted the last open space. Kagame knows this. The localized community of churches offered a slight space for daring to imagine and talk about change.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to the Washington Post, a mob of Hindu fundamentalists recently destroyed and dismantled a mosque with pickaxes and rope. Many ended up with bloody hands in order to bring down the mosque.
There was dust and smoke in the air. A series of nearby homes were torched. 16 Muslims were killed with a total of 2,000 dead by the end of the riots across India in the days that followed. Another mosque, Babri, was destroyed 25 years ago in northern India.
This was in an area considered to be the birthplace of the Hindu Lord Ram. This was a blow to the secularism of India. Ayodhya, India, has ben synonymous with struggle and strife since that time, as fundamentalist Hindu leaders want no mosques there and instead a large sandstone temple devoted to Lord Ram.
India’s Supreme Court has been hearing arguments about the title dispute over the purported holy site. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a Hindu nationalist, which has an appeal for those of a hardline Hindu approach and conviction.
Modi has a brand of religious patriotism devoted to a Hindi India. With his rise, there has been a rise in the level of religious violence with lynching increasing 16% as of 2017 based on data from the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Many Indian Muslims state that the Hindu nationalists are flaring up tensions along religious lines in order to be able to gain political points and other support. The supporters of the Ram Temple will be having elaborate gold pillars around the temple in a flatbed truck.
The World Hindu Council, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, will have religious ceremonies in towns and villages in order to continue the moment for their movement that wants to see a sandstone Ram Temple erected.
A District Leader for Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, Smrita Yiwari, described the sense of freedom for the Hindus in India with the Hindu nationalist leadership in government with Modi.
“We used to feel that we had come from the outside and Muslims completely controlled the country,” she said, “Now, with Modi in power, things are different. We can unfurl the saffron flag for the first time… Muslims are very fanatical… They only think about their religion. They are not good to us. We don’t go to Mecca and claim a place there. Why should they be given the land where Lord Ram was born?”
Hindus and Muslims have been arguing and fighting for over 100 years about the Babri Masjid, which was constructed in order to honor the Mughat emperor Babur from 1528. These enmities go back decades and centuries.
The Uttar Pradesh high court ruled in 2010 that the mosque built on the ruins of a Hindu temple made the land needing to be split into three parcels with two for the Hindus and one for the Muslims. Hindus and Muslims have agreed that the proposed or demanded division of the land into the three parcels is unacceptable.
Religion continues to divide and be highly involved in the lives of Indians. Youth unemployment is high and many peoples have migrated elsewhere from Ayodhya. The fight over the land and Lord Ram will likely continue into the indefinite future.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
One hardline Islamic school in Bangladesh has burned hundreds of cellphones in a bonfire because the mobile phones were distracting students.
The Islamic school is called Darul Ulum Minul Islam and is an Islamic seminary. The school administrators tossed hundreds of cellphones into a fire. The seminar is 123 years old as an institution with over 14,000 students in attendance.
One spokesperson for the school, Azizul Hoque, described the phones as ruining the character of the young. Hoque was pro-technology, but cited the negatives such as ruining the character of young students.
The country is more or less secular, but the religious leaders such as the Muslim clerics have a huge influence and power in particular areas of the country, especially in the more conservative areas. The madrassa in Hathazari (outside the port city of Chittagong) is headed by Ahmed Shafi, the leader of a hardline Islamist group Hefazat-e-Islam.
There have been large and growing movements to turn the Bangladesh secular government into an Islamic theocracy. For example, of the Hefazat supporters alone, hundreds of thousands marched to Dhaka in 2013 “demanding implementation of religious laws including criminalising blasphemy and segregating genders in the workplace.”
The protests created violence with about 50 people dead. There was an accord struck with the movement and the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Hasina “agreed to recognise academic qualifications from hardline seminaries, allowing their students to apply for government jobs.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
The Edmonton Journal reported on modern religious education and how one chaplain in Canada has been incorporating Star Wars into the classroom.
Mike Landry is from Spruce Grove and a Roman Catholic chaplain at Evergreen Catholic Schools. He teaches lessons about the Bible through comparisons with the First Order and the Resistance.
“When you’re sitting in a religion class, you’ve got people from all these backgrounds who come from all these different perspectives,” Landry said, “and you’re trying to see how you can meet all of them where they are without them feeling pushed, or judged, or forced, but inviting them into something that I believe will help them.”
Landry argued for the parallels between the Star Wars universe and Christianity when speaking at the Greater Edmonton Teachers’ Convention last week. Not the first Edmonton chaplain to take advantage of these corollaries, Landry said he is continuing the work of the late Father Michael Mireau. Father Michael Mireau often weaved Star Wars references into his homilies. He would bring Star Wars into his religious lectures and wave a light sabre around from the pulpit. Mireau died of cancer at the age of 42 in 2014.
Landry works at St. Peter the Apostle School and visits an additional 9 schools within his division. Star Wars by George Lucas, the creator and developer of the franchise, was heavily borrowed upon. The Force, the Jedi Council, the Sith, the Jedi, and so on, have been pulled from the mythological world into a modern multi-billion-dollar franchise of Christianity.
“I don’t think they have trouble understanding (religious teachings). I think they have trouble wanting to understand. They want to see that it’s relevant to them.” Landry said, “A Jewish carpenter from 20 centuries ago, what does he have to do with what I’m doing in Spruce Grove today? And sometimes these stories become a nice bridge.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
The Times of Israel reported that Sephardic Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef in Israel referred to black people as monkeys in a weekly sermon.
Yosef was speaking about the Jewish legal aspects of the blessing on seeing fruit trees blossoming during the Hebrew month of Nissan. The context was whether to bless a tree or two in the speech during Nissan.
Yosef mentioned coming across a black person with two white parents in America, which he considered an “unusual creature.” He has been seen calling black people “Kushi,” which is a pejorative term.
Known to spark controversy in his sermons, Yosef used a term meaning “monkey” to describe the black person. Yosef’s office told the outlet Ynet that the term comes from the Talmud. He has gone to court over controversial quotes before. Previous controversies arose during his sermon when he mentioned secular women who dress immodestly are behaving like animals.
In March of 2016, he retracted a statement — announcing non-Jews should not live in Israel — with a defense that the statement was “theoretical.” He general notion was that the seven Noahide Laws, which are “prohibitions against idolatry, blaspheming God, murder, forbidden sexual relations, stealing, and eating limbs off a live animal,” should be followed by non-Jews and that non-Jews in Israel are there to serve Jews alone.
There are two main or chief rabbis in Israel.
“Yosef represents those with origins in the Iberian Peninsula, North Africa, and the Middle East, and David Lau represents Ashkenazic Jews, with origins in European lands of the Roman Empire,” the Times of Israel reported.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Roy Exum spoke about the Republican values of the Tennesseans in the Chattanoogan. A special election was held where Shane Reeves and Gayle Jordan were present.
Reeves is a respected businessperson from Murfreesboro. Jordan is a liberal and atheist activist. Reeves is Republican. Jordan is Democratic. Both people were looking for the District 14 seat in the state Senate, which opened up when Jim Tracy resigned from the position.
Tennessee’s District 14 has a deep red and mid-state county set of Bedford, Lincoln, Marshall, Moore, and Rutherford. People in the Tennessean landscape know about the same-sex wedding approvals by Jordan several years ago.
Gay marriage and similar hot-button issues are important topics for the people of Tennessee.
Randy McNally, Tennessee’s Lt. Governor, said, “In my 40 plus years in Tennessee politics, I’ve seen few candidates as dangerous as Gayle Jordan. She is not just out of step with a majority of Tennessee on matters of policy, she is out of step on matters of values and faith.”
McNally pointed out that Jordan runs the Recovering from Religion organization, which he sees as at odds with the strong believers who happen to be many Tennesseans. He opined, “This is not the type of person we need in the Tennessee Senate,” speaking of Jordan.
Jordan is an attorney that runs a farm in Rutherford County and ran for the State seat in 2016 as a Democrat. This is not a new move in political life for Jordan. Of all Tennesseans, 80% identify as Christian based on a 2014 report.
“I just feel Gayle Jordan’s views are radical,” Reeves said. “They are out of touch with the district… I am a Christian and that is going to serve as a filter, serve as a moral compass, at how I look at things if I am fortunate enough to get elected.”
In the final tally of the recent, March 13, 2018 special election, Jordan lost and Reeves won the vote.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to Commercial Appeal, there is active work to prevent an atheist from becoming a navy chaplain.
Mid-South senators are taking a stand to block an atheist from becoming a U.S. navy chaplain. Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., sent a letter to the Navy Secretary Richard Spencer and the Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson.
In the letter, Wicker wanted them to reject the application of a secular-humanist from acquisition of a post as a U.S. Navy chaplain. Wicker is a U.S. Air Force veteran and is a member of the Senate armed services committee.
As many as 22 other senators signed the letter with him. The letter expressed the fear that the U.S. Navy “may expand the Chaplain Corps beyond its clear purpose of protecting and facilitating the constitutional right of service members to the free exercise of religion.”
Tennessee Sens. Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker and Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran did not sign the letter. Prominent individuals who signed the letter were Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz.
Jason Heap is the atheist trying to become a chaplain in the U.S. Navy. In 2014, he was endorsed by the Humanist Society. Heap sued. He lost.
The letter from the senators said, “The Navy has sufficient authority to create programs for humanist or atheist service members. … The Chaplain Corps is not the appropriate place. The Chaplain Corps serves religious needs, not philosophical preferences.”
One letter with the endorsement of 45 House members makes similar lines of reasoning. Hement Mehta had commentary stating, “It’s an absurd, literal argument that does a disservice to those actually serving in the Navy… Just because atheism isn’t a religion, per se, doesn’t mean that non-religious soldiers don’t have emotional needs. Depriving them of a chaplain who speaks their language hurts our military.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to the Friendly Atheist, the PA Republican House Candidate Rick Saccone considers political opponents to have a hatred for God.
At the time of the report, Conor Lamb was competing against Saccone in a special election. Saccone, according to the Friendly Atheist, is a Christian conservative with a tendency to want to instill the Bible in society rather than the Constitution.
Saccone had blame for a specific set of people, “They’re energized for hate for our president… Many of them have a hatred for our country. I’ll [tell] you some more — my wife and I saw it again today, they have a hatred for God.” In short, those that do not like God.
Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist, hypothesizes that Saccone was pointing to the Trump and Republicans as on the side of the good and Democrats and other opposition as on the side of evil.
In other words, Mehta suggests, “But this sort of thinking — that you’re either with Trump and the Republicans or you’re on the side of evil — is why Saccone and anyone like him deserve to lose. They have no desire to represent everyone in their District. They only care about the people who believe as they do.”
The results of the election: Saccone lost.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Hurriyet Daily News reported that the highest religious body leader recommended that Islamic preachers in Turkey be more careful when speaking of or about women.
Ali Erbaş, the Directorate of Religious Affairs in Turkey, made the comments at a meeting on March 10 in the southeastern parts of Hakkari in Turkey. He argued for the means to prevent the abuse of religion was through providing the truths of Islam.
“Even preachers who speak and work with good intentions and sincerity should be extra careful not to make their comments open to misinterpretation,” he said, “Everyone who writes, talks, or reports about Islam has to be more careful.”
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan criticized many Islamic writers for their sexist commentaries and then Erbaş made comments shortly thereafter.
Erbaş reflected on the July, 2016 attempted coup, where he considers that the “truths of Islam were misused and exploited.” He connects this to groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or ISIL.
At the March 8 International Women’s Day event, the President of Turkey opined about the marginal people looking to discount the values of Islam or the country of Turkey. Nureddin Yıldız, the head of the Social Fabric Foundation made some controversial statements about violence against women, which sparked the debate and the need for both the religious leader and the president to comment around the sparked debate as well.
It started with the words from a video posted online by Yıldız, which said, “Women should be grateful to God, because God allowed men to beat women and be relaxed.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Andrew Seidel, Civil Rights and Constitutional Attorney for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, commented in a short letter to The Washington Post about the cross-shaped monument making some of the news as of late.
As Seidel notes in the March 3, 2018, Metro article, the article is described as a cross-shaped monument. Seidel, not one for beating around the bush, said, “It’s a cross. A 40-foot-tall cross. ‘Cross-shaped monument’ suggests that there is some dispute over this or that this massive cross is only incidentally a Christian cross. While there is some dispute over its history and legality, there is no dispute that it is, and was intended to be, an enormous Christian cross.”
He notes that the cross’s presence violates the Constitution of the United States of America with the Metro article being partial and biased with a slant towards those who would violate the American Constitution.
The article, as Seidel with laser eyes points out, “For instance, it said “the Supreme Court … has not provided clear guidance about displays of religion on government land.” In reality, no court, including the Supreme Court, has ever upheld a cross on public land.”
That is, the Supreme Court has never, ever supported the presentation of a cross, especially a 40-foot-tall one, on public grounds. Seidel claims that Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, a Republican, was wrong to call the court’s decision an offense to every veteran in the country, or “an affront to all veterans.”
“The cross is the affront. There are atheists in foxholes. And Jews and Hindus and Muslims and nonbelievers and non-Christians of every stripe. We owe them better,” Seidel concludes, “Their sacrifice helped secure our freedom just as must as the sacrifice of our Christian servicemen and women. The court got this right.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Faith culture reporters view religion as under withering assault as the growth of atheism throughout the world is seen as “growing at an alarming rate across the globe.”
Anthony DeStefano reported that countries in Western Europe and North America have been increasing in atheism in a “very short time.” He notes that the second largest group of the religious demographics are the religiously unaffiliated.
The United States of America is comprised of a quarter of that population, the religiously unaffiliated or the Nones. Within the previous decade, the Nones have overtaken the Roman Catholic Church in the United States as a faith group.
The Nones, according to the Pew Forum, are growing and the faithful have been ridding themselves of faith to become more non-religious for a myriad of reasons. Some of those include the idea that religious belief and rational thought are incommensurable.
People of faith have been behaving in atrocious and domineering ways, bad ways. Others do want the spiritual elements of life but without the formal strictures one can find in the traditional religious denominations within the continents mentioned.
The firebrand atheists found in the New Atheism are seen, by DeStefano, as confident and that this is seductive allure for the younger generations, who he sees as “hedonistic, self-centered, self-absorbed… with no moral truths or commandments.”
Atheists are rejecting the dominant dogmas of the majority religions, which is a concern for DeStefano because the religious beliefs and ethics appear to not have much relevance for their lives. This extends to believers; “they are believers in name only.”
He views them as functional atheist or those who live as if God does not exist.
DeStefano opined, “It’s not an exaggeration to say that the world we live in today is literally facing a crisis of faith. I believe that too many Christians today are sleeping. They live a very comfortable Christianity.”
He considers that Christian is under attack in a “very bold, aggressive, and fearless way.” He asserts, “…the new atheism is a religion that has its own philosophy (materialism), morality (relativism), politics (social Darwinism), and culture (secularism). It even has its own sacraments (abortion and euthanasia).”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Fox News reporter, Anthony DeStefano, argues that the atheists of today are bullies working to silence the religious with intimidation.
In “Atheists are bullies — and they are doing their best to intimidate the rest of us into silence” (2018), DeStefano calls the atheists of the modern culture arrogant, dangerous, and ignorant.
Not only this, they are the most of each of those traits on Earth. He points to examples of atheists protesting against religious imagery in public and the mentions of “Merry Christmas.” He points to an example from American Atheists.
American Atheists had a campaign in December, 2017, with the annual billboard campaign wit this one saying, “Stay Away from Church—it’s All Fake News.” He took aim at the American Humanist Association with the mention of Christianity and Jesus Christ by President Donald Trump without mention of non-believers too.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation became another target with the late Rev. Bill Graham being laid to rest in the Capitol Rotunda prior to the burial. DeStefano says, “Yes, these atheists are loud, nasty, unapologetic and in-your-face.”
He considers atheists dismissing the vast majority of human beings as being in ignorance for most of human history. He pivots to stating that the greatest contributions to civilization have been on behalf of believers including “Aristotle, Francis Bacon, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Isaac Newton all believed in God” as well as Antoine Lavoisier, Werner von Braun, Wilhelm Rontgen, William Whewell, and others.
He points to the proposal by Fr. George Lemaitre as for the big bang in Big Bang Theory, and to the case of Gregor Mendel, a monk, as the father of modern genetics. DeStefano continues, “Yes, the new atheists have an ignorance of history bordering on madness.”
He asserts atheism can only support an ethic of “ruthless social Darwinism.” Then he moves on to the assertion of religion always being about “economic gain, territorial gain, civil and revolutionary conflicts,” and not religion in general and Christianity in particular, where known wars back to 8,000 BC have been mostly not religious in nature.
He uses Philip Axelrod from Encyclopedia of Wars as the main point of reference. He asserts 360 million people were “killed by atheist governments.” That there is “a profound and frightening connection between atheism and death.
DeStefano says, “The facts are incontrovertible. Between the years 1900 and 2017, approximately 150 million people were killed by atheistic political regimes. 150 million! And it makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? Atheists don’t believe in God, so they don’t believe in any transcendent, objective moral law.”
“Nor do they believe that human beings are made in the image of God, and so they don’t believe humans possess infinite value and dignity,” DeStefano continues, “When you put these two beliefs together, you have a deadly recipe that makes killing ‘problematic’ human beings quite easy and defensible.”
Near the end of the opinion piece, DeStefano says to look the increased numbers or access to abortions, euthanasia, homicide, infanticide, and suicides in “a thoroughly secular and functionally atheistic culture.”
He concludes that the modern atheists are bullies and that believers need to fight back based on the arguments presented by him.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Hement Mehta reported on the Marion County Circuit Judge Vance Day’s punishment by the Oregon Supreme Court with the “longest sentence it’s ever given to a sitting judge.”
Judge Day refused to marry same-sex couples for three years. He told staff to avoid the “public detection” of his activities in the denial of equal marriage to homosexual couples. For example, if a same-sex couple came to his workplace and asked the staff for a marriage license, the staff would declare that Day was unavailable at that time.
This was not the case for heterosexual or straight couples. Day has been suspended. He will not be given pay. Of 8 claims of professional misconduct, he was found guilty of 6. Vance is a proud Evangelical Christian.
What Day doesn’t understand is a simple truth about his office. As the saying goes, he put his hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution, not the other way around,” Mehta stated, “His private beliefs about gay couples go out the window when he’s on the clock. Instead, his poor judgment was always on display. It’s about time he got punished for it.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
The founder of Mission: America, Linda Harvey, provided a speech to the Bringing America Back to Life Convention on the LGBTQ+ community and the pro-life movement.
She considers the LGBTQ+ community and the pro-abortion movement as potentially a “meltdown” in sexual and human identities as part of the judgment of God against Americans for the abortion of “children” or foetuses, blastocysts, and the like.
She claimed that with homosexual or same-sex intimate relations that “there is no life and there is often disease,” adding, “It’s the recipe for personal, societal, cultural, and spiritual disaster. Death is the central driving force for the abortion movement — the death of a person. Death and the absence of new life are also the connection among the LGBT movement.”
Harvey believes, based on the statements, that LGBTQ+ community exists only in negation or opposition, in the rejection of “heterosexual norms – husbands and wives who create babies,” of the heterosexual couplings found in marriage solely devoted to the sexual intimacy for procreative purposes (if interpreted right).
“These are the same people who go on and on about the horrors of some gay people having multiple partners… even though they get equally angry at the thought of a monogamous same-sex couple that wants to get married. They claim babies are central to relationships,” Hement Mehta, everyone’s favourite Friendly Atheist, wrote, “but infertile couples and straight people who just don’t want kids are given a pass. And they assume all forms of gay sex are disgusting… which ought to be irrelevant since the only people who need to be satisfied in a sexual encounter are the participants.”
He concluded that the claim by communities such as Harvey’s is a love of gay people but grounded in acts of abuse and discrimination of those LGBTQ+ American citizens.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Time reported on the murder of a 13-year-old boy who made fun of religion during a fight. The killing happened during a sleepover.
The situation “had been monitored by federal and other authorities for months.” The murderer, a teen aged 17, was put into a juvenile detention center following arraignment earlier in the week. The charges are first-degree murder and attempted-murder charges.
It is unknown whether the 17-year-old will be charged as an adult. The boy fatally stabbed Jovanna Sierra, who was the 13-year-old, as well as injuring Elaine Simon, a 43-year-old mother of a boy named Dane, and Dane Bancroft, a 13-year-old son.
The sleepover was part of a birthday. The teenager stated that he was upset because one of the boys had “made fun” of his Muslim faith. The boy had read the Quran prior to going to the home for the sleepover.
The lawyer for the teen did not respond to a voicemail in order to find a comment. Law enforcement agencies and the FBI have been aware of the threats made by the teen in the past, as he sympathized with some terrorist groups as well.
Local authorities and the FBI are discussing the pursuit of charges.
The FBI declined comment Friday.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
An Executive Editor of PNN News (a conservative news site), Mike Shoesmith, explained his own theory for professor Stephen Hawking’s existence after his death, recently and unfortunately.
His explanation for the purpose of Hawking’s existence was to oppose the late Reverend Billy Graham. Hawking, argues Shoesmith, was sent by Satan to oppose Graham.
As Shoesmith explains, “The Lord sees his [Graham’s] heart, gives him a tremendous ministry, and who do you think is sitting in the background going, ‘I have to do something about this, this guy is sold out, I have to do something’? Who do you think is sitting in the background doing that? The devil, right?”
He continues to argue that the Graham ministry flourishing in 1942. His theory is that Hawking comes from a line of atheists and the Devil said, “’OK, this guy was just born and I’m going to use this guy. This guy is already primed to accept my message that there is no God. He is already primed for it, he is going to be awash, immersed in atheism all his years as a child, I’m going to take over this guy’s life.’”
Shoesmith thinks Hawking was kept alive, even with the crippling condition for him, by demonic forces. He goes on to say that only if Hawking had submitted to the one true God, the Christian God, then his illness would have been cured. But he didn’t, and did not declare his atheism until 2014.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Richard Dawkins’ books will be open access soon. He wants them to be free for people. Interestingly, if you look at the Arabic translations of the book The God Delusion, it has been downloaded 13 million times.
There are people in Muslim-majority countries, apparently, with a need for the taste of atheism. People want atheism. They want science education. They want all of this from Richard Dawkins’ books.
Dawkins’ organization, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, merged, recently, with the Center for Inquiry. There are plans ongoing in order to advertise the translations and spreading Richard Dawkins’ writing around the world for those that are questioning their faith or for those who have lost it.
Dawkins said that he has had a tremendous amount of encouragement from these developments, especially as he has heard in an earlier time that digital or PDF versions of the book were downloaded inside of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Dawkins, based on reportage from Hemant Mehta, will have the books provide in Arabic, Farsi, Indonesian, and Urdu. The books with legally translated editions cannot be offered as PDFs. Nonetheless, those books without his own stamp of approval and not released by the local publishers will get his stamp of approval.
For an author to give away some of his most prized books, most purchased and read books – that have reached literally millions of people, Mehta claims is “unheard of.” Dawkins does this for two reasons: one, get people interested in science; two, have people turn away from religion, likely.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
The University of North Georgia Vanguard reported that the university has a new gang in town, the local atheist student group. Jeff Burt, a freshman biology major in pursuit of a second bachelor degree, said, “Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god or gods.”
Burt has self-identified as an atheist for some time now. However, he was raised as a Seventh-Day Adventist in his earlier years. Seventh-Day Adventists believe the Earth was created in 6 literal days with God resting on the seventh.
The University of North Georgia, or UNG, has a total of 200 student-led organizations with as many as 29 registered as faith groups and zero as non-religious groups. Their atheist group may be the first one at the university for atheists.
At the UNG Gainesville campus, Burt is in progress of making that a real transition from the no atheist groups to a whopping one.
Burt, who earned his first degree from Full Sail University, has considered himself an atheist for students there. “It is important for other atheists who live here,” Burt said, “and who go to this school to know that there are other atheists out there.”
The founding members of the atheist group are “Jeff Burt, adviser James Grindeland, Jenya Rector, Caleb Brookshire and Mason Carlisle.”
The group held its first unofficial meeting on February 21 where three students discussed “the creation of the club, write a constitution, generate ideas for meeting activities and think of possible names for the organization.”
Some prospective names floating around were UNG Atheists and The Atheist Nighthawks. Some events that the UNG atheist group may hold on the campus may be “Does God exist?” debates and “Ask an Atheist Day,” which is used to reduce the stigma and create more understanding on the part of the student body of atheists.
The group is open to a bigger umbrella of the non-religious with agnostics, skeptics, and others, even those who believe in God too. Burt wants to “know and understand students of all backgrounds.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
According to The Washington Post, The British theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Professor Stephen Hawking, died at the age of 76 in England on Wednesday, March 14 in the United Kingdom.
He often stated that he was an atheist and did not see a reason for a creator. In that, the universe, given the laws of mathematics and gravity, can be explained with the tools of theoretical physics without the need for a divine architect.
In an El Mundo interview, he described science as the tool through which to understand the world with a “more convincing explanation” and before science that God was the natural explanatory filler for the existence of the cosmos. Reiterating, that he was an atheist.
In a Reuters interview from 2007, he said that he was not religious in a regular sense of the term. Hawking was a believer in science as the discoverer of certain laws. Those laws were fixed and found by science.
The laws in nature described the dynamic structure of the universe over time. In those laws and their descriptions, the universe is explained without a God based on the statement of Hawking and the explanatory closure found in the laws of science.
In a book, The Grand Design, co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow, they considered, based on the science, that the big bang in standard Big Bang cosmology was inevitable “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”
Hawking and Mlodinow continued in the book, by explaining, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing… Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”
He did not believe in an afterlife but, rather, in the brain-as-computer model of consciousness and the mind, where computers do not get an afterlife. As he said, “I’m not afraid of death, but I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Dr. Leo Igwe, human rights advocate and humanist, wrote on the widespread impression of Africans being both theistic and highly religious. He recounts surveys describe these two facts as pervasive and true.
But he reported on the more limited emphasis on the atheists in the midst of Africa, where this non-religious subpopulation has been largely ignored or poorly treated or misrepresented. Igwe talks about the intolerance and hate, and the psychological and physical mistreatment of atheist Africans.
This, according to Igwe, makes many atheists apparently invisible and compels them to hide their own experiences. He talks about meeting a number of African atheists online and offline. He notes that his own experience has been with some of the first freethought forums in Accra, Banjul, Ibadan, Kampala, Lagos, Lilongwe, London, and Yaounde.
Many people at the meetings never met in person, never met another atheist, but these meetups provide the basis to finally meet another atheist in person. In a 2017 meeting, in Lagos, Nigeria, Igwe pointed out two groups of people: old-timers and first-timers.
By his observation, the first-timers were coming up-close with atheism for the first time as a community and had an aloof behaviour about them. Some were religious people who were feigning atheism because they themselves were on the fence.
They did not want the photographs and selfies. The other people, the old-timers, were more or less the celebrities of the groups who were able to interact more freely as they knew one another and were comfortable in that atmosphere.
Those old-timers were more relaxed and confident in their interpersonal interactions. He found a similar sentiment in social interaction with those gathering in Ghana, Malawi, and Uganda. Igwe had been around, apparently.
People at these meeting would share jokes, laughs, and positive times together with some based on the Muslim Sheikhs and Ayatollahs around the world and even on individual getting excommunicated from the church.
He talked about the experiences of the older atheists and their experiences in coping with the religious pressures and the way those pressures extended into the social environment too, which may make the lives of atheists in Africa difficult.
He described not only conferences but social media as an important outlet for the atheist population in Africa with new media networking technologies as important for the sharing of experiences of religious oppression and discrimination.
One common theme in the piece was the hate towards the non-religious. That religious believers not only disliked them but would not accommodate their belief, or more properly lack thereof. Igwe sees the many of the religious believers promoting hatred, intolerance, and violence against non-believers whilst teaching love and tolerance.
Igwe explained that many atheists were forced to keep their mouths shut during some conversations and that this became a compelled time to suppress their own views and opinions because of the potential for offense against the prevailing religious ideologies in Africa.
Her argues freedom of religion and belief, and thought and expression, are then for the religious, or at least more for the religious, and not for the non-religious as much or at all. Atheist in Muslim majority communities he says are even worse off than the others because it is a capital offense to either criticize or leave Islam.
Atheism is haram and so worth being a capital offense in those communities. The main thrust from Dr. Igwe about many African atheists is that they, in fact, fear the religious because of the environment that has been bred in those areas of the world over the non-religious, where violence and hatred and intolerance against the non-religious is shared by the theists.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
A short update on the situation with the Tennessee Republicans: they are continuing apace on their smear campaign against the atheist Democratic contender, Gayle Jordan.
Jordan is running for the State Senate. The previous Republican who held the position did not take a position on the current Republican Trump Administration in the United States.
The district that Jordan is running in is a highly red state and Republicans running for the positions will likely win, but she is persisting nonetheless.
The Tennessee Republicans are using one major angle in order to smear and attack the repute of Jordan based on her non-belief in god or Gods: affirmation of the Judeo-Christian God in particular, which may be the assumption in the ad campaigns speaking about how Jordan is an atheist.
Associated with these attack ads are claims about her being too liberal, pro-choice, and pro-universal healthcare. These are not considered good things to the good Tennesseans.
There have been claims that she is out of touch with the values of Tennessee, which may translate as not Christian and conservative based on the ads from Tennessee. The aim of the Republican attack ads is to equate atheism with anti-theism, as astutely distinguished and pointed out by Hement Mehta.
Mehta notes that the idea is “since Jordan is an atheist, then she must be against theism,” where the assertion of no gods becomes something of an affront and deliberate being against that which she does not believe in but the Tennesseans at large, according to the Republican attack ads, believe in.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
The National Secular Society reported on the Swedish government’s plans to end “free” religious schools.
Sweden’s ruling political party is proposing elimination of publicly-funded religious schools within its manifesto or the upcoming election in the Fall of 2018. A press release published by the party, the Social Democratic Party, stated, “Religious influence has no home in Swedish schools.
The Social Democrats want school to provide all children with a good education regardless of their background, gender or religion.”
There are more than 70 religious schools in Sweden with the majority being Christian, 11 as Islamic, and a few are Jewish. The Abrahamic religions dominate the publicly-funded dollars for the religious schools.
They are run the local authorities within Sweden as the are publicly funded. The policy would be applied to the publicly funded schools, where they would be required to follow the guidelines given by the government.
The National Secular Society commented that this should be a reminder for the politicians in the United Kingdom to think similarly about tackling religious schools within their own borders.
“We often hear that it’s too hard to take on religious interests in our education system,” the National Secular Society’s Education and Schools Officer, Alastair Lichten, said, “but this is a reminder that it’s both desirable and possible to roll back their influence. Politicians in the UK should take note.”
The National Secular Society has been at the forefront of the campaigning for an open and inclusive system of education with a transition from faith schools in the public system to their elimination as they comprise as much as one third of the publicly-funded schools in England and Wales.
The Scottish and Irish schools are continuing to have sectarian divides that are split by a line drawn by religion.
The Swedish Minister for Upper Secondary School and Adult Education, Anna Ekström, noted that religious influence in public schools is not acceptable. That faith or not is the choice of the child alone.
Ardalan Shekarabi, the Minister for Public Administration, spoke of Iranian upbringing and the oppression that they did not want to come into the Swedish public school system, where these could be seen in the religious or faith public schools in Sweden because, obviously not in the same but similar way, the schools are promoting and foisting religion or faith onto children without consent.
One Islamic headmaster has openly expressed a desire for a Sharia Law to be allowed in a new school, though state governed. There has been a ruling that gender segregated sports lessons in the Islamic schools “were potentially discriminatory.”
“The regulatory framework will be tightened. Those who do not support fundamental values around equality and human rights should be stopped from running free schools in Sweden,” Gustav Fridolin, the Swedish Minister of Education, said, “No child should be exposed to direct or indirect compulsion to take part in religious activities in any school in Sweden. And all education should be completely free of religious influence.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
In January of 2018, a 15-year-old named Gabriel Ross Parker shot two classmates in Marshall County High School. In the midst of the shooting, Parker injured several others as well. Since Parker is now 16, he is being charged as an adult with a few court documents and videos made public too.
There does not seem to be any reason for the shooting, but the carnage took place. Parker may have wanted to see the classmates’ reactions and see how the community and police would respond to the “science experiment.”
There is a public conversation based on one of the videos that shows County Sheriff’s Capt. Matt Hilbrecht of a conversation between himself and two lawyers. Hilbrecht is the person who investigated the crime. He was asked about Parker’s motives.
The response from Hilbrecht was that Parker was an atheist and that Parker felt life had not purpose or meaning, and same with other people’s lives. He was wanting to make society better through science and had been studying science, Hilbrecht stated in the recording. He thought that since he was failing a science course and that there is no reason to life meant that there was no reason to his own (Parker’s) life.
Parker, apparently, wanted to “break the monotony.” Hemant Mehta, a publicly known atheist, opined that this meant that Hilbrecht is a professional and was doing his job, but that he was concerned that religious conservatives would use this as “proof” that the morally bankrupt in the world are atheists.
Mehta, in a commentary on the recordings captured and brought to light, noted that atheist does not equate to nihilism and many atheists see meaning in their lives without God. Mehta continues on the note that he does not know the inside of Parker’s mind, but does not know how Hilbrecht made the conceptual leap from atheism to a lonely and empty person.
Hemant Mehta concluded on the point that the boy, Parker, did not kill in the name of atheism and those making accusations that the those who have the most atheism kill without meaning in their lives has to explain a more important factor; that the most religious countries in the world have the highest rates of gun violence and the nations that have the least religion and religious fervour tend to have the lowest rates of violent crime.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
The first Atheism, Humanism, and Secular Ethics endowed chair is coming to the University of Miami according to internal sources. It will be the first in the United States and held by Professor Anjan Chakravartty.
According to University of Miami: News and Events, there has been the creation of an endowed chair for the study of “Atheism, Humanism, and Secular Ethics,” which goes to show the advancement of the increase in diverse secular subject matter in the academic realm with even the controversial sentiments about secular, non-religious content in the public domain.
There have been recent studies, according to the report, that the number of the religious is in decline and the world appears to be in the midst of a global secularization. There will be implications for modern life.
The endowed chair was funded through a $2.2 million donation from the Louis J. Appignani Foundation. Bear in mind, though this is a good step, it is the first chair of its kind in the United States of America. The University of Miami Provost, Jeffrey Duerk, explained, “Atheism is a philosophical position to be explored and analyzed, and since we already address the topic in various departments — including our Religious Studies Department — this chair will add to an already established discourse.”
Anjan Chakravartty, will be the new chair and will join the University of Miami on July 1, 2018. Chakravartty is also a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame.
Otavio Bueno, a philosophy professor, described the timing for the endowed chair a ripe time for the exploration of the complex academic topic of non-religiosity linked to morality. Bueno said, “The U.S. is currently polarized in so many dimensions. Complex issues need to be addressed, and it’s important to talk about them and to have resources to analyze them carefully. … The university, as a research institution, should address these issues—seeking to understand their sources and why it’s so hard to settle them—in interesting, careful, rational and evidence-based ways.”
Bueno continued to explain the position of Chakravartty as having an “impressive outreach ability” with the intention to and ability to take on discussions in an open manner in order for the comprehension of innately complicated issues to be readily available for anyone.
A professor of philosophy who was the chair of the department for 12 years, Harvey Siegel, noted on his first time of meeting the endowed chair donor, Louis Appignani, 15 years prior, where Appignani made it clear in a Miami Herald article that the primary purpose that drove the donor was to challenge “religion” and advocate for “atheism.”
“We tried to find some kind of way that our scholarly ambitions could meet his own ambitions — and after 15 years we found a way to do that — through the endowed chair,” Siegel said. “He appreciates that the U cannot advocate for atheism, but he also appreciates that it’s of value to study the questions in their full historical and philosophical dimensions.”
Appignani had explicit statements in support of some of the most influential people in the living atheist movement in the world today, including Dr. Richard Dawkins.
Appignani expounded, “Dawkins is probably the most influential educator-philosopher who has been expounding the cause of free thinking, questioning facts, and promoting critical thinking. … He met with students, went to classes, and gave a final lecture that filled up the stadium with over 4,000 — he really made a big impact.”
Professor Chakravartty will be teaching on science and humanism in the Fall of 2018. He had his own statements to make to the public as well.
“First and foremost, we’ll be looking at an important area of philosophy which concerns values—a number of issues exploring how the sciences and values intersect with and impact society,” Chakravartty stated, “It’s in the context of this relationship between science and society that I would like to engage the idea of humanism.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
There is a claim that this current generation is among the most post-Christian generation, according to CBN News reportage, on so-called Generation Z.
One recent study shows that as many as 35% of Generation Z, or the post-Millennials, identify with the worldview of either agnostic, atheist, or unaffiliated. Could this be the first and most non-religious generation in the history of North America?
The Christian leadership has concerns about this as there has been lots of brainstorming, meetings, and conversations around the best ways to bring the youngest generation into the ‘gospel truths’, according to CBN News.
The Christian Post reported that the youth groups and churches were told to “step up to the plate with common sense and relational response” by Greg Stier of Dare 2 Share.
“The youth groups trend of fun games and short Bible studies have resulted in frail youth groups and shallow young people. And spiritually immature teenagers will not lead their atheistic friends to Jesus,” Stier said to The Christian Post, “And if young atheists have doubled, we must double down, and the first step is to double our prayers.”
Recent information coming from the Barna Group on generation Z, or those born between the years of 1999 and 2015, shows that this generation “the percentage of teens who identify [as atheist] … is double that of the general population (13 percent vs. 6 percent of all adults).”
Some have termed them “the first truly ‘post-Christian’ generation.”
Stier continued:
We must program the priority of prayer into our actual church services and youth group meetings… Through prayer, we tap into the very power of the Trinity to turn the statistics around in a way that only God can get the credit for.
If we want to reach the lost we must pray for the lost. As it has been said, ‘Before we talk to people about God we must talk to God about people.’
For the Christian community, this appears to be a crisis. For the atheist community, this appears to be an indication of the future for the next two decades of an increasingly secular, non-religious – atheist, agnostic, and religiously unaffiliated – youth sector.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
The Vatican reported to the United Nations on the potential hostility towards religion with “some nations” seeing “religious pluralism as a threat.”
The Crux reports that the Vatican considers the world more connected and linked up, and that some nations view the increasing religious pluralism as a threat with failures to protect religious minorities and even some attempting to marginalize believers of all faiths (based on reportage from a Vatican representative).
Vatican representative Archbishop Ivan Jurkovic told the UN Human Rights Council that some organizations and agencies on the international scene consider religions at odds with their own agendas.
Jurkovic spoke on March 2 in Geneva to the UN agencies with an emphasis on freedom of belief and religion. Jurkovic made an open quotation of the Pope’s denouncing said international agencies and organizations who promote “modern forms of ideological colonization” in the front of human rights with imposed programs on poor nations.
Jurkovic opposed “freedom from religion” in reportage to the council by Ahmed Shaheed, who is the special rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief. He said the notion reveals a patronization of religion as whole.
He considers this to overlook the integral part religion plays in people’s lives throughout the world as well as the not seeing the wisdom traditions within religions. In the report, Jurkovic explained, “International human rights treaties are reticent on the sort of relationship a state should have with religion or belief. They do, however, impose a duty upon states to be impartial guarantors of the enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief, including the right to freedom from religion, for all individuals and groups within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction.”
He went on to say that the respect for the deepest convictions of society’s individual members is an important part of human rights and an authentic culture. That it is part of a common good, where this can only be achieved through the inclusive dialogue and the seeking of the real meaning of rights and freedoms for each person. He sees this connected to religious experience.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Mississippi lawmakers on Thursday passed the most restrictive abortion law in the United States at present. It will make the abortive procedure illegal after 15 weeks of pregnancy. There was a 75-34 vote in favour of the measure in the House.
Governor Phil Bryant stated that he will be signing it. The owner of the only abortion clinic in Mississippi has made a pledge to sue. Eventually, the Supreme Court of the United States may take up the case. It is a possibility. Two exceptions are in House Bill 1510.
If a foetus happens to have a health problem that may prevent it from survival outside of the woman full-term, or if the pregnant woman’s life is at risk, then abortion is permitted in the Mississippi bill. However, cases involving rape and incest are not exempt.
In appeals court in 2015, a North Dakota attempt to ban abortions after six weeks was struck down. The North Dakota case involved a foetus with a detectable heartbeat. Arkansas would be similar as the two other cases but after 12 weeks pregnancy.
Hillary Schneller, a staff attorney for the national non-profit Center for Reproductive Rights, explained, “The Supreme Court has said and resaid again and again that states cannot prohibit women from obtaining abortions prior to viability, which is what a 15-week ban would do.”
Schneller’s group, or the one she is associated with, is based on New York City, New York. It advocates for free access to abortion and has made an open call that the bill is a) medically unsound and b) unconstitutional.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
The President of Atheists of Kenya, who is the 39-year-old Harrison Mumia, spoke out on atheism within Kenya. Mumia came from a devout, religious family, where they went to church, were baptised, and attended Bible Studies with the other families.
At the age of 24, as a university student, something happened for Mumia, which he explains with a laugh, “Nothing happened to make me stop believing. I wasn’t walking one day and ‘saw the light’.”
Harrison found that the questions on creation, faith, God, and ethics were simply too many and too big for the contents of the religious texts, e.g. the Bible, to suffice for an explanation for those numerous, large concerns and questions that Mumia found in the faith.
Harrison sought answers in the sciences. He found that these explanations from natural philosophy were simply more convincing than the answers provided by revelation and religious authorities.
Harrison became an atheist after the internal conflict between faith and religion was resolved. He considers the question of God and moral separate, where the idea of God as necessary for ethical life and behaviour is simply a non-starter.
Moral values exist independent of the idea of God. This would extend to the whole Biblical canon of characters with the Devil not as being at work in the world and man not as the source of evil because sin, God, and the Devil are fictions.
He does not believe that God created the world from nothing. Another Kenyan atheist, Kwamboka, with the same questions and thoughts said, “I don’t believe in God. There is no evidence that He is there. I’d rather spend my Sundays teaching my children a craft, playing with them, being there for them.”
Kwamboka has children and she is 31-years-old, but her children do not attend church and know what they know about religion from their lessons in school, even though she went to a church and came from another devout, religious family.
She thinks the Bible left her with more questions and contradictions than answers, where neither of these, especially combined together, made things easier. She views the Bible read with a critical mind as an antidote to religious faith because the massive number of type of questions and doubts that will be raised. But many Kenyans are afraid to ask around about these things.
If you look at the demographics of Kenya: “31.9 million Christians, 4.3 million Muslims (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics).” The atheist community is growing more in Kenya. “Atheism is slowly gaining ground. Consider the WIN-Gallup survey that found that those [people] claiming to be religious dropped by 9 per cent worldwide while atheism rose by 3 per cent compared to when they carried the poll in 2005,” Okello explained, “The number of atheists in Kenya rose from 0 percent to 2 per cent (South Africa was the only African country with a marked drop in religion, the number religious people dropping from 83 to 64 percent).”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (News)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
An Egyptian television host gave the boot to an atheist on public television with a recommendation that the atheist get psychiatric treatment.
The atheist, Mohammed Hashem, was invited on the Alhadath Alyoun TV studio in order to participate in a debate with the former Deputy Sheilh at Al-Azhur named Mahmoud Ashour. Hashem stated, on the program, that there is no scientific evidence of God.
He went on to discuss standard Big Bang cosmology, when Sheikh Ashour began to hurl a flurry of ad hominem attacks at Hashem to counter the claims. The Alhadath Alyoun TV host, Mahmoud Abd Al-Halim, recommended that
Hashem get psychiatric treatment. At which point, Al-Halim suggested that Hashem leave the studio. Al-Halim, the host, then said to the audience that he is sorry for subjecting the audience to “inappropriate” and “destructive ideas” on air.
Some of the dialogue went as follows:
Mohammad Hashem: “I’m an atheist, which means I don’t believe in the existence of God. I don’t believe in Him.”
Mahmoud Ashour: “What? What was that?”
Mohammad Hashem: “I’m an atheist, which means I don’t believe in the existence of God. I don’t believe in Him. That’s what atheism means. I don’t need religion to have moral values or to be a productive member of society.”
[…]
Mahmoud Ashour: “Why did you become an atheist?”
Mohammad Hashem: “Because there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God.”
Mahmoud Abd Al-Halim: “How can you say that? Who created you? Who made you exist as a human being?”
Mahmoud Ashour: “Do you know how you were created?”
Mohammad Hashem: “There are many theories explaining our existence on this planet…”
Mahmoud Ashour: “I’m asking you a question. How did you become a human being?”
Mahmoud Abd Al-Halim: “How come you exist in this universe?”
Mohammad Hashem: “Okay, let me explain. There are theories that try to explain our existence. One theory is that God created us. Okay? But there are other theories, with much more evidence, like the Big Bang theory…”
Mahmoud Abd Al-Halim: “Speak Arabic! You are in Egypt, and you are addressing simple people, so don’t use big words for no reason.”
Mohammad Hashem: “I’m using these terms because science is conducted in English…”
Mahmoud Abd Al-Halim: “What science are you talking about?
[…]
“You are confused and unreliable. You deny the existence of God and reject our religion and principles…”
Mohammad Hashem: “Is this so bad?”
Mahmoud Abd Al-Halim: “Of course. You come here to talk about a certain idea, but have nothing to offer. You offer atheism! You offer heresy! I apologize to the viewers for having an Egyptian of this kind on our show.
I’m sorry, Mohammad, but you cannot stay with us on the show, because your ideas are inappropriate, I’m sad to say. We cannot promote such destructive ideas. You have not uttered a single convincing word.”
[…]
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (Blog)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/10/29
Leslea Mair is the Co-Director of the documentary film Losing Our Religion. Her work builds on the research done by Linda LaScola and Daniel Dennett through the foundation of The Clergy Project. Here we explore the documentary film. The film is scheduled for purchase in November 2018. You may order your copy from the website Losing Our Religion.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What was the inspiration for the title and content of the new fabulous document film Losing Our Religion?
Leslea Mair: Wow, that’s quite a compliment! Thank you!
I wanted to make this film after hearing about The Clergy Project. I think changing your mind about something as important to your world view as religion is such an interesting process. But for ministers to stop believing struck me as a real personal earthquake. I read the stories of the non-believing clergy in Daniel Dennett and Linda LaScola’s studies and really wanted to explore stories like that. I was so curious about how that plays out for people, not just in the short term.
Jacobsen: You co-directed the film with Leif Kaldor and based on the work of Professor Daniel Dennett and Linda LaScola. How did you come into contact with Leif Kaldor and the research of Dennett and LaScola?
Mair: Leif and I met at a film festival in central Saskatchewan, close to where we both grew up, about 20 years ago. We’ve been business partners and a couple since then. We bring complementary skill sets to directing – we’ve made quite a number of films together. It’s a partnership that works really well for us.
I was the one who tripped across the studies that Dennett and LaScola published, but we were both intrigued by it from the start. I think I first read about them on some secular/atheist blogs and started thinking about what kind of story you could tell about it, so the film was kind of my baby at the start. But we always bounce ideas off one another, so Leif very quickly became involved in the process. His take on the subject was a little different than mine – his childhood had a lot more religious influence than mine did, so it was a good counterpoint to my thinking in the early stages of developing the idea.
Jacobsen: On reflection and reading of Dennett’s and LaScola’s work, what particular findings struck you, stood out to you?
Mair: The thing that really struck me was how traumatic giving up on believing was for people. You have to understand, I’ve never been a believer, so the idea that you can still be emotionally attached to the idea of a deity even when you’ve ceased believing in it was a little foreign to me. I wanted to understand that better.
What also made an impression on me – although it didn’t completely surprise me – was how swift and unkind, sometimes even cruel, the reactions to these people were when they either confessed or were found out. I was surprised by how strong that reaction was, and that the risks people take in talking frankly about nonbelief are very real and quite severe in some places.
Jacobsen: Minister Gretta Vosper contributed to the documentary film as well. What role did she play in the film?
Mair: Gretta is one of the people who is trying to make non-belief work in a traditionally believing environment. She’s an out atheist in the pulpit. The United Church of Canada is one of the most liberal and progressive denominations out there – I grew up in the United Church myself. So when Gretta and I first started talking, it totally made sense to me that if there was any organization that could handle this, it was this one. But there was still some serious pushback. She was called up on the carpet and has been judged unfit for ministry by a panel in the UCC, but she’s still in her congregation. They’re still trying to figure out what to do with her — they don’t know how to excommunicate her because they’ve never done anything like that — there’s no process, really. It would be funny if it didn’t have such serious repercussions for her.
What role Gretta and her congregation played was to show that a church-style community could be secular in nature. They’re trying to pull a shrinking institution into the future. It’s important work, and the struggle continues.
Jacobsen: How do their narratives speak to the stories of others throughout North America?
Mair: Brendan and Jenn Murphy are our primary characters. They’re a couple in the US — Brendan is a former evangelical pastor, Jenn is his wife.
When I met them, Brendan was a “closeted” atheist and still working in ministry, but Jenn was a devout believer. So they were dealing with multiple layers of crisis. Brendan had joined The Clergy Project and Linda LaScola had put him in touch with me. When he agreed to an interview, he wanted to bring Jenn along, and I was fine with that. I didn’t think it was going to amount to anything. I was SO wrong! Jenn’s a really brave and amazing woman. She was so nervous that day, but she still sat down and gave me not just an interview, but really opened up. This was a major shake-up for her in her personal life and in her faith, and I’m still blown away at how much courage she and Brendan had in doing this.
I was able to follow their story from that point, through leaving the ministry under duress and into their current lives.
Jacobsen: What documentary films speak to telling these important narratives of loss of faith, especially in countries without the massive number of public privileges won such as our own?
Mair: There are a few out there – one of our contributors, Jerry De Witt, is featured in a film that has an excerpt out on the New York Times Op Docs called “The Outcast of Beauregard Parish” about his experience exiting the ministry. And there’s a film called “One of Us” about the struggles of three ex-Hasidic Jews who are adjusting to secular life. And Bart Campolo has just come out with a film about his relationship with his father, Tony Campolo, and how they’ve navigated Bart leaving faith behind.
I don’t know of many films coming out of non-Western countries on the subject, but it’s very dangerous to approach atheism in many places. You’d be taking a grave risk and often putting your contributors in jeopardy. I’d love to find a way to do that if some risk could be minimized.
It’s also hard to find the funding to make a full-length documentary film, or I suspect we’d see a lot more of them. The stories are certainly out there, and there are more of them all the time as people leave faith behind. As far as I know, Losing Our Religion is the only feature-length documentary on The Clergy Project so far.
Jacobsen: What targeted areas of activism seem the most relevant at this moment in time now? For example, the work to prevent the ongoing attempts at the encroachment of individual rights to reproductive health including abortion, the rights to medical care, the right to die, and so on, from groups, ironically, with open, grand, self-righteous proclamations about individualism, the “divine individual,” and individual rights as the highest values to attain within the country – ironic because their preventative and obstructive attempts stand in opposition to these individual rights of legal persons in Canada, of full adult citizens in Canada. I see a similar tragic irony in pro-life activists killing doctors.
Mair: Oh, gosh. There’s so much work to do, isn’t there?
We’re in such a rapid state of change right now. I think that the majority of people — especially here in Canada, although I know a lot of Americans who feel the same way — support reproductive rights, the right to die and universal health care. It’s the vocal minorities that get in the way of those rights. I think Dan Barker said it best in our film when he talked about the religious political right dying out, knowing they’re dying out, and lashing out at anyone and anything that threatens them. The world is changing. It’s going to continue to change. The one advantage the religious right has is that it has an organized voice. I think we have to build communities of support so that we have an organized voice as well.
The really hopeful thing is that those communities are starting to happen — the Oasis communities and Sunday Assemblies and other humanist and secular groups are starting to grow and they’re becoming more active in addressing social justice issues. So I’m optimistic. There are some really fantastic people out there.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts or feelings in conclusion?
Mair: Not that I can think of!
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Leslea.
Mair: Thanks so much for taking the time, Scott!
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (Blog)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/09/14
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How do we defeat the Islamic Republic of Iran?
Armin Navabi: Before we get into that, let’s first talk about the current government and the different perspectives people have on this government depending on who they are. From a regional perspective, the Islamic Republic’s influence has been growing over time. For years, they’ve been building very powerful networks all over the Middle East — especially where Shias are present — and have been promoting and selling their version of Shia Islam. Iran’s Islamic regime has a very loyal following in countries like Syria and Lebanon. And by spreading their tentacles all over the Middle East using their proxies, they have more pawns to play with than anybody else. If you’re thinking of making a move against the Iranian regime, you have to know that they are capable of making things difficult for any players running against them. This is something that the Iranian regime had worked on for years and years and it paid off big time when the United States removed Saddam Hussein. And after that, ISIS provided Iranian regime with the excuse to start intervening in other countries in the Middle East. It was like a gift from the United States to the Iranian regime.
Jacobsen: How does religion play into Islamic Republic’s meddling in it’s neighboring countries?
Navabi: Khomeini did not want the Iranian Islamic Revolution to be only about Iran. His intention was for this movement to become an Islamic movement all over the Islamic world. Unfortunately for Khomeini, nationalism and Sunnism were barriers that his revolution never managed to break. Initially his revolution scared Sunni monarchs and other leaders but eventually, most Sunnis saw his revolution as a Shia revolution and even in majority Shia Iraq, most people did not join his movement against Saddam as he hoped.
The current regime managed to get closer to Khomeini’s goal of exporting Iran’s Islamic revolution without sacrificing a fraction of blood and resources that Khomeini did. The Iranian regime has learned how to play this game much more efficiently.
Jacobsen: How did the Sunni countries react to this?
Navabi: Consider this. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia tried to export Wahhabism after Iran’s revolution, in competition to Iran exporting their version of Shia Islam and loyalty to the velayat-e faqih. Yet many Wahhabi groups across the world are now against the Saudi monarchs. If Sunni extremists caught Bin Salman today, he would probably be tortured and beheaded. Many people within Shia groups like Hezbollah and others would give their lives for Khomeini. Khomeini managed to successfully become the Supreme Religious Leader for many Shia groups inside and outside of Iran, not just a political leader. Not as successfully as he hoped but still.
The Iranian regime played a major role in defeating ISIS. Wherever Iran’s regime is meddling, it is doing so with the permission and invitation of their government. Iran’s regime often points out that their meddling was by request of the countries they meddle in, unlike the US. And that they are only meddling in their own region, again unlike the US. They needed the Iranian regime’s support. No other regime was willing to provide ground troops the way the Iranian one did. To Saudi Arabia, it looks like the Iranian regime is building a Shia Empire or a Shia Crescent all around Saudi Arabia. With the fall of Iraq, the Iranian regime’s stay in Syria, and the election of Hezbollah in Lebanon, nobody denies the amount of backing and support the Iranian regime has in the region. Once the Iranian regime moved into these countries for the excuse of defending them against ISIS and another Sunni militia, they do not want to leave. The Iranian regime now has a direct route to the borders of Israel.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are afraid of the Iranian regime. This is why these countries are now cooperating and also why they are both lobbying the United States to take a stronger stance against the Iranian regime. Saudi Arabia with all its high-tech modern weapons purchased in some of the greatest arms deals in history from the United States could not defeat the Houthis in Yemen. If they can’t defeat them, what are the chances against the Iranian regime? And Israel with all its military might could not defeat Hezbollah. Yet Hezbollah is just one of the Iranian regime’s proxies. Israel and Saudi Arabia have strong militaries and better weapons. What they don’t have is support on the ground, and that’s what the Iranian regime knows is the most valuable weapon and has invested in for years. The US and its allies have too much interest in areas where the Iranian regime has influence. This makes any military move against the Iranian regime very difficult.
When the United States was fighting ISIS, they did not have a plan for what happened after the defeat of ISIS. But the Iranian regime seemed to be a step ahead. The US’s support for groups like the MEK as an opposition to the current regime seems to suggest their lack of understanding of the lack of support for them among the Iranian people. Saudi Arabia also seems to be taking actions first and evaluating the consequences later. From their actions against Qatar, their war on Yemen and the kidnapping of Lebanon’s Prime Minister, every decision they make against the Iranian regime seems to be making the Iranian regime stronger. In Lebanon, the way Hezbollah responded to their prime minister being kidnapped was very strategic.
The greatest weakness of the Islamic Republic is the level of dissatisfaction of the Iranian people with their government. Many Iranians think that their government cares more about exporting their Islamic revolution in neighboring countries than their own people. The protests in Iran are about a wide variety of issues, including human rights violations, unemployment, and high prices. The problem for the government is that protests or any other form of dissent against the regime undermine the legitimacy of their religious authority in the region, which is the foundation they build their network on. For the regime’s brand of Shiaism to sell, it needs to portray its Islamic Republic as an ideal system. If the Iranian regime can’t maintain the illusion that it enjoys the support of its own people, their legitimacy will be questioned. This is the Islamic Republic’s Achilles’ Heel. This is why the Iranian government constantly tries to sell the idea that their people are happy with their government; and even if there are protests, there are mostly legitimate concerns that will be addressed and not a demand for regime change.
The US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel have more powerful armies, but what they don’t have is manpower, loyal followers in the region and the connections that the Iranian regime enjoys. But the Iranian regime will lose its ability to maintain and grow this network if it doesn’t present an image of legitimacy at home.
However, this is not a weakness that can be used against the government. Not without the level of trust these countries have among the Iranian people. There are some Iranians who ask for foreign support. But many other Iranians who are against the Islamic regime do not wish to see any foreign involvement.
Jacobsen: How is the United States intervening? How should the US intervene?
Navabi: Many protesters say that if the US government supports the uprising of people in Iran against the Iranian government, the Iranian regime will use this to sell the narrative that these protests are not the legitimate concern of the people but a few bad actors that are agents of foreign governments who are mostly motivated by their own agenda. Many Iranians remember how in 1953 the British intelligence and the CIA orchestrated a coup against Iran’s Prime Minister Mossadegh who was nationalizing Iran’s oil against British interests. The West has a history of supporting dictators against democratically elected leaders for the sake of stability in the region. They picked stability over democracy but ended up getting neither.
Supporting authoritarians that share your interest over democracy and human rights might seem like a good idea in the short run. But in the long term, your support makes you lose credibility, which is exactly what you need to build loyal supporters and a reliable network on the ground. Democracies prove to be other democracies’ best allies. Authoritarians often become US allies, but they are not as stable. And putting them in power comes at a cost; the cost is that people remember. If they ever get to choose their own leaders, they might not pick ones that the US would consider an ally. The problem is that lobbyists and politicians often don’t look at the long-term costs given that their careers don’t last that long. Another problem is that if you have a record of supporting dictators, not many people will believe your narrative when you try to intervene in another country in the name of supporting human rights and freedom.
Democracies are reliable allies and worth the long-term investment. Democracies produce richer economies. Richer economies become better trading partners. Trading partners are less likely to go to war with each other. When trade industries become more influential in a country’s politics than war industries, all sides win.
Jacobsen: What are some examples of the US backing authoritarians, dictatorships, and tyrants?
Navabi: We don’t even have to go back in history to find examples. Let’s focus on today. When the US supports Saudi Arabia’s massacre of the Yemeni people and allows the oppression of Saudi citizens by their government and supports Saudi Arabia’s appointment to the Human Rights Council, it loses credibility. It makes it apparent that the United States only fights human rights violations when it serves its interest and that its agenda is not really to alleviate the suffering of people.
This makes it easy for countries with even the worst human rights records to point to the double standard and give the impression that any accusation of their human rights violation cannot be trusted. The solution would be to fight against human rights violations consistently. But it’s unreasonable to expect any country’s government to take actions that don’t serve any of their own country’s interests. So the challenge for us human rights activists is to argue that being consistent with your human rights records does serve your country’s best interest. And we do that by bringing up this credibility factor.
The most effective intervention is one that the majority of the people of a country welcome. But that requires credibility. To gain that credibility, one must be consistent in his or her support for certain values. This is something that Iran’s government understands and does that well with their brand of Shiaism. The US played the same role with capitalism against communism during the Cold War. They understood well that this was a battle of ideas and not just of military might. They could have used the same strategy with a new brand: support for human rights, free speech, and secularism. But they dropped the ball on that and it would take years to fix it even if they wanted to.
Jacobsen: How can the US and other nations support human rights there and elsewhere for that matter?
Navabi: There are many options and most are cheaper than military intervention. One option is to support particular human rights and various enlightenment values. Providing easy anonymous access to social media goes a long way toward giving the people in any country the tools to fight for their own rights. Social Media companies should stop banning and removing anti-Islamic content with the goal of protecting Muslims’ religious sensitivities. The content that some policymakers in Palo Alto consider a threat to minorities are voices of dissent against oppression from the majority in Islamic countries. The PC culture is a Western trend but it has global consequences. In the name of protecting victims against abusers at home, we could silence victims globally. Access to these tools is essential. Military intervention gives you unpredictable results and managing what happens after is usually more difficult and costly than the intervention itself. Supporting dissent is less invasive, less expensive, and more effective force for change.
Jacobsen: Can military intervention be a good support?
Navabi: Military intervention can be beneficial if done right. However, it is not the solution for the Iranian regime. This war is not a cost that the people of the United States, Iran’s neighbors or many Iranian people (#NotAll) are willing to pay now. The Iranian regime is much more powerful than when Saddam’s regime was in power.
You also have to consider the agenda of the people who have an influence on such decisions. Would the war against the Iranian regime really be because of the security of your country’s citizens? Or are there other factors independent of the tax-payers’ best interest? How much of an influence are Israel, Saudi Arabia, and military lobbyists having on such decisions and do American want to pay for such a war if it is serving their interests? When groups like the MEK are influencing people such as John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani, there doesn’t leave much room for doubt that at least some – if not most – of the support for war against the Iranian regime has nothing to do with supporting Iranian people.
Any form of military intervention for the purpose of regime change without planning for what comes after is doomed to fail. When it comes to the Iranian regime, there aren’t that many good options for what comes after a regime change. What usually fills a power vacuum are the most organized and well-funded groups. As the West discovered already, it can end up with something worse than the regime they helped remove. Many people in Iran support a military intervention from a foreign regime, but many others are against it.
And the people who are against such intervention include many Iranians who are against the Islamic Republic. Such an intervention will either bring into power another authoritarian regime or a democratic one. The authoritarian regime that comes into power can be another Islamic anti-Western regime. A democratic regime is also not guaranteed to be pro-West. The images from the Iranian protests might suggest otherwise, but we shouldn’t underestimate the anti-Western sentiments many other Iranians still have, especially if such a regime is coming into power right after another military intervention in Iran.
Intervention against the Islamic Republic in Iran needs to be a long-term plan and without military involvement. The support of the people for your intervention is important. Without it, you’re either going to get a democratic regime that is against you or a dictatorship that supports you against the will of its people. The way I look at it is by evaluating every group and their goals and interests. And then look at the paths each one of these groups can take in achieving their goals. What is the opportunity cost for each path they can take?
We have to look at different sources of influence and interest groups in Iran:
- 1.The Islamic Republic’s main sources of power and influence:
- Hardliners, Conservatives & the IRGC
- Moderates and Reformists
- The Iranian people:
- Pro-regime anti-reform
- Pro-regime pro-reform
- Anti-regime pro-Western intervention
- Anti-regime anti-Western intervention
- Opposition groups:
- People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran or the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK)
- Monarchists
- Secular democrats
- Ethno-nationalists
- Pan-Iranists
- Ethnic minority autonomy groups (especially Kurdish)
Each group’s members often exaggerate the commonality of their views among the Iranian people. Without reliable polls, it is hard to determine the truth. Most people agree secular democrats and monarchists are the most popular oppositions, and that the MEK remains the most hated one. Many people underestimate the support for the government. Much of this underestimation comes from observation of the protests.
While the enthusiasm people have for the Islamic Republic is significantly less than early revolution years, it is entirely possible that more than ten million people in Iran fully support the government today. There are also many Iranians who abhor the government yet are against an attempt to topple the regime given their observation of what happened in Iraq, Syria, and Libya and the price the people there had to pay for regime change. Yet there are many other voices that demand regime change by any means necessary.
One interesting small but fast-growing group are anti-Islam anti-democracy ethno-nationalists that support the government and see Shia Islam as a hidden version of Zoroastrianism. They consider all of the Middle East to be part of the Persian empire that should one day be recaptured. They think Iran’s religion should one day go back to Zoroastrianism; that Islam and any other Arab influence on Iran’s culture needs to be erased. Even though, they believe the current government is not ideal (given that it’s both Islamic and a republic); they also feel there is no better option until they manage to reintroduce Iranians to their ancient Aryan heritage.
They consider the main enemies of Iran to be advocates of secular democracy and ethnic minority groups fighting for autonomy. Given that foreign intervention by Western powers emboldens both these groups, they spend a lot of their activism discouraging Iranians from asking for help from the international community. They often use examples in history to convince Iranians that foreign intervention has never been in the best interest of Iran. This message is finding a lot of appeal in young anti-government Iranians that have given up hope on both reformists and opposition groups that have been promising the toppling of the government for the past forty years. One key figure that is leading this movement is Omid Dana who advocates for these ideas on his fast-growing outlets including his YouTube channel under the name Rodast.
Jacobsen: How can we address all these groups?
Navabi: We need to ask what are the goals and ideal scenarios for each one of these groups and interests and how are they trying to achieve it. Then you need to see which groups and interests you belong to. After that, you need to see which other groups and interests you share the most goals with or at least which groups and interests’ path to their goal also serves yours. You need to look for the pathways of mutual benefit in order to work together as an informal coalition. You might find multiple options, but then you have to analyze the opportunity cost for each. Not every good option is the best option. The best way to predict the next moves is to assume parties are rational but have different values and interests. Then put yourself in their shoes and ask yourself what you would do to survive.
For example, the goal of some of the most influential interest groups in the US government is to reduce the Islamic Republic power in the region. The goal of human rights activists is to reduce human rights violations. Human rights activists might rely on the support of the US government for their goal. They would have to argue that giving voice to human rights activists in Iran will damage Iran’s legitimacy in the region. But then you would have to consider what impact this would have on anti-intervention Iranians. Would human rights activism be associated with an excuse for intervention and make it more difficult to bring attention to legitimate concerns?
Jacobsen: What do you recommend?
Navabi: We need to provide cover for the extant oppositions in Iran. It wouldn’t be difficult to provide the technology these groups need for them to have fast and undetectable access to social media and make it easy for the least tech-savvy people to get around government firewalls. This should be backed up with guides and tips on how to get access and remain anonymous.
This is a form of intervention that is difficult to hate even among anti-Western activists. All you’re doing is giving everyone a louder voice. You’re not adding to the voice, or meddling in their decisions. You are just providing a platform for everyone to get their message out. Including those who might be against you. By giving voices of dissent on the ground a global audience, we are encouraging activism.
Encouragement of activism in all oppressed countries gives much-needed reinforcement to the same trends that brought the West its enlightenment. Enlightenment values do not need to be exported from the West to oppressed nations. These are values that many already have been fighting for in these countries. We only need to amplify what is already there. By supporting free speech, you encourage dissent against barriers to the Enlightenment values everywhere, not merely in countries that are a threat to your interests.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, especially so in depth this time, Armin.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (Blog)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/06/14
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I hear arguments from different people on Islamic countries and people who live in them. Some argue for different standards for different beliefs and groups. If not in an explicit manner, then the implicit understanding in the conversation amounts to different standards for different people. The conversations start with the general question about judgment of people who live in Islamic countries. In these dialogues, the person may respond with a question, “Who are we to judge people living in Islamic countries?”
Armin Navabi: We are all human beings. That is what we all are. Why does care for our fellow human beings have to be dependent on their location? Why does it have to be dependent on where they were born, their race, or how far or how close they are to us? I do not understand the relevance of that. Pain is pain. Happiness is happiness. I believe that it does not matter if somebody is hungry next to you, or if somebody is hungry a thousand kilometers from you. It does not matter if somebody is being oppressed right next to you or if somebody is being oppressed a thousand kilometers from you. That somebody is human. They need your help.
We Are All Connected
The idea of “I can help people who are next to me more than I could help people far away from me” does not exist anymore. We are all connected globally, through the advances in technology, that it is so easy to help other people with little effort and little budget.
Today, you can make a huge difference for people you have never even met or will never even meet. You can make a difference for people, whichever corner of the world they are in now. In fact, you might be able to make more of a difference because you live in a country where you could speak freely.
They Need Your Voice
You live in a country where you could say whatever you want. People living in Islamic countries do not. They do not live in a country where they can speak their minds. That is why you might be able to make a bigger difference in their lives compared to people close to you. They need your voice. Because when they do speak, these people will get prosecuted and go to jail. They lose their freedom. They lose their safety. These are people taken away from their children. There are even people who pay the government for the cost of executing their loved ones.
Arrogance in Freedom
Liberated countries enjoy some or most of these rights: freedom of speech, right to peace, equality, anti-discrimination, men and women are equal, homosexuals should not to be prosecuted for being gay, and for people of the minority to express their views without being punished. The people who are enjoying these rights have no empathy for what the people in Islamic countries are suffering from there. To me, it is arrogant when some people suggest that this is maybe because these are our values but not theirs.
Morally Superior
Because of this, they claim moral superiority for following these values. That people who follow such humanist values are going to enjoy life more, and live a life with more peace and more happiness. Since we are claiming superiority for this, we think we are deserving of these values and other people are not.
Other people might never be able to see that these values are good for them because they weren’t always in the situation where they had these values. Later on, they progressed to adopt these values, but people are denying them on the same grounds. They might say, “We came to these values ourselves. They should do the same thing.” I call bullshit. There is no country, no idea, and no value that has not been influenced by other countries, by other values, by philosophers and thought leaders from different corners of the world. Europe was introduced to its own ancient values through the Arab Empire. If it wasn’t because of the Arab Empire, we would not know how much of those ancient values would have come back from Greek philosophers. They were influenced by foreign countries, foreign philosophers, and foreign thought.
No group of people or country lives in a bubble. Of course, they are going to be influenced by foreign countries. They are going to influence other countries. They are going to be influenced by other countries. There is no way a country could progress in a bubble. They need outside influence as we need outside influence. The world is connected. If that was true a thousand years ago, it is more true today because we are more connected today. If European countries want an enlightenment, because of the influence of foreign countries at that time, are you going to deny foreign influence to these countries today since we are even more connected now?
Moral and Pleasure Matrix
I will say to people who do not agree with these values, to bring on your values and sell your values to these people, but do not deny us the opportunity to come and introduce these values to people that might want them. Compete with us in the market of ideas, compete with us and tell us why your values are better; however, that is not what you are doing. You are telling us, we are not in a position to judge, so we should shut the fuck up. That is the position you are taking. I am saying, if you think our ideas are wrong, bring up better ideas, but do not deny these people the opportunity to choose their ideas. Ideas that we think are better.
If you think we are wrong, introduce them to more ideas, not fewer ideas. That is how you compete with our ideas. That is how you respond to a bad idea. That is how we respond to your shitty backwards barbaric ancient ideas. We do not silence you. We compete with you. If you think our ideas are imperialist, foreign, too liberal, too free, too empty of spiritual guidance, too empty of meaning, too empty of providing purpose to people, then I am sure. If your ideas are better, they are going to do good.
Exploiting Evolution
You should bring your ideas to the public and compete with us. Do not deny the people, who might prefer our values, the opportunity to hear us because you think somebody might take advantage of these ideas for their agenda. Because if that is your argument, then we should stop teaching evolution in Western countries. Because it was not that long ago, when the Nazis took advantage of the evolution of science to sell their agenda and to tell people why we need to stop letting some races spread, some races should be superior. The whole genocide of the Jews. All those gas chambers and crimes were committed by the Nazi Regime. They were based on the truth, based on the misuse of an actual true scientific principle, which is evolution.
If you are looking at how people could misuse something, we should stop teaching evolution in Western countries because we have a history. In fact, you should try to suggest a value to me. I could come up with a way that it could be misused.
Misuse of Human Rights
In fact, if you are worried about the fact that we are talking about human rights being misused by the military/industrial complex to bring war to these countries, why are you not equally concerned about the Islamic values that have been used, time and time again, in history, for killing, for war, for torturing people, and for denying people’s rights? We have more examples of Islamic values being used to do the same thing. Based on the argument, we should deny Muslims the opportunities to spread their ideology because of the history and examples that came from the misuse of it.
You cannot stop telling the truth because of somebody being able to misuse it. Because if you do that, then you cannot say anything. Everybody should stay home and shut the fuck up.
The only way that you could fight the misuse of good ideas is to expose them as misuse of good ideas. Because if you do not compete bad ideas with better ideas, those bad ideas are more easily used, more easily misused, than good ideas. If your values are better values, then any misuse of it is a misrepresentation and is another inferior value that you should fight for rather than it. When we say these values are superior and you say, “Well, who are you to say?” You could still say that about any claim. I could say, “Who are you to say? Who am I to say?” Let us say your claim is we should not interfere in other people’s countries, who are you to say we should not interfere in other people’s countries?
Challenge Your Ideas
The point of bringing your ideas out there is to challenge them. If you go around the argument and look at the person who is making the argument and you think that they do not deserve to make such argument, then you are making a judgement about the person, whether or not they are deserving to make an argument. Now, you are in that position where we can ask the same from you: who are you to deny this person making the argument?
Another thing is when people say, “Oh, Christianity is the same. It is as bad here. Look at the people. Look at how many police are killing black people or look how Christianity is also barbaric. Ancient ideology that could be as harmful.”
To that, I say, “Fuck you.” I am not talking about those things. I am talking about something else. An example: Imagine if you have a fundraiser for cancer. You are trying to raise money to fund research for cancer. You want to fight cancer, and then people come in and start shouting. They say, “What about AIDS? Why are you not talking about AIDS? AIDS is a disease too. AIDS is also killing people. You guys do not care about AIDS!” What would I do? I would probably kick these people out. AIDS is bad. Yes! However, we are talking about cancer because we are talking about the problems of cancer. That does not mean we are denying that AIDS is also a problem.
However, you are not helping by shifting the discussion to something that this fundraiser is not fighting for now. You are not helping, and fuck you for making everything about you. Because what you are doing is you are taking part in the Oppression Olympics. You think that if the conversation is not about the things that attacks your people or the things that have affected your life, then it is not worth talking about now. If you have been hurt by Christianity or by racism in the US, then when we come and say, “Islam is hurting people,” you are saying, “No, let us pay attention to this.” That makes you self-centered because you cannot stand it when other people are talking about being victims of something else other than what concerns you. You cannot stand people who are bringing awareness to something that you or the people around you are not victims of. If that is the case, then you are selfish and arrogant. However, some people might say this cancer and AIDS example does not make sense because Islam and Christianity have the same root.
Religion As A Whole
This is why we always want to say that we should not talk about Islam. Talk about religion as a whole. Okay, let me add to my example. Let us say we had a fundraiser about pancreatic cancer and then somebody came and said, “Skin cancer is a problem too. Why are you not talking about skin cancer?”
Is that close enough for you?
Sometimes, it makes sense to focus on a specific problem, even if it has similarities with other problems. Different problems manifest themselves in different ways. They harm people in different ways. They have different answers.
It makes sense to focus on a certain problem. Sometimes, it makes sense to look at it as a whole. However, it does not make sense when you always try to shift the attention to a different category when we are focusing on another one. It does not make sense because you are not helping. We are having a discussion about a certain topic and all you are doing is coming and saying, “pay attention to the problem that I care about.” That is what you are doing.
Better Than Most
The obsession for a certain issue might be for different reasons. It could be because you were hurt. It
might be because you know more about a particular topic. It might be simply because you care more about a certain issue. Who cares? At least, you are talking about a problem, which makes you better than most people.
For example, if somebody is going out there and rescuing dogs, I am not going to tell them, “What the fuck do you have against cats? Why are you not rescuing cats? Are other animals not good enough for you? Do they not deserve saving?”
This person maybe cares about dogs. Maybe, he is passionate about dogs. However, the fact that he is rescuing dogs. He might be doing more than most people. Do you know what you say to somebody who is going out there and rescuing dogs? You say, “Thank you.” That is what you say to that person.
For example, let us say somebody says to me, “Why are you focused on Islam? Why not all religions?” I tell them, “Why are you so focused on other religions? Why not all dogma?” They might say, “Okay, all dogma.”
I am like, “Why are you focusing on all dogma? Why are you not focusing on all bad ideas? Does a bad idea have to be a dogma for you to focus on it?” Then they go, “Okay, all bad ideas.” I am like, “Bad ideas? What about other bad things? Does something have to be an idea for you to attack it? Diseases are not ideas. Why are you focusing on bad ideas?”
“Alright, so let us be more general, bad things are bad. Good things are good. Is that general enough for you? Is that good? How helpful is that? How helpful of a claim that is… bad things are bad?” You cannot get more general than that.
General Activism
Some people prefer to look at it more generally. Others might want to look at it more focused in a more specific situation. For example, there is a certain village in the Philippines, where the people need help now. This person wants to specifically focus on this group of people. People who do not have access to water. It is focused. Nobody will go to this person and be like, “Why are you focusing on that specific village?” That is incredibly focused, but I am sure most people will say, “Congratulations, that is good. Thank you for helping these people.”
But when it comes to Islam, many people, atheists especially, say, “Why are you focusing on Islam?” I do not think it is because their problem is that you are being too focused. I think they feel a certain amount
of bigotry if you are focused on Islam because they do not say that about any other form of activism if it is focused on anything.
Have you ever heard anybody say that about any other form of activism? It looks ridiculous. Let us say somebody is focusing on the environment in Iran. Nobody comes to him and says, “Why do you not care about the environment in Iraq?”
Pushed Back for Bigotry
Every form of activism gets this bigotry pushback. However, this specific claim that you are being too
focused is either regarding Islam or nationalism. For example, if Americans are focusing on other countries, they might get accused on why are you not focusing on problems at home.
I know a lot of people who are nationalistic and anti-globalist do not like this. However, I do not understand it. Why do we have to care about a certain group of people because they happened to be born on this side of the border instead of on the other side of the border? Is that good criteria for us to start caring about somebody? Why is that? What makes this so special? With this line in the sand, all of the sudden the person that is born on this side of it matters more?
Western Values
Another thing, I want to address Western values. The name: “Western values.” The reason why it is called Western values is because it first happened in Western countries. The fact that these values were adopted more in Western countries is a historical accident. Because they are named, “Western values,” now, that does not mean that the West should own these values. The West does not own women’s rights. The West does not own human rights. The West does not have a monopoly over not discriminating against gay people. The West does not have a monopoly on secularism. The West does not have ownership over freedom of speech.
The fact people are accusing us of bigotry because we are suggesting that these values should be global and introduced globally, you are being the bigots. You are claiming ownership over some values because you happened to historically come across it — before the rest of the world. You are the people unwilling to share. You think that this is good for you, but it is not good for other people. Why is it not good for other people? What makes them so different from us that it works for you but not for them?
Western Superiority
You are the people claiming superiority. What is it about values that make somebody claim ownership over them? Why can we not introduce these values? Why can we not promote these values? It has been introduced, but we could promote it even more. Why can we not promote them? Could somebody use it to attack these countries? Reality check: somebody is using other values to oppress women.
If we go back to arguments people use when you are talking about Muslims and Islamic ideology, you are not looking at the main threat in the world. You are not looking at the main powers at play, at the destruction and the harm that they cause.
You have to see who is in control and not look at these minority Muslims in our Western countries. You have to make the difference where it matters the most now. Those are the ideas. The values that are being used to oppress people in foreign countries and in their countries by these major superpowers in the West.
I tell them that is a narrow way of looking at it because where I come from Islam is in power. You are underestimating Islam as a major superpower when you think about it that way. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Islam is going to become the number one main ideology in the world soon.
Islam Colonization
Islam is dominating not lands but minds. Islam is used to rule over people and to oppress people. Islam has been used to colonize people. Do you think white people are the only people that can colonize?
Islam has been used for colonization way before the British discovered what that even means and that it is even an option. It is okay if it happens voluntarily. If people are adopting other people’s cultures or ideas or values voluntarily, that is not colonizing them. We are asking for these other values and ideas to be heard and considered rather than suppressed or silenced.
We asking for a seat at the table, at every table. I am not talking about a seat at a table talking about humanism and secularism in the United States, in the United Kingdom, in Canada, or in France. I am talking about a seat at a table in Iran, in Bangladesh, in Saudi Arabia, in Malaysia, in Indonesia, in Pakistan.
We demand a seat at a table. We are going to get it. if you think that that is us imposing our values on other people, fuck you. Because you are enjoying the benefits of these values, somebody at some point in your history was told that these values are not for your country. They did not stay silent. They sacrificed their lives. They sacrificed their safety. They sacrificed their comfort for you to enjoy that today. People are doing these things in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, and in Bangladesh. They are suffering for it.
Moral Cowardice
You are a moral coward for thinking that it is morally wrong for us to voice our feelings on the killing of secular bloggers in Bangladesh. Do you think it is not right for us to judge? Do you think you are not in a position to judge? To judge whether women having less inheritance rights in government, as a witness in court, on what they wear, where they go, what jobs they get, who they talk to, do you think that you are not in a position to make a moral judgment on that? That makes you a moral coward.
But what is moral or not? If you are making that judgement based on how different sets of actions influence people’s well-being, then there is always a right answer and a wrong answer. There are many good answers and many bad answers. It does not take a genius to see that hanging gay people is not good for the well-being of the society. If you think that you are not in a position to make a moral judgment for other countries, I want you to tell me what you would say to the person that is about to be hanged because they are gay.
Go ahead and tell that to that person right before they are being hanged, say, “This is not
that bad. In my country it is bad, but here, this is your culture, so shame on you for being gay. If
you were in the United Kingdom, I would be marching for gay pride and being gay and proud, but here it is a different country. So, fuck you, fuck your gay ass, you deserve being hanged here.”
For The People in Islamic Countries
All the people who are in jail in Iran or Saudi Arabia; all the bloggers who died trying to spread secularism and humanism; all the people in Malaysia who after the government came out and said that they need to hunt down atheists; on behalf of those people, all the people that were burned or tortured for accusations of desecrating the Quran in Pakistan; on behalf of all those people, I want to say, “Fuck you to whoever says that it is their culture and who are we to judge and ask, ‘What’s right for them?’” On behalf of every woman that suffered from Islam; on behalf of every homosexual person that suffered in Islam; and on behalf of anybody that dares speak against Islam and paid the consequences for it, I want to say, “Fuck you” to whoever says, “Who are we to judge?”
Enlightenment for All
The Western countries went through the Enlightenment. Now we want this for other countries as well. We want the same enlightenment values. We want to fight for those values. If you are arrogant enough to want to deny the rest of us the same process, if you are not going to help, then stay out of our way. It is interesting a lot of people come and tell me, “Armin, why are you saying these things? That is our country. It has nothing to do with our country. That is Iran.” I almost, almost want to say, “Mother fuckers, I am from Iran.” However, I do not think that is even relevant because I think you should not need to be from there for you to care about them.
Situation in Yemen
Who do I care more about right now than even the people in Iran? I care more about the people in Yemen. If I could speak Arabic, I would have been tweeting more about the situation that is happening in Yemen because they are suffering more than the people in Iran. The fact that you think we have to be from there to care about them makes no sense to me. However, if you think that, and if you do not want to be part of the solution, and if you do not want to lend a voice to people that need you to lend them a voice, the people that are voiceless. The people that cannot speak for themselves.
If you are not going to use your platform to help them, then stay out of our way because we are going to keep doing that. We are going to keep doing that. It does not matter how many times you call us a bigot. We are going to keep fighting for those people.
If you think they need to do it themselves, then fuck you again because it would be much faster and much easier if we could help them out. Because we enjoy the freedom of speech here. We enjoy some security. We could bring more attention to their problems, to their suffering. We could help. We could help. They need our help. They are asking for our help. For you to deny that to them because you think they do not deserve it, it is selfish. It is selfish to judge your life by a different standard than what you are judging their lives by.
So, who are we to judge how people in Islamic countries live? To that I say, “That is the wrong question. The right question is, “Who do you have to be to remain silent?” The answer to that is, “You have to be a monster.” You have to be a monster to have seen such crimes being done against your fellow human beings and judge it by a different standard than what you would have done if it was happening in your own backyard.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (Blog)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/06/14
Peter Gajdics is the author of The Inheritance of Shame: A Memoir. He can be found in Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, and Goodreads. Here we plumb the depths – as the cliché goes – about conversion therapy, his life and experience, and book.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: As you struggled with the identification of your homosexuality as something deviant in your 20s, how did you feel? How did others feel about you – loved ones, friends, colleagues, and strangers?
Peter Gajdics: It’s true that in my 20’s, even before then, I struggled with the sense that I was somehow “deviant.” Popular culture throughout that time, the late 1960’s through to the 1980’s, reinforced this belief not only in what it said about homosexuality but in what it did not say. Silence produces its own variant shame, and the invisibility of gays in popular culture throughout my formative years—except, as I say, when homosexuality was presented as deviant and homosexuals as terribly unhappy and suicidal—imbued in me a kind of shame, or negative self-image. I experienced shame as a sort of dirtiness within my very being, my soul, which could never be washed away. This “dirtiness” or unworthiness manifested in eating disorders, for example. I think this is why we often see images, say in films or books, of people who’ve been sexually violated taking a shower immediately after the attack, because the trauma of rape and sexual violence penetrates through to a person’s core self and leaves them feeling disgraced, and violated, “dirtied” in some fundamental way. In my 20’s, I also experienced enormous rage, because the flip side of shame is often outrage. On some level, intuitively we know that shame is unnatural, not part of who we were meant to be, so our systems fight to exorcise it from our beings, just as our immune systems fight to heal us from the invasion of disease. Neither side, the shame and its opposite, is balanced, but I think the rage is at least an attempt at healing. Rage first propelled me into writing about my own experiences in the “conversion therapy,” but rage is not a sustaining force in any person’s life. Eventually, rage will turn on itself and become counterproductive.
As far as how “others” felt about me back then—I can only say that some friends were incredibly accepting of me as a gay person in my 20’s, and yet the shame and self-loathing within me persevered. I had great difficulty accepting who I was, largely because of the lie that I’d been raised to believe, which said the sexual abuse from my childhood had “created” my homosexuality. I could not find my way out of that lie, no matter how hard I tried, because the fact was I had been sexuality abused, and I was, now, homosexual. The two issues intermingled in my mind, just as the shame of sexual abuse and the shame, especially back then, of being gay, intermingled and coexisted. I could not tell one from the other. I grew up hearing my church condemn homosexuals, and that kind of hatred was parroted through my family, each time like hammering a nail into my heart. Ultimately, my own identification as a “deviant” was something I had to unlearn, just as a knot done up must absolutely be undone. I think the “problem” for many is that they don’t even see these “knots” because culture or religion still reinforces many of them as truth. If your whole community tells you that a lie is truth, how will you ever learn the difference? Knots like these strangle the life out of people, and must be undone.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How do you build fortitude in your sense of self and personal sexuality?
Peter Gajdics: The question of fortitude, I think, extends far beyond a person’s sexuality, or perhaps is inclusive of one’s sexuality in as much as we are first and foremost sexual beings. The nature of character, and personality, and a stern belief in who we are as individuals, is not really something that anyone can give us—we have to develop those things within ourselves. Building this kind of fortitude has something to do with resilience, and introspection, humility, using our hardships as life lessons in our fight to become more ourselves, even distancing ourselves from the noise of popular culture long enough to find our own voice, instead of just constantly pushing back against other voices. Forgiveness is instrumental to this development, because I think we are always being called on to forgive ourselves for not living up to our ideals, and then of course to forgive others. We forgive to set ourselves free, never to condone anyone else’s behavior. Without forgiveness we are always trapped in the past, treading upstream. Anger at being violated is reflexive, but I think that if we get blocked by or imprisoned in these kinds of reflexive emotions, like anger or revenge, we are never going to progress; rather, negative emotions like these are meant to move us to the next step, not lock us into their malevolence. The question of fortitude has a lot to do with a life well lived, but what does that mean, really? We are all, all of us, making mistakes and saying and doing things we later regret, but I think that recognizing the humanity in our endeavours also helps us build this very fortitude.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What have been the damages of conversion therapy to scores of homosexual over time?
Peter Gajdics: When we talk about the damage inflicted on scores of people as a result of this thing called “conversion therapy,” I think it’s important to remember that these “therapies” occur across a spectrum of treatments aimed at making a gay person “not themselves,” and that these kinds of attacks long pre-date the 20th century. Even before gays were called homosexual, which is still only a relatively recent phenomena, there were always people who experienced same-sex attractions, and those people also faced alienation and isolation; sometimes they were forced to live out their lives not as themselves but as the society dictated, which has been typically driven by opposite-sex pairing and desire. Of course, at different times in history, same-sex desire also has been celebrated, but the point is “conversion therapy” is a latter 20th century invention, and the persecution of people that we call gay today is not limited to the 20th century.
In terms of actual “damage”—I am not sure we can ever quantify the pain and lost lives that have resulted from these sorts of bigotry and hatred. How do we quantify this kind of “damage”? People end up killing themselves because of familial rejection, ostracism from their religion, hate crimes perpetrated by others as a result of misinformation about what it means to be gay or homosexual. This kind of “damage” is too enormous, I think, to quantify. Besides, long before anyone ever attempts suicide, many of these “therapies” can result in a person ending up living out the rest of their lives in a state of complete despair, a shell of their former self. “Shell shocked” is how I’d describe myself after my own six years in the “therapy,” and I think it’s often similar for a lot of survivors. Thankfully, I began to heal, but not without great effort.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Have there been any positives to come out of this conversion therapy movement in your opinion, even ironic or unexpected ones?
Peter Gajdics: Obviously, I would never advocate or endorse anything remotely close to “conversion therapy”. That said, one thing that often does happen during or even after these kinds of “therapies” is a sort of forced “disidentification,” to borrow language from writer Eckhart Tolle, with mainstream sexual identity. Conversion therapy—the act of stepping outside one’s sexuality and becoming more the observer, then attempting to become “the other”—this very act often forces a person outside of mainstream sexual identity, in this case, gay sexual identity, much in the same way that gays were historically forced outside of whole societies. Forced alienation and isolation like this can produce enormous distress; at the same time, an over identification with the culture of one’s “sexual orientation,” I think, is also largely ego-driven and can end up producing more of an obstacle than a vehicle toward ultimate freedom, because in attempting to be more of ourselves, which is always the goal of “coming out” and declaring one’s homosexuality, we often become trapped in the illusion of a subculture. We leave the closet only to enter an even larger one, known as our “sexual identity.” I’m not sure this is as big of a problem for those identifying as heterosexual, rather than gay, simply because straight people are the normative and so to them their culture is largely invisible—they don’t necessarily over identify with any of it. For gays, however, because we have in effect forced our way into visibility, the unfortunate tendency is to then over identify with our newfound visible culture, in effect to “become” what is largely an illusion. Conversion therapy has the potential to basically disrupt this over identification, and in a backhanded or “accidental” way to create an emotional and mental space within a person that can then present an opportunity to replace an ego-focussed lifestyle with something much deeper and resonant, call it spiritual, or closer to our essence. Again, I would never advocate the use of conversion therapy, I’m not even saying that this “forced interruption” that results from these therapies produces anything beneficial, but for me at least, this has been one positive outcome—but one that has been hard-earned.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Where does the demonizing and reasoning behind killing homosexuals, especially gay men, source itself?
Peter Gajdics: I think that this demonization of gays can be largely attributed to the forced or unnatural medicalization and moralization of homosexuality. Nothing much is new about any of this, since these kinds of judgments have been occurring for centuries, but I do think that specific events in the 20th century alone, as progressive as many have been for gay liberation, have also produced extreme trauma to scores of homosexual people. Psychiatry, as just one example, and its pathologizing of homosexuality as an illness in need of a “cure,” caused in some cases irreparable harm. Trauma like this does not end after a few decades; it can take generations for this kind of venom and lie to weed itself out of a culture. Attacks against gay men in particular, I think, can be correlated to great distress and confusion around gender, the nature of what it means to be a “man” in our culture, which homosexuality seems to provoke in many straight men. For many men still living today, homosexuality represents all that is vile about a loss of manhood—submission, sensitivity, gender variance. Images such as these can become overwhelming to some men (who in many cases may actually be closeted homosexuals), and the instinct to eradicate “the other”—to physically kill them—predominates. We are often scared of “the other”—this is what xenophobia is all about. I think that many hate crimes are committed in the name of these kinds of lies, and fear. The degree by which we could say that gay liberation has succeeded, and continues succeeding, can be directly attributed to the severity of how bad it became for gay people everywhere. But I do not think the war is over; lies, fear and shame are all shapeshifters. Gay people everywhere, each and every one of them, need to speak their own truth—not just collectively, as “a people,” but each person as their own individual. Truth is on each person’s side.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (Blog)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/03/11
A Story Gone Viral
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You tweeted a picture of your mom. You pinned it on your Twitter account. Now, as of this interview, it has 12,000 retweets, 17,000 likes, and became viral “hit” on Reddit and 9gag. What is your mother’s personal story?
Armin Navabi: My mom was nine-years-old when her mother died from breast cancer. Her father remarried and the new wife asked my mom’s dad to kick out the 6 kids which he did. After that they had to figure out ways to survive on their own which made them tough kids. She and her siblings were close.
My mom was very smart. In school, she did well. She wanted to go to medical school, but she ended up being a nurse.
Before the Islamic Revolution
My dad kept asking her out on dates, but she was always playing hard to get with him. My mother spent most of her time in the library. During the time my dad courted her, she remembers getting chocolates and roses laid on top of her library book.
My dad would leave it on top of her book everytime she leaves the table to get a new book. Which, by the way, she found very cheesy. But they ended up dating for a while. They have had their relationship ups and downs, but my dad would always woo her back.
In the beginning, the revolution against the Shah was for freedom and not for Islam. But it became more Islamic. It took a turn in a way people did not expect. After the revolution, many who participated in the Islamic revolution were shot and killed by those who came into power.
The Big Sign in the Hallway
My mom was in the hospital working at the time when Khomeini was either coming down from the plane or he was giving a speech. I am not sure exactly which one. Everybody surrounded the television and watched the historic moment.
She said something to the effect of, “We’re fucked.” That comment made people turn around and look at her. The next day when she came to the hospital, there was a big sign in the hallway. On top, it said, “The Whores of West” and her name was on that list.
The Iran-Iraq War
My dad served the war as one of the doctors during the Iran-Iraq War. They had this underground hospital where they kept on cutting arms and legs without anaesthesia of people who got shot. It was terrible.
One time, he wanted to treat some captured Iraqi soldiers. They asked him why he wanted to treat the enemies. My dad replied: if he was not allowed to treat them, then he was going to leave. The doctors were in high demand, so they let him.
When my dad came back from the war, he went back to work at the hospital where he met my mom. My mom worked as a nurse in that hospital.
One day, he went to the hospital’s cafeteria. He was shocked to see how much control the religious police had there. He was not happy about the situation of seeing the police there. He asked them to leave and told them to have some respect for doctors. Suddenly, the soldiers pointed guns at him.
The other doctors surrounded my dad to create a barrier. Someone came to my mom and said something like, “There is this doctor and things got heated with the soldiers and the doctors are trying to protect him.” My mom told me that as soon as she heard this, she immediately knew that it was him.
She immediately ran to the cafeteria. While she was running, she suddenly realized that this is the man she loves.
When she got there, she saw soldiers pointing guns at what looked like a group of doctors surrounding this man, who was standing right in the middle. It was my dad. My dad saw her from a distance, looked up and said, “Hi, Jila!”
She replied, “Hi.” And then, she ran away.
The Red Scarf
Early after the revolution, the rules about wearing the hijab were stricter than they are today in Iran. Hijabs were mandatory. My mother’s hijab was red. She was arrested for it. It was a different time since it was not yet accepted to wear fashionable hijabs. As a punishment, she had to go to mandatory purifying Islamic lectures.
At the lecture, somebody was telling her something to the effect of, “My dear sister, why would you do this to our young men? They have sacrificed so much blood, so many lives for our revolution. They have died in war and you would tempt them with corruption like this?”
Her reply was, “No. You don’t understand. My hijab was red in honour of the blood that they have sacrificed for us.”
Armin’s Superstitious Mom
In Iran, many people believe and pray to god and to the Imams when they need something, even if they do not pray five times a day or do not fast during Ramadan. Not everyone with religious views is very religious. Many people who consider themselves believing Muslims, even hate religiously zealous people.
My mom was very superstitious. She believed in curses, and good and bad omens. My mom would go and find these secret spell casters and pay them lots of money for the success of her sons. They would write spells and give her instructions on what to do with the writings.
Once, she made me wear a necklace that has some Qur’anic scribblings on it. She put a stone in the chain. I still have it. She told me to have it with me during my exams. It was self-contradictory because these are Qur’anic verses. This is supposed to be a spell, but Islam is against casting spells.
Praying for Atheist Republic
I went through a religious phase. I took Islam seriously. It was annoying to my parents. I tried to make them take Islam seriously. They did not pray. I was trying to get them to pray and fast.
They never went to mosque unless there was someone’s death or celebration. I did not want them to go to hell. They wouldn’t listen to me. So, when I decided to become an atheist, it was a relief for them.
I started Atheist Republic in Iran. Soon after, I came to Canada. It started growing and growing. I quit my job in Canada. I started to focus on Atheist Republic.
My mom was supportive. You would think your mom would get very angry because my parents spent so much money on my education in order for me to get a good job and now I decided to work on activism.
She prayed to god that Atheist Republic would become successful. It was ironic. I told her, “Mom, praying to god that my war against god would become successful doesn’t make sense.” She said, “A mom has to do what a mom has to do.”
Pigeon Experiment and Losing Faith
My mom slowly started losing her faith. One thing that really got to her was the superstitious pigeon experiment. Even pigeons can become superstitious by random things; the pigeons can be conditioned to develop superstitious behaviours in belief that they will be fed.
Then she asked, “I’m like those pigeons?”
But then she said, “Maybe those pigeons feel good doing what they’re doing and getting a reward for it. Let me be superstitious. At least, I feel like I am helping you. Even when it’s not doing anything, it just makes me feel good. Let me have that.”
On Her Deathbed
I wish I called her more. I wish I talked to her more because she loved it when I talked to her. Some of my family members would get bored when I talked about religion and politics. She would talk, listen, and comment because she wanted to keep on talking to me.
When she got cancer, it was way too advanced to do much about it. My dad was not ready to let her go. They got her a VIP room at the hospital. Anything he said would happen. Since he was a doctor, he knew a lot of people in the hospital.
I wanted to go to Iran, but they knew that I wouldn’t get past airport security, and would be jailed and on death row. My mom said, “Please don’t let my last memory of you be you in jail.” So, I couldn’t go see her because of the book I wrote Why There Is No God and founding Atheist Republic.
She told the doctors in Iran that she does not want to die without seeing her son. I feel partially responsible for this because I couldn’t go and see her. The doctors said that she can’t leave the hospital. However, she said she doesn’t care. That she wants to see her son before she dies. She left the hospital and came to Vancouver.
My mom died shortly after because she was not getting the care she was getting in Iran. When she got to Canada, she had to wait for a long time to see a doctor. The good part was unlike the doctors in Iran they were not listening to my dad anymore, but asking her what she wanted.
My dad wanted chemotherapy, but my mom did not want it. She said she is done. My dad was trying to force her to do chemotherapy because he was not ready, but the doctors respected what she wanted for treatment.
One time, in the hospital, she asked me if I am sure — if I really think there is nothing after death. So, I told her, “Yes, that is what I think.”
Then she said, “Good… because I am so tired.”
One time, when I went to see her at the hospital, she had these headphones on and was listening to the Azan (Call to Islamic Prayer). She was embarrassed and said, “Armin, I know this is all bullshit, but it’s really helping me. It really helps me with my pain.”
I was like, “Mom, why are you apologizing to me? You don’t need to be embarrassed. Just do whatever you want. Do whatever it takes for the pain.” It is sad that she felt embarrassed to do something Islamic in front of me.
Before her death, she told my dad that she does not want any Islamic ceremonies for her death. She was happy to know that she is going to get buried in Vancouver because she did not want people to pray over her grave.
There were a few attempts of this in Iran for her. However, my dad made sure he cancelled all the ceremonies because it was my mom’s wish that they have nothing like that.
A lot of people asked me, “Aren’t you sad that you’ll never see her again? Don’t you wish that there was a reunion or an afterlife that you’ll meet her one day? Isn’t that such a cold way of believing in the world?”
I always respond, “Even if you ignore the fact that we have to believe in things that are true and that we have evidence for rather than the things that we like, you have to also understand that the afterlife does not come with just heaven. The afterlife comes with hell.”
We were told that most people will burn in hell. My mom would also be burning in hell right now if Islam is true.
I’m sad that I’m never going to see her again, but I am much at peace knowing that she is not being tortured right now by a fucking sadistic god because she did not worship him enough.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Armin.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (Blog)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/01/19
Caleb W. Lack, Ph.D. is a licensed clinical psychologist, an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Central Oklahoma, and the Director of the Secular Therapist Project. Dr. Lack is the author or editor of six books (most recently Critical Thinking, Science, & Pseudoscience: Why We Can’t Trust Our Brains with Jacques Rousseau) and more than 50 scientific publications on obsessive-compulsive disorder, Tourette’s Syndrome and tics, technology’s use in therapy, and more. He writes the popular Great Plains Skeptic column on skepticink.com and regularly presents nationally and internationally for professionals and the public. Learn more about him here.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: As the Atheist Republic audience is international and, therefore, highly varied, we have to lay the groundwork, though we’ve done this before. What is secular therapy?
Dr. Caleb W. Lack: Technically speaking, “secular therapy” is any type of psychotherapy that does not invoke the supernatural in the conceptualization, assessment, or treatment of various mental health difficulties.
This doesn’t mean you’d necessarily ignore something like a person’s religious beliefs, but you wouldn’t resort to interventions which either involve some sort of religious component (e.g., praying for forgiveness, asking for a deity to heal you). However, just because someone is practicing non-religious therapy doesn’t mean that they are actually practicing scientifically-informed, evidence-based therapy.
The Secular Therapist Project (STP) was designed to be a free service to help connect non-religious individuals who are seeking mental health care with non-religious psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, and other therapists. However, what’s unique about the STP is that we aren’t just a database of therapists like you might find at Psychology Today.
Instead, we very carefully screen potential therapists who want to become part of the STP. We screen them to make sure that a) they are appropriately licensed in their state or country, b) that they are secular in nature as well as practice, and c) that they actually use evidence-based treatments, which have been shown to be effective at helping improve mental health problems in controlled clinical trials.
This means not only will our therapists not try to preach to you or convert you, but that they are also using the most well-supported types of treatment to help you.
Jacobsen: As the Director of the Secular Therapist Project, I suspect traumatic stories come to you. If I may ask, without breach of confidentiality, what have been some of the more tragic or emotionally moving secular therapeutic stories witnessed or experienced in your career?
Lack: Sadly, there are some pretty commonly repeated themes that we see. The most frequent stories revolve around abuse that stems from religious beliefs or from a loss of family and friends when someone becomes non-religious.
For example, people tell me very often about physical and emotional abuse they suffered as a result of their parents’ fundamentalist religious beliefs. This has been regular, high level corporal punishment (“spare the rod, spoil the child”), witnessing their fathers beat their mothers, being emotionally abused via being taught about their own inherent evil nature and sins, and even sexual abuse.
The sexual abuse is often by members of the clergy or high level people in their churches, which then gets covered up (as seen repeatedly in the Catholic Church), or by being married into relationships where the husband treats the wife as property to be used (and abused) however he desires. This may include denial of educational opportunities, being told to stay in abusive relationships by church leaders, and so on.
The second major theme is typically a loss of community and support. Many churches are very good at community building, fellowship, and establishing social networks. You have a built-in friend group when you belong to a church, people who share your ideals and beliefs, who offer help and support when you need it, who you can turn to if you need a shoulder to lean on.
The majority of the religious also share the same religion as their families, which means for many that faith and family are highly intertwined. Often, when an individual steps away from a church, their friends and family in that church turn their back on that person, particularly for those in fundamentalist or evangelical religions.
As such, this can mean a huge loss, as people are rejected by formerly close or even life-long friends, by family members, and by the community which they have invested huge amounts of time, money, and energy into for years or decades. So, many people are literally going through a grieving process and have nowhere to turn to for support, because their support networks have abandoned them. They feel alone, abandoned, adrift.
This can even have an impact on one’s livelihood, most prominently for those pastors, preachers, and other clergy members who move into atheism, but also for others. I’ve heard numerous stories of people who were fired from their jobs after becoming more open about their lack of religious beliefs. That wasn’t, of course, the “official” reason they lost their jobs, but it happens.
Another aspect I should mention is that of religiously-motivated abuse under the guise of “therapy.” This includes the so-called “conversion therapy” which aims to change one’s sexuality, which is so psychologically abusive that it’s been banned in most U.S. states, but also the threats of eternal damnation that are directed (often by members of their own family) towards people for something that is largely biologically driven. The LGBTQ community has borne a huge amount of abuse due to religious beliefs.
Jacobsen: For international non-believer community, family members remain religious in unhealthy ways, e.g. fundamentalist interpretations of scripture enforced on the patient. What recommendations are standard for these difficulties of the patient?
Lack: Sadly, many people do lose long-standing relationships when they realize they are no longer religious. This loss of support and community is why organizations like Recovering from Religion, Grief Beyond Belief, Camp Quest, Secular Sobriety, and others are so important. What they are doing is building a secular support network.
While scientific skepticism or secular humanist organizations provide intellectual or philosophical support and do much needed “front-end” work such as activism or lobbying, the “back-end” organizations are helping to provide emotional, physical, and psychological support.
Finding a strong, caring support system is key. While this can be difficult, being able to join online groups and reach out that way has helped many people no longer feel so isolated, and is a great step towards building offline relationships.
Jacobsen: How big is the secular therapeutic “movement” — for want of a better term? Where is the movement centralized? Are there areas of the world where the secular therapy is bereft, simply not an option — even with access to a computer and internet connection due to state or community, even familial, oppression of the individual non-religious person?
Lack: I would say that depends largely on where you are, geographically. Here in the United States, many people on the coasts are fairly horrified when I talk about how therapists who do not overtly advertise themselves as “religious counselors” attempt to bring religious beliefs into treatment.
In the Bible Belt, though, we have large numbers of counselors and therapist who have been trained in overtly religious graduate programs, often at private religious institutions, that fail to make appropriate distinctions between doing “religious counseling” and other kinds of therapy.
I have had numerous people tell me that their therapist tried to convert them back to Christianity or blamed all their mental health or relationship difficulties on the fact that they were not “right with the Lord.” And these are people who were NOT seeking religiously-inspired therapy.
Many people, especially the religious, hear the term “secular therapy” and think that it would only be something that a non-believer, an atheist would engage in. In fact, all of the evidence-based therapies that we have for mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, and many others are “secular”, meaning they were developed without the use of supposedly supernatural aids and interventions.
Almost all therapists who are religious (as opposed to “religious therapists”) use secular therapy in their practice. In other words, they are not using prayer, or exorcism, or invoking some religious concepts to heal a person of their mental health problems. Instead, they are using our “secular” therapy techniques because they work.
To further complicate the issue, not all people who do “secular” therapy are also doing “evidence-based” therapy. In other words, I might use therapeutic techniques and orientations that are not actually based in scientific findings and it can still be secular in nature.
Things like psychoanalysis or attachment therapies fall into this realm — they aren’t religious, but they are also pseudoscientific. That’s one of the reasons why our requirements for joining the Secular Therapy Project are threefold: our therapists are licensed, secular, and use evidence-based practice.
Jacobsen: How does a transition from religion to formal non-religion impact marriages, common law partnerships, and relationships?
Lack: Well, as I said before, loss of support networks is a huge issue for many people who transition out of religion. When one partner in a committed relationship has a major shift in their belief system, this often puts an enormous strain on the relationship, particularly if the religious partner has a very literal, dogmatic, or fundamentalist belief system.
If you believe that your partner is now condemned to spend an eternity burning in hell, how can that not? And on the other side, if you believe that your partner is wrong about something they are basing their entire life and behaviors on, how can that not?
Working through issues such as how children will be raised (in a religious faith or not, to what degree, and so on), what family will be told about why one person is not longer attending church services, and many other issues can be very stressful, often to the breaking point. That doesn’t mean that mixed-faith marriages are impossible, they certainly aren’t, but they do require a large amount of strong communication and commitment from both sides.
Jacobsen: Are there any cases where some people simply can’t be helped?
Lack: Certainly some people find themselves in environmental situations where therapy isn’t the best solution to their problems. It doesn’t matter how excellent of a treatment I have for depression or PTSD if you are in an environment that’s actively causing you to have those problems and you can’t leave.
That’s why a good therapist will work to conceptualize an individual’s case globally, looking at not just how an individual thinks, feels, and acts, but how their environment (whether family, friends, work, or something else) may be contributing to or maintaining distress. This allows a good therapist to recommend interventions at a family level or a higher environmental level and not only need to focus on the individual.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Lack.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (Blog)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2017/12/05
An Interview With Armin Navabi, Founder of Atheist Republic
I recently spoke with Armin Navabi, a former Muslim from Iran and the founder of Atheist Republic, an organization with millions of followers worldwide and best-selling author of “Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God”. We talk about his opinion on the topic Islam versus Nazism, the reason why both can’t be compared, and his message to Muslims.
Scott: Why can’t people compare Islam and Nazism, according to them, and why do you think they’re wrong?
Armin: Their argument is at a time when you have the rise of the alt-right in the West, when people are discriminating against Muslims, when people who look like Muslims are being targeted and harassed in the streets. Comparing Islam to Nazism is not helpful and fueling hate. It’s helping more people demonize Muslims.
Scott: In my opinion, empowering the wrong people is a bad idea, such as the ethnic nationalists and the people that are neo-fascists. Islam is not people but a set of ideas — or more precisely a set of ideas plus suggested practices in which people practice in certain degrees and believed in certain degrees. What I think is you can make a comparison if you’re talking about ideas plus suggested practices in a similar way National Socialism or Nazism does have a set of ideas and likely suggested practices.
I suspect that the inclination behind a lot of people are saying is looking at not only a set of ideas as neutral but a set of ideas as bad and then making comparison as both ideas are bad. You can’t compare two ideas that are bad.
When people want to protect those who believe Islam but not those who believe in Nazism, they don’t want to make a comparison in what they want to protect and in what they consider a bad set of ideas, ordinary Muslims and Nazis respectively. However, if you do look at the ideologies and suggested practices, you can make comparisons.
The question that follows from that comparison is, “What is the judgment? What is the ultimate value of either particular claims and the ideologies at large”?
For Armin, the judgment is already there when you compare Islam and Nazism because when you compare two things, you are suggesting that they are the same.
Armin: My response to that is something that would make them hate me more, which is [that] I don’t think Islam is as bad as Nazism. I think Islam is worse than Nazism. They think, “Okay great job, Armin, you just gave the best narrative to the alt-right and white supremacists. You just said that Muslims are worse than Nazis”. I never mentioned Muslims, never mentioned Nazis. I said Islam. You should know that as this is coming from people who criticize Islam and they say we’re criticizing Islam, not Muslims. And when I say Islam is worse than Nazism, they’re suggesting I’m demonizing Muslims, which I’m not. They will say “you’re simplifying it”. To that I respond, You’re only listening to my conclusion instead of my entire argument.
Scott: How could you say Islam is worse than Nazism?
Armin: First of all they tell me “you can’t even compare them since they’re apples and oranges. They’re not in the same category.” To that I respond, they’re both ideologies. When I compare Christianity with Islam, nobody says anything. When I compare Communism with Nazism, nobody says anything. But when I compare Islam with Nazism, everybody loses their mind.
To be fair, I think most Nazis are way worse than most Muslims. Most Muslims are great people. And this is the problem with Islam. The problem with Islam is that it does better job taking advantage of good people to sell its evil. Nazism doesn’t have the sugar-coating required for you to take advantage of enough good people for it to spread enough.
Religions like Islam and Christianity are destructive, but they also come with these sweet messages like “Love thy neighbor”, “Take care of the poor”, “Be kind to your parents”, “Take care of the elderly”. Stuff that people already did and would have done without religion.
In fact, these simplistic morality messages within these religions were already discussed in way more advanced and nuanced way by ancient philosophers thousands of years ago before the Bible and the Quran.
So it wasn’t their invention and people would have come to this conclusion because people, in general, are nice. On average, people are more sympathetic to their fellow human beings. But the Bible and Quran take the credit for this. And by taking credit for it they have an easier job to spread.
If you have an ideology talking about how you are the superior race and how Jews are evil and how everybody else is disgusting, if that’s your main message, it’s really hard for you to sell this and spread it because you have to rely on certain kind of people to spread this.
For example:
If I have a poison pill that tastes like shit and kills you right away, it’s really hard to spread this poison. But if I have a poison pill that is sugar coated and doesn’t kill you right away, then it’s easier for me to start selling this poison and spread it far and wide.
I think that’s the genius of Christianity and Islam. It’s not genius by design; it’s genius because these are memes that survive, just like we have the natural selection for genes. It’s the ideologies that can survive longer spread farther and infect more people.
Scott: How can you say that Islam is even close to what Nazis did?
Armin: Granted, Nazism is way more harmful per year in power. By harmful I mean has more victims. Per year in power, Nazism is way more harmful. But, Nazism cannot survive for long in power. It was in power as a government only in less than one generation. It’s not fully defeated but how many Nazi regimes do we have right now? Zero. How many Islamic regimes do we have right now? More than zero. Islamic regimes last longer. They had victims for the past 1400 years and still have victims today.
People tell me, “How can you say this right after what happened in Charlottesville? You have to adjust what you’re saying and take the political climate into consideration and adjust accordingly for you not to fuel hate.”
And I tell these people, “You’re being very selfish because you’re only looking at the political climate around where you live.”
That woman dying in Charlottesville was an absolute tragedy, but you have to understand while that one person died in the hands of Nazis, there are hundreds of people dying in Yemen because of the religiously-fueled Sunni-Shia-divided Yemen.
I hate Islam because I care about its victims which are mostly Muslims. Being anti-Islam is being pro-Muslim because the main victims of Islam are Muslims. This is not anti-Muslim hate. In fact, you cannot be anything but anti-Islam if you care about Muslims.
If you don’t stand against Islam you’re abandoning Muslim women, Muslim homosexuals, Shia Muslims under Sunni regimes, Sunni Muslims under Shia regimes, Baha’i Muslims, Sufi Muslims, Ismaili Muslims etc. Not enough people talk about Yemen because it doesn’t serve the Muslims narrative because these are Muslims killing Muslims. It doesn’t serve U.S. narrative because U.S. gets a shitload of money selling weapons. This is a war crime.
You think we’re being islamophobic? Saudi Arabia is bombing mosques in Yemen. How many people are dying by the hands of Nazis today? They ask me, “what’s the point of comparing Islam to Nazism?” The point is to show people’s priorities. Because people don’t care about their fellow human beings. People care about just what’s happening in their own backyard.
Consider this: which one is worse? The atomic bomb or the Kalashnikov?
Scott: Probably Kalashnikov in the hands of people over a long time.
Armin: Number of people who died by the Kalashnikov is way more than the atomic bomb.
People are more afraid of plane crashes than car accidents. Even though car accidents have way more victims. It’s the same with Nazism and Islam. Nazim, when it came to power, managed to destroy many lives in a short amount of time. But If you look at the larger impact of Islam, it should scare us more.
The leftists accuse us of being Islamophobic and we’re trying to tell them that no, we are criticizing ideas not people. My suggestion is forget the leftists, because what’s the point of criticizing Islam? A lot of people who criticizes Islam, they’re trying to warn the West. But Islam is coming and you can’t stop it. Unless you actually talk to Muslims. And more importantly, what you’re afraid might one day happen to your Western country, is already a reality for many Islamic countries. We need to stop playing defense. We need to reach out to Muslims in Islamic countries.
The best way to fight Islam is to reach out to Muslims. And the best way to reach out to Muslims is to befriend Muslims. Trying to convince Westerners and non-Muslim Westerners that are afraid, that’s not going to stop anything because this is an ideology and it will continue spreading unless you talk to the people that believe it.
In fact, the more people see Muslims themselves as the threat, the more people will victimize Muslims. The more you victimize Muslims, the more it helps Islam to grow. Religion feeds on being the victim. The only way to stop Islam is try to reach out to people. You can’t stop it by force. You have to actually try to convince people out of it. That’s the only way you can fight Islam.
The people we need to warn [about] Islam are Muslims. To be able to talk to Muslims [about] how bad Islam [is], we have to try to convince them that us being against Islam is not us being against Muslims. That’s a very hard thing to do but not as hard as most people think.
The reason why it’s very difficult is because most Muslims see Islam as part of their identity. But I think Muslims are much more than just Muslims just like an atheist is way more than just an atheist and a Christian is way more than just a Christian.
As an atheist, I’m a husband, I’m a humanist, feminist, Game of Thrones fan. I think every Muslim is more than just a Muslim. But we have to acknowledge that many Muslims see Islam as a major part of their identity. Our attack on Islam is not intended as a personal attack. Even when they see it a personal attack. We should invite them to take our intentions into consideration when they’re judging us. This is very important for Muslims because we are all looking for allies.
I tell Muslims that they might find things we’re saying offensive. But it’s better to be offended than to be discriminated against. We will challenge your ideas, but we will stand with you against those who challenge your rights. We will fight your ideas but we will defend your rights.
So you have to see us as allies because you need allies. We need you as our allies because the bigots are not just your enemies, they’re our enemies as well.
You also have to see that the left is not helping you. Not all of them but many people in the left that are saying “Don’t say these things”, “these are offensive”, “you’re attacking Muslims.” You must understand that they are the ones being bigots because they’re suggesting that you can’t take criticism. That you are like children who need protection from these Westerners. You can’t handle criticism of your ideas.
They don’t react to us when we criticize Christianity, only Islam. So you have to see that it’s a kind of bigotry because they’re suggesting that maybe Christians are mature enough for us to disagree with them. You must fight that.
What I’m waiting for is the day that some Muslims show the world that they are tolerant, that they’re not sensitive little “snowflakes” by opening their mosque to ex-Muslims speakers. Imagine if your mosque was the first mosque that invites an ex-Muslim speaker. Be that first mosque. Show the world that you can handle criticism.
My main point is we need to reach out to Muslims instead of the left. If we try to challenge Islam, Muslims should be our target.
It might feel like a personal attack but it’s not our intention.
I usually ask Muslims if they disagree with Christianity and the answer is always “yes”. Are you a Christianophobe or anti-Christian? Do you hate Christians? And they usually say “no”.
That’s just a very simple example to show why disagreeing on an ideology is not the same as hating them because they do it themselves. Every Muslim disagrees with Christianity but most Muslims won’t say they hate Christians or they’re anti-Christian.
Sometimes I hear some Muslims say it’s okay to criticize Islam but just don’t ridicule it. First of all, we must be able to ridicule what we want but whether that’s productive or not, I would tell you that I know a lot of Muslims that came to our page because they found something offensive and they stayed on our page, the Atheist Republic page, long enough for them to eventually doubt their beliefs. It was the offensive things that attracted them until they eventually left Islam.
Second, when we ridicule Islam, we’re not coming to a mosque and ridiculing Islam, we’re not going to a Muslim page and ridiculing Islam, we’re not going into your living room and telling you that your god is fake.
We are doing this on atheist pages, atheist websites, atheist twitter accounts. So if you’re seeing these contents you don’t like, you either don’t know how to block people that you don’t like or you’re actively looking for it. If it’s the first one, I suggest a search on YouTube on how to block a page. It’s either one of those things or if you’re curious, then you can’t tell us to stop because you’re the one on our platform.
If I were to defend mocking Islam when I’m talking to a Muslim, I tell them this:
“When I was a Muslim we used to make fun of other religions. Like I ask a Muslim, “Don’t you find it ridiculous that god could have a son?”
Every religion makes fun of other religions. If it’s okay for Muslims to make fun, then it’s okay for atheists to make fun of Islam.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Armin.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (Blog)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2017/11/14
Jacobsen: If we’re looking at Atheist Republic, what are we looking at in terms of demographics?
Jackson: Not surprisingly, mostly male, I do look at the demographics that follow our page. We have ~70% men to ~30% women. It is uneven there. What I find is most of our followers are probably ex-Muslim, we have a huge American, Canadian, European following.
Jacobsen: Since they are mostly men, younger, and ex-Muslim, are these the countries that the ex-Muslim men, not necessarily flee to but, get away from the dominant Islamic culture?
Jackson: It always starts off with that is what they think is going to happen. However, it’s something very emotional for me. A family, an entire family, had to flee Pakistan over a man saying, “Atheists might not be that bad,” on social media. People ransacked his house.
They had to take his children and flee to an island north of Australia, which they got to them. Their asylum there. Then they had to go to the Philippines. Mostly, it is what you can afford. If you look at the atheist community, there are not a lot of groups that help with asylum.
Asylum costs money. People need to get to these countries. They need lawyers. If no lawyers, they are taken advantage of. There was an Iranian atheist I was helping. He got a lawyer that had no idea. He had no clue about these kinds of processes.
One of the letters he wrote cost this man his asylum. The wording he used cost him his asylum. When it was all submitted and the lawyer said, “I am sure it will be fine. He is scared to go back home,” no there was a video of an Islamic video describing the beheading they were going to give him when he returned to Iran.
That is not scared to go home. That is not, “I am scared someone might hurt me.” There are people actively trying to kill him. You must be so careful about what you say in these cases. People take advantage of these cases, take their money.
The Atheist Alliance International is one of the few atheist groups that they do help with this. So, everything I know about asylum, everything that I gather is from experience. I learn from one case at a time.
When I am constantly bombarded with people saying, “I need asylum. These people are going to kill me. These people found a letter I wrote. These people saw a text message I sent to somebody. They are going to kill me. My dad and family are going to kill me,” you can only sit there and listen to that as an emotional shoulder for so long.
After that, you must get your hands into this. You must start mapping out ideas for asylum. So, I hit the books. I mean non-literally [Laughing]. I hit Google. I started getting contacts and figuring out: What is the process? What can help?
Jacobsen: Who can help them?
Jackson: That is a hard question.
Jacobsen: Let’s say, within North America, if not necessarily help, then give guidance. Should they contact some branch of Amnesty International or another organization like that?
Jackson: The UNHCR, I have worked with them the past couple of months. We have been dealing with a couple reports on what they will do for asylum seekers, and for people from Islamic countries that are atheists seeking help, because many will not talk to me.
They won’t tell me what is going on. Although, I have sent letters to one of their clients, but they will not respond to me. Finally, I got letters from their legal department, reminding me that they won’t talk to me.
I have been considering them, asking, “What will you do for these people?” The Pakistani family – that I told you about – that after he had been denied, after I sent in a letter from Atheist Republic describing what this person was going through, and that it was a verified story.
The person called them and said that they had to leave and had 90 days. I began to cry. He said, “I can’t bring my family back to Pakistan. They are going to kill me. I committed blasphemy.” If they are going to work for ex-Muslims, or for people who are seeking refuge in another country because atheism is deadly in Islamic countries, they need to know this is an issue.
I said, “Who can I talk to so I can file a report, to help you guys help people? Do you know what atheists face in Islamic countries?” I have been getting little help by the legal department. It is difficult to tell people, “You can go to this or that person because they can help you.”
I feel as if I am doing that I am passing the buck. In this case, it is somebody’s life. I can’t live with that. It has been hard. We get so many cases flowing in. Once they contact this or that organization, often, they get denied. Those organizations have 50 people coming to them per day.
It is not that they don’t care. They do. But finding an organization that is big enough and can handle the load that needs help, I don’t think it exists.
Jacobsen: I think of two cases or themes. We both know women especially in religiously dominated countries – where religion and government are one and the same – that women are functionally or effectively second-class citizens.
Bearing in mind, the religion is mixed with the government. So, if it is costing money, as you noted, to take on these cases or to travel to another country and then pay for the legal assistance, if you’re a woman that is poor, it doesn’t even come out as an option.
It might explain some of the first waves of this, into more secular societies, being men, possibly. Men will have the finances to do so. I think of another case, not from that perspective, but internal to North America.
There are issues for non-believing women who – it is a sensibility, so it is not a firm argument – must work through the arts over decades to get some manner of influence. I think of Margaret Atwood.
Where she takes real cases, in parts, compiles them into a narrative, in some near-future dystopia, with the most famous example being The Handmaid’s Tale, which is coming out, I guess, in some television series, do these seem like possible trends – not from argument, but more from sensibilities and so very loose perceptions of things?
Jackson: It is hard for me. I think of women who are trapped in religion. I think of women who break out of religion, and why. In my time of doing what I do, I am not talking about the Atheist Republic work; I am talking about the one-on-one support group.
I met three women in two years, who have come out wanting help. People ask, “Why? Why is that?” I can only speak by what those few have told me. They understood that they were a slave. They understood where they were.
They said that their dream of becoming free was too great. To know there is a way to get out, and not pursue that dream, they would rather kill themselves. One woman was being abused by her husband.
Our communication didn’t get far. She said she lost faith in Islam. She had two children. Her husband beat her and her kids, and treated her terribly. The last communication I got from her said, “He found our communications. I have to say, ‘Goodbye.’”
I don’t know what happened to her. I don’t know if she ever got out. More than likely, she was probably killed trying to leave her husband, leave Islam. It is not a kind world to women. It is frustrating because, on the one hand, everyone has a right to an opinion. But on the other hand, I think people should want to become more educated on topics to hold the right opinion because when it comes to women in countries, it is heartbreaking. It is so heartbreaking what they must go through.
There are women who have taken Stockholm Syndrome. We know women who are captured by men. People who are captured by other people will begin to identify with their captors. But, I’m sorry. When I see some women get up and say, “This is freedom for me,” I can’t help thinking of the women who felt that was slavery for them.
So, it is one of the things we were talking about earlier. We can’t block people. We can’t say, ‘All Muslims. All Christians.” I can’t say, “All women.” But I can say, ‘One woman’s freedom is another woman’s slavery.’
I think people who want to speak out against women being forced to wear a burqa. They don’t want to wear a burqa. I think that is perfectly valid. I think that we in America, and the West, need to stop looking at the burqa as a form of liberation.
It may be a form of liberation for some women, but let’s not block women. Let’s not put them into a block and say, “This is freedom for you. Take it.” It makes no sense. It is a contradictory statement [Laughing].
“You wearing that is a signal of your freedom.” It is hard.
Jacobsen: Going back to some of your Baptist roots, when you were in interaction as a very strong believer – Fox News, Baptist with father from an Abrahamic tradition, what was your perception of those that were out-and-out atheists – who were outspoken, articulate, and bold?
Jackson: I didn’t feel they existed. I didn’t believe. My dad would tell me about these people who didn’t believe in God. I though they may live in the jungle in a tribe, so that was why they didn’t believe. I didn’t think they existed.
Who wouldn’t want the love of God? I couldn’t even comprehend it.
Jacobsen: If you look at statistics, America has a prominent level of belief in angels, efficacy of prayer, demons, heaven, and so on. Did you see what you deemed “evil” behavior as influenced by a real devil, a real Satan?
Jackson: Absolutely, I thoroughly believed in demons and Satan. I thought that, maybe, I had been possessed by a demon, who was taking over my thoughts or allowing me to focus on ungodly things and wants and desires.
I thought that could happen. When I was a child, my mother constantly talked about demons and hell. She put a huge fear of demons in us. I remember not being able to sleep because I was praying to God to keep me safe. I thought I did something bad, and so a demon would come.
My mom said we were possessed when I was a baby. She was recording babble when I was a baby. Obviously, it showed she wanted to hear the recording for some reason. It said, “Come with me mama, the baby wants you to go to hell.”
So, she had our preacher come by and exorcise the house, bless the house, if you will. Now, that I look back at the story and all the things she claimed would happen, such as doors opening and closing shut all at once in the house – cabinets would open and close all the time.
When I look back at what had to have happened because she gave the tape to my dad and her pastor, who said that to the recording? Demons aren’t real. I know that. I know demons aren’t real. It is amazing when you stop believing in demons how all that fear goes away.
No more possession and fear of possession. What lengths do people go to keep their beliefs? Is it really to the point of faking a tape, so that your preacher will come to the house and bless it? I looked at the things I did as well, to keep my faith.
The various positions I would take and try to rationalize how God allow rape and slavery. I would rationalize these things in my head, to make it okay for me to keep my belief. People will go through very strange rituals to prove what they believe is real. Scary.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time, and the openness to express sensitive issues.
Jackson: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about the issues and get a chance to tell people what we do at the Atheist Republic.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (Blog)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2017/11/11
This is an interview with Terry Sanderson, the President of the National Secular Society – a British campaigning organization that promotes secularism and separation of Church and State. He has cancer. Here we talk about atheism in the 21st century, the meaning of life, the possibility of death, absolute finality, and more. Prior interview here.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What does being an atheist in the 21st century mean to you?
Terry Sanderson: It means nothing more to me than a lack of belief in anything supernatural. There is no such thing as “the supernatural”. Anything that occurs is, by definition, natural. There is nothing outside those bounds, no ghosts, no gods, no miracles. That is all atheism means to me. Add other things – humanism, secularism – and it becomes something else.
Jacobsen: You have cancer. You are about to enter major surgery. What does this make you think about the meaning of life?
Sanderson: Life has no meaning beyond itself. People who cling to religion are appalled by such thinking and regard it as sad. But trying to ponder the supposed “Big Questions” – things like “Why are we here?” “What comes after?”, “What is the meaning of life?” is a complete waste of time. These questions have no answers so why ask them? Or as Gertrude Stein put it, “The answer is: there is no answer.”
Why torment yourself with such stuff? Get on with life, enjoy your senses – have good food, good wine, good sex. Our senses are all that we have to tell us we are alive. Make the most of them.
Jacobsen: How do you feel about the possibility of death?
Sanderson: Death is not a possibility, it is an inevitability – for everyone, no exceptions. The fact that my own end may be arriving sooner than I had anticipated is disappointing only in the sense that life is good and I want more of it.
I have had seventy years of perfect health, which I have taken for granted. Such good fortune can give one a misguided sense of immortality – nasty things happen to other people, not to me. But when the reality of life’s conclusion suddenly presents itself, you start to think – sometimes resentfully – about the things you will miss by going too soon.
My mother lived until she was 97 and by that stage, with rapidly fading senses and physical decline, she longed for death and welcomed it when it came. I watched her take her last breath and she struggled to cling on, but she was under the influence of morphine so it might just have been her body’s natural instinct to survive. If she had survived, she would have cursed the doctors for reviving her. So death is not always the terrible enemy, sometimes it is a welcome friend.
One wise philosopher once said, “The living are just the dead taking a vacation” and I find that comforting. The eternity of non-existence before I was born was a state of complete unawareness for me. That is the state I expect to return to when I am dead. No need to fear non-existence (although for some Christians non-existence is the very definition of hell, a denial of the time they had expected to spend with their god).
Jacobsen: How important does the potential for the reality of death, of absolute finality, make friends and family and their love for you?
Sanderson: Love is a wonderful thing. It is life’s grandest experience. Naturally, we want our loved ones to stay with us, not to die, and we mourn when they are gone. But the pain of loss is what we must endure in order to experience love. There is no escape. I don’t want my partner to hurt when I am gone, but he will. We have spent half a lifetime together and when that comes to an end it will be hard. Bereavement seems unendurable, but it can be endured. I hope that those who have loved me will remember me with affection. That’s the best I can hope for.
Jacobsen: If you could advise youth on making the most of life, and fighting for the rights of others in the livelihood of others, what would you recommend for them? Even though they may not know the most about the world, this might help some who are reading this find some guidance from an elder.
Sanderson: I hesitate to give advice because life as a young person is very different to life in later years. When I think back to my own youth, it is like looking at another person. What I thought then has changed several times. And we are all molded by our genes and our upbringing, so there is no formula that fits everyone.
I was lucky to have a childhood filled with love and I have always wanted to be like my mother, who was gentle, tolerant, forgiving, understanding and affectionate.
I want people to be happy and to accept them as they are in all their irritating variety. I try not to make sweeping statements about groups and to judge everyone on their individual qualities. If you can learn to do that, you will have a happy life filled with people who love you because you love them for who they are, not for any perceived racial or religious identity or ideological label that they put on themselves or have put on them by others.
Life is about fun, too. Fun is not trivial, never think that. It is about being happy. As the great American atheist Robert Ingersoll said, “Happiness is the only good, the time to be happy is now, the place to be happy is here and the way to be happy is to make others so.”
So, have fun, be silly if you feel like it (I love being silly) and don’t make cruel or humiliating jokes about other people, however much you think they deserve it.
Jacobsen: The United Kingdom is much more secular and atheistic than Canada. What is one thing about the United Kingdom that Canadians should know but potentially don’t with regards to lack of faith?
Sanderson: Our histories are very different and despite the long centuries of religious dominance, I have a feeling that the British have never really been very religious, not in their hearts.
If you read some Victorian novelists – like Anthony Trollope – you will see that even in those days, when the Church was very powerful in politics and society, there was still a lot of skepticism.
The Church has been cruel and greedy all along the way, and people know that, but until they got organized there was no way for ordinary folk to resist. Gradually the Church’s powers have been reduced until now it is regarded by most people as a complete irrelevance.
I don’t think there is much that secular or atheist groups can do to persuade people out of religion. I’m not sure that we should even try. For some people it is comforting and it brings the community into their lives. Such people will have to find their own way out of it.
The churches seem to be doing a good job of bringing themselves into disrepute by being so completely irrational and out of step with modern life. They take themselves so seriously and some religious people actually believe all the self-important bilge that they spout. Fervent religionists will have great difficulty seeing how fatuous their beliefs are. They have devoted their lives to nonsense and admitting it is next to impossible. That’s their problem.
It is when they demand that we all respect faith that I get annoyed. I don’t respect it. I never have. Why would anyone respect something so crazy? In some parts of the world, though, people are forced to respect religion or risk death.
Blasphemy laws illustrate just how weak religion really is at its foundations. When respect has to be enforced by threats and menaces, you know that it isn’t deserved.
We should just keep on encouraging religious leaders to make stupid statements. We should continue pointing out how dangerous religious identities can be. It’s a gradual process, but it is gaining momentum every day.
Jacobsen: In the latter part of life, you have experienced quite a lot. You’ve experienced a lot of abuse. But you have come out an important voice. How do you persevere in light of all of the pain inflicted on you simply for being different and speaking your mind for the rights of others?
Sanderson: I have never really been affected by abuse and only on a few occasions have I been threatened with physical violence.
I have love all around me from my friends and family, and I know that I can always retire to the safety of my home where warm hearts are waiting. Surround yourself with supportive friends and no amount of abuse will then penetrate.
If you see a glaring injustice (as I did with the treatment of my fellow LGBT people back in the 1970s and 80s) and you want to challenge it, then there is no easy way to do it. You just have to do your best, campaign as hard as you can and keep on going in the face of setbacks.
There may be people telling you that what you are doing is wrong, that you don’t understand the issues, but don’t take notice of that. If your conscience tells you that you are doing the right thing, something that will improve the lot of others and harm no one, then press on despite opposition.
Jacobsen: What have been the bigger changes away from religion in the UK?
Sanderson: Gods are no longer the most powerful influence in this country, as they have been in the past. People will claim to believe in “something greater than themselves” but pressed about what precisely they mean, it is soon apparent they don’t believe any religious claims.
Most religion-inspired legislation has been repealed – abortion is no longer illegal, homosexuality has been decriminalized, family planning is easily available. The churches have had to adjust to all these changes, but each one of them reduces their influence a bit more. Every reform secularizes the nation further. Education and easy communication have also weakened the grip of superstitious thinking.
Religion is dying in the West, in Islamic countries, though, its baleful influence continues to grow. People in poverty often turn to religion as their only comfort and solace. It’s understandable. But one day they, too, may achieve the affluence enjoyed by the West and be educated without indoctrination. [It is] then that they will have the luxury of being able to reject the religious props that seem so important when they have nothing else. They will, as in the West, abandon beliefs that ultimately bring them so much misery. It is then that religion will collapse once and for all.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Terry, I wish you the best in recovery and good health.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (Blog)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2017/11/10
Serious activist efforts can change the landscape of an entire province, even a country. Some are symbolic, but I do not see even these as minor either.
One particular petition of note is the e-petition by Doug Thomas, President of the Secular Connexion Séculière, called e-petition 1264, or E-1264 (Jacobsen, 2017; House of Commons, 2017; Secular Connexion Séculière, 2017).
The petition is about the discrimination against nonbelievers in Canada.
Another petition relates to discussions happening for a long time now. Those conversations with the decrease in relevance of formal faith including the Roman Catholic Church to Canadians – especially so for younger generations, national and even international controversies over an alternate sexual education program proposed by the superintendents of a Catholic school system, and the desire for a merger of the Catholic separate publicly funded school system and the regular public system in Alberta (Boswell, 2012; French, 2017a; French, 2017b; Mehta, 2017).
The sex education system alternative proposal appeared to have differences of intrigue. Hemant Mehta, a prominent online atheist, noted:
Their curriculum said sex was only permissible within marriage (and never before), downplayed “consent” as the main prerequisite for having sex, ignored condoms and birth control, and only spoke about various types of sex and masturbation in negative ways. (Ibid.)
The Government of Alberta officials didn’t agree. Mehta punctuated the article with the conclusion:
The Alberta government officials deserve plenty of praise for taking this strong stance against misinformation and ignorance. It won’t stop the Church from trying to spread its irrational beliefs, but it will put some giant hurdles along their path. (Ibid.)
In short, the hasty move to reinstantiate Roman Catholic Church authority in the province diminished it. Hence, the decrease in Catholic Church relevance once more, in some ways.
Enter IDEA and King: Inclusive Diverse Education for All and Former Alberta Education Minister David King, respectively. The organization tied intimately with King, regarding the two school systems, says, “At the beginning of the 21st century, this duplication is obsolete, unnecessary, expensive, and contrary to what we understand about personal and religious freedom, and the religious neutrality of the provincial government” (IDEA, 2017a).
IDEA has a petition, which garnered over 1,000 votes in under 48 hours (King, 2017). It is for a referendum on the merger of both school systems in Alberta. In the midst of the controversies, present, and the crimes, past, of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada, this seems like another decent step for secularism. If this doesn’t work this time, we can try again, from another angle.
You can sign here.
Also, please see the E-1264 petition here.
References:
Boswell, R. (2012, April 7). Religion not important to most Canadians, although majority believe in God: Link to Poll.
French, J. (2017a, October 23). Catholic school districts want their own sex-education curriculum.
French, J. (2017b, March 15). Catholic school board support wanes among young adults, survey says.
House of Commons. (2017, September 14). E-1264 (DISCRIMINATION).
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (Blog)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2017/11/03
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Recently, the Atheist Republic Facebook page was shut down. Why was that? How can Facebook do that without necessarily letting you know or with authorization?
Allie Jackson: Isn’t that a good question? We would love to know why. We were shut down, not once but twice, in less than 24 hours without warning. Normally, we know when there is a problem because Facebook will let us know they removed some post for some reason.
This has happened for years. They used to send us a picture letting us know which post was removed. We had a post removed that no one could tell what it was. This has been happening for quite some time now.
We post about once per hour, sometimes more and sometimes less. They say, “We removed this post for violating our terms.” We can’t know which post because they didn’t send a picture. Oftentimes, what they removed is innocent. It didn’t break terms of service. But we’ve learned to live with that.
So, leading up to this ban, they stopped showing us what they were removing from our page. We didn’t get an indication that a post was removed, then we’ve got this notification that we’d been restricted.
Some features had been restricted [Laughing]. It is mind-boggling. We click the notification. It takes us to the page. It is very normal, but then we realized that our posts weren’t reaching people and nobody was able to see our post unless they went to our page.
That went on for a couple of hours. We ended up putting in an appeal, of course. We ended up rallying the community because we saw that the Ex-Muslims of North America got a notification saying this restriction will last for one week and because the post was against the terms of service.
Something that I hadn’t heard before. So, a couple hours before we put in the appeal. It was the next day, but not the full 24 hours. Our page was completely taken down and unpublished. No reasons, again, and no posts were removed, just – boom! – “we’ve unpublished your page.”
It is frustrating because we don’t know what we did wrong. It is the same process. When we have a post removed, we want to improve things. We understand Facebook is a private company. We understand they have a right to run their own company.
It was not illegal, but I feel what they did was unethical. To take a paying customer and then remove the platform from 1.6 million people who want the content that we’re putting out there; that is not a very business-like way of doing things, I think.
It was very frustrating on that level.
Jacobsen: Once you get past 1.5 million, there aren’t that many groups. They are there, but not many. 1.6 million, given all of Facebook, it is relatively small, but given the community, it is relatively large.
The fact that it happened for a Facebook group housed, in essence, in Canada is rather remarkable.
Jackson: Absolutely.
Jacobsen: The first time when they took it down, they said you lost some features. Did they specify any at all?
Jackson: They didn’t specify anything. It popped up, like a notification if somebody liked a photo or commented on something that you commented on. It popped up in a notification, not explaining what features were removed.
We had to go through and figure it out. There were two: the speak now button and the news feed. People could not leave messages, and no one could get our posts.
Jacobsen: Has Facebook done this to ex-Muslim or ex-anything groups before?
Jackson: Absolutely, the most we hear about are ex-Muslim groups, especially Arab ex-Muslim groups.
Jacobsen: Is this regardless of location, whether Saudi Arabia or America?
Jackson: Absolutely. It is so sad too. This is a small group without a platform. They can’t say this is a big problem. We get these people coming to us and saying, “Wow, I had 17,000 people in a group. Facebook removed the group.”
Or another is that Facebook removed the group because we post scientific stuff and have “atheist” in the title. I am on a secret Facebook group with other admins of other groups. Many have had their pages down for six months now, with no reason or warning.
Many of them hadn’t even had a post removed. All of a sudden. Poof! They are gone. It is hard working from our platform and point of view because there are pages that I know – because I follow them [Laughing] – were not violating any terms of service.
If the offense is now a violation of terms of service, then let’s shut down Facebook because everything can be offensive. I look at things as far as terms of service and community standards. Those are two things I have engulfed the knowledge about.
We have a group with many members. It is a big Facebook group. So, we are dedicated. If anybody looks at our rules that we lay out for the group, we are dedicated to prevention of hate speech and make sure that everything is in line there.
On the page, though, things are different. We can control what we post, but not what others post. On a page of 1.6 million, Facebook could easily find them. Every single post we’ve put out has never had anything to do with hate speech.
People want to say hate speech is an opinion. In reality, it is not. If you look at its definition, it talks about inciting violence or hatred toward people or a group of people. We are not setting out to hurt anyone.
We don’t want anyone hurt, even their feelings. We attack ideas, not people. So, it is really difficult when people say, “You’re hateful.” No, we have a platform with anyone free to fight an idea.
We don’t ban theists or Muslims, or Christians, or any specific groups. If somebody doesn’t like what we say, maybe, they can educate us. They are free to do that.
Jacobsen: Do you think the equivalent opposite case happens when Muslim groups will state openly that atheists are going to hellfire or some equivalent, and they don’t get taken down – even though that would be about people rather than others such as on Atheist Republic criticizing the authenticity of a text and the validity/soundness of arguments for one particular faith?
Jackson: Yes, I think it is outrageously unfair. We have received, over the years, so many death threats. The rainbow Kaaba was probably one of the most controversial things we’ve shared. The whole purpose and point was love should be free for everyone.
Everyone, anywhere should be able to love anyone the way they want. We got so much support from the Muslim community, “Please don’t share my name, but I am gay and Muslim, and I can’t tell anyone my name. Your message gave us a lot of hope.”
It is not like we focus on atheist problems or only atheists. We focus on a lot of problems that stem from religious indoctrination, such as the hatred against the LGBTQ+ community by some people. Most Muslims support the community.
Unfortunately, they face criticism from their own community for doing that, but for me to get back to the hate speech, that happens. We have people who have sent us a man who was tied to a cross with his head cut off and his head laying at his feet. They said, “You’re next.”
We get people saying, “What is your physical address? Do you remember what happened to Charlie Hebdo? You’re next.” I have had someone say, “I am going to chop off your head and rape your neck hole.”
Facebook says, “Thank you for sending this. It doesn’t violate our terms of service or community standards. We can’t do anything, but you can ban them.” Armin and I both got banned once because he posted my picture and said, “Allie was sent to us from the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ramen.”
That got mass reported and we got banned from our accounts for it. I am seeing this. This is just what I am seeing. I am not saying this is backed because I am seeing it. But from my perspective, it seems like there is some sort of bias.
It is very frustrating.
Jacobsen: The particular case you gave with Armin Navabi, the founder of Atheist Republic, is stating a parody religion’s “deity”. In the other case, it is directed at someone. One is a direct threat to a person.
One is to you. Another is directed playfully at an idea. People would seem to be insecure enough to find that threat enough to report en masse. People don’t want to be considered a block: all Christians, all Muslims, and so on. But then they want to take pride in saying, “We are one of the biggest religions, and so on.”
I have heard this. I am sure you have too. But even more, there is a population of over a billion called the religiously unaffiliated, but, maybe, there may need to be a coalition of some form. It is like “herding cats.” I am sure you’ve heard it.
Jackson: [Laughing] It is so true. We are tied only by the lack of belief in God. Other than that, an atheist can believe in reincarnation, in ghosts, in Karma. So, when you see different organizations of atheists…
I am a big friend, to me, of an organization called Mythicist Milwaukee. They don’t believe the Biblical Jesus existed. Then you look at people like Bart Ehrman. There was a debate between Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Price, both who have different beliefs. Dr. Richard Carrier and Dr. Ehrman completely disagree with each other.
Often, they write back and forth about their disagreement. You have these different groups of atheists that know what needs to be done for social justice around the world. So, it is hard. It is hard to take these people and bring them together.
The religious are lucky. They have a book and rules, which says, “All will think this way because it says in the text.” Even they can’t get it right. We have tons of Christians who love the LGBT community, then we have Christians at the Westboro Baptist Church [Laughing].
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Jackson: They have more to tie them together. That’s what I love about the Atheist Republic. Even if we disagree with an idea, we are a volunteer team of 300 people. We have different beliefs on politics. We have different views on many things.
We don’t restrict our page to be about one topic. We don’t just dump on one thing, or take one political side. People get upset when we make jokes about Donald Trump. We make the same jokes about Hillary Clinton.
We joke. We have fun. We have different beliefs. That brings us together more than anything. Atheist Republic puts that out there. Even if we don’t believe in it, we will be a platform for you. That is a mentality for bringing all of us atheists together.
Jacobsen: To your own experience, what made atheism seem obviously true – an argument, a disenchantment with traditional religious structures, a cranky parent, not taking the myths seriously, and so on?
Jackson: I was a strong Christian. I prided myself on being a child of God. I talked about my high school summer vacations. While my friends were partying and drinking, I was reading the Bible. I was reading it for Bible school.
I talked about it with people. I loved God. It was my senior year in high school. Things started clicking with me. I was never really allowed to question things growing up. I lived in a very conservative household. I watched Bill O’Reilly and Fox News, [Laughing] probably more than I’d like to say.
They hated homosexuals. They hated anyone different. It was around that time that I said, “I have a friend at school who is gay. I never even really questioned my own sexuality. I was straight because that’s what the Bible said I was to be.”
I never really questioned anything. But at that moment, I was saying, “I don’t want to hate people.” The second I said that, something clicked. When I left my family, and when I started studying at a Catholic university, I would stay in the library and study the Bible.
I loved being God’s child but it began to be more difficult for me. Social media began to boom. It wasn’t big in high school [Laughing]. I saw friends posting these awful things about Jesus, so I would immediately unfriend them. It hurt.
Once I was honest with those images, I decided I might be hurting because the images hold some truth. Things became harder. I began reading the story of Samson in the library. How Samson gathered 300 foxes, tied their tails together, and marched them into town to destroy.
It was so unreal. In my head, and I am sorry, I said, “This is bullshit.” I immediately got scared. At that moment, I immediately said, “I can’t do this anymore. I can’t do this anymore.”
Jacobsen: I want to dig a little deeper. I think there is an important moment there. Where Samson pulls the foxes into town, and you realize how unreal this is and say, “This is bullshit,” then there was fear, what was the fear?
Jackson: Questioning God, questioning God, that I would burn in hell. The days following, it brings me to tears just thinking about it. It was such a draining moment of my life. I prayed to a god I no longer believed in, begging him to give my faith back.
Jacobsen: Wow.
Jackson: I spoke to God on a personal level. I truly thought I felt God in my heart, not understanding that that was my own compassion that I was showing myself. I truly thought that was God loving me, being there for me in my tough times, and I didn’t want to live with the thought of not being God’s child anymore – and losing God.
I was praying to a god I no longer believed in, to give me my faith back, because I was so lonely. After that, I didn’t feel God anymore. It took years to realize I was an atheist after that. I didn’t tell anybody. I didn’t believe anymore.
I stopped going to churches – sorry. I am choking up.
Jacobsen: It’s okay.
Jackson: I stopped doing things that normal Christian people do. I slowly stopped doing it. Then I had this fight inside me. I feared hell. I knew I was going to hell. I knew somehow the world had corrupted me.
This sounds crazy. Right?
Jacobsen: No, it doesn’t. It is telling me something very deep. Rarely, people lose complete worldviews at once. You’re describing emotional reactions that are still in place, but you’re consciously losing bit-by-bit. So, you lose the belief in God, but still have the belief in prayer – and the efficacy of it.
But when you lose that, you still had the belief in hell. So, the fear was still there. The way you ordered it was a fear I no longer had in God, but also, following that, was a fear of hell. So, I am noticing that bit-by-bit. It is almost like a jigsaw puzzle where you’re removing the pieces rather than an orb that just melts.
That’s not crazy.
Jackson: I was then scared when I realized I was an atheist. That, suddenly, I might start doing something bad because I don’t have any morality.
Jacobsen: Go to hell to morality.
Jackson: Absolutely. Why do I have compassion? God gave me that. I am going to hell, even though I stopped believing in hell. I couldn’t shake it. It was still there in the back of my mind. We live our lives as Christians.
When I take myself back to the mind frame, we live our lives for the afterlife. This doesn’t matter.
Jacobsen: What was the branch of Christianity?
Jackson: Southern Baptist. If everything is for the afterlife, why do anything for this life? It was an amazing transformation. I was a girl who helped other Christians. I volunteered at the church. I was a good girl.
To where I am now, where I help and run a one-on-one support group through Atheist Republic, we help people all around the world. We don’t have the resources unfortunately to pay a lot of money to help them with those needs.
We volunteer our time. We could be at the movies.
Jacobsen: Your Sundays are free now.
Jackson: [Laughing] That’s true. There is nothing that drives us to do that as far as a spiritual being is concerned. There is no reward that we will get from him. We know there is no physical reward for it.
We know we will be making the world a better place one person at a time. If we didn’t help someone out of a funk, we could find them resources for a doctor if they didn’t have insurance, or that an ex-Muslim is cared about by someone – right here, right now, let’s cry together. “
Tell me everything. For the first time in their lives, in their own country where they can’t tell anyone about their atheism, that changes their world.
Jacobsen: In the back of my mind, when you said, “This is bullshit,” I was thinking about the power of words. Of not only that, but of the spoken word for an individual, either to hear someone else say, “I don’t believe this,” or to say, “This is bullshit,” [Laughing] in more colloquial terms.
I feel as though religious authorities, and more religiously authoritarian countries, know this quite deeply. So, they label, as in Saudi Arabia, atheists as terrorists – or ideological threats [Laughing]. I think that one-on-one work is very powerful for a lot of people.
Jackson: That it is. I can’t imagine doing anything else. It is my true passion. It is what I love doing. I couldn’t imagine anything else.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (Op-Ed)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/02/01
An atheist family won in a recent discrimination case against Bowen island Montessori School in British Columbia, Canada.
The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal awarded $12,000 to the family based on a school’s actions where they “kicked out” a student’s parents. Bowen island Montessori School (BIMS) treated the couple differently because of their atheistic views. It was labelled discrimination by the BC Human Rights Tribunal because the school, as stated by the BC Human Rights Tribunal, “…treated them differently from every other parent at the school, and sought to suppress their expression of concerns about the nature of the curriculum that were grounded in their race, ancestry and religious beliefs.”
That is to say, discrimination for lack of belief in the prevailing mythology. The parents are Gary Mangel and Mai Yasué. The child was enrolled in 2014 and Mangel sat on the board of directors. Then the school wanted to know the way in which to celebrate the holidays properly.
One person recommended “clay elf ornaments.” But Mangel rejected this idea, as this, to him, promoted a Christian holiday. One asked if a Hanukkah activity may be better. But Mangel rejected this too.
Mangel was rather rude in the email correspondence:
I don’t think it’s appropriate to celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, or any other religious/political event at preschool (including Remembrance Day). [My child] is three years old… [and] cannot consent to being involved in decorating military wreaths or Christmas trees or lighting Hanukkah candles. Having the kids do these things seems inappropriate, given their absolute inability to understand the religious and political symbolism associated with those acts. As Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion) has written, there is no such thing as a Muslim, Jewish, or Christian, etc… baby/toddler/child. They are simply too young to be making these sorts of decisions.
Other board members argued the important of a “cosmic education” through the inclusion of different religious imagery included in the school’s curriculum, as this was important to the philosophy of the Montessori folks at the school.
Mangel stated that there should be “atheist Christmas ornaments.” Things escalated from there as Mangel wanted none of the celebrations while the board wanted as many as possible or, at a minimum, the major traditions to be represented.
No one changed their minds and the discussion was similar to a “reality TV show,” according to Mangel.
Things really came to a head when “Mr. Mangel responded, ‘I’ll sue them too’ and then began doing the Nazi salute and marching around while he sung a different version of O Canada in which he substituted his own lyrics.”
The arguments continued over the holidays. Then the school wanted the atheists to sign a contract that stated that “Multiculturalism, including the observation of a wide variety of celebrations is important to us.”
The atheists refused to sign it. Then the school took this as a basis to not re-enroll the daughter of the atheist parents. The atheists being belligerent was not the legal complaint but, rather, the response to the signing, i.e., the refusal to sign it.
BC Human Rights Tribunal member, Barbara Koenkiewicz, stated, “I find nothing in the evidence that could justify the refusal to register [the child] unless Dr. Yasué and Mr. Mangel essentially agreed that they would be significantly limited in their ability to raise issues about the cultural aspects of the BIMS program.”
The school was ordered to pay $5,000 per parent and $2,000 for the child/daughter.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (Op-Ed)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/02/01
According to Ron Millar in The Humanist, in an ideal implementation of the US Constitution, there would be zero formal or informal religious tests for public office. Indeed, this would not impact the politics of this powerful state actor.
However, one of the big taboos within American politics has been the idea of a non-religious, even atheist, candidate running for public office. Those atheists who run for public office remain rather brave in the face of the stigma and distinct prejudice against them.
However, Millar notes some of the more recent research is showing that there is a reduction in the former levels of the bias or xenophobia against non-religious political candidates. This is based on research done via a poll.
A poll conducted through the American Humanist Association (AHA) and the Centre for Freethought Equality via the Lake Research Partners with funding by the Stiefel Freethought Foundation showed some interesting or intriguing results.
As it turns out, there is a distinct improvement of the perception of the non-religious, agnostic, and atheist candidates within the electoral process. Thus, the atheist community, if wanting to run for political office, can begin to square off on a fairer, but not entirely even, playing field with religious candidates.
With the ongoing political costs throughout much of American history for any atheist political candidates, this became the basis for the need of the poll.
As stated, “A candidate in a very red district, where the last Democratic opponent received less than 20 percent of the vote against the Republican incumbent, said he couldn’t possibly identify as an atheist because he couldn’t afford to lose any more voters. He said he automatically lost voters by identifying as a Democrat, more since he is pro-choice, and even more with his support of LGBTQ equality.”
This becomes the grounds upon which atheist candidates lose out. Next, the survey was done. In fact, the survey showed data potentially heartwarming to some of the members of the Atheist Republic community living within the United States or looking at the American Empire from afar in one of our consulates.
In terms of the results of the survey or the poll by Lake Research Partners, 72% of the respondents stated that the atheism does not make a difference in terms of their vote. The “nontheistic, progressive Democrats in non-swing districts,” according to Millar, “should no longer feel hesitant to be public about their religious identity.”
In other words, the taboo is dropping relatively smoothly within the United States. This can be seen in some of the political campaigns.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (Op-Ed)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/09/21
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I hear arguments from different people on Islamic countries and people who live in them. Some argue for different standards for different beliefs and groups. If not in an explicit manner, then the implicit understanding in the conversation amounts to different standards for different people.
The conversations start with the general question about the judgment of people who live in Islamic countries. In these dialogues, the person may respond with a question, “Who are we to judge how people live in Islamic countries?”
Armin Navabi: We are their fellow human beings. Why does care for our fellow human beings have to be dependent on their location? Why does it have to be dependent on where they were born, their race, or how far or close they are to us? I do not understand the relevance of that. Pain is pain. Happiness is happiness. Our care shouldn’t depend on whether somebody is being starved, oppressed, discriminated against, tortured or killed next to us, or a thousand kilometres from us.
The suggestion that “I can help people who are close to me more than people far away” isn’t valid anymore. Our reach is now global, through social media, blogs, and podcasts. It is much easier than before to influence decisions of people miles away. Geography is not a barrier anymore. Language still is. And we are making efforts to break the language barrier as well.
In fact, given that you and I live in free countries, we might be able to make certain differences that people living in countries where our help is needed the most can’t. And the influence goes both ways. We all should seek to have our decisions influenced by global connectivity rather than just being influence makers.
They Need Your Voice
You live in a country where you could say whatever you want. People living in many Islamic countries do not. They do not live in a country where they can speak their minds. That is why you might be able to make a bigger difference in their lives compared to people close to you.
Too many people who enjoy freedom of speech, peace and security, gender equality, anti-discrimination laws, and gay rights don’t seem to want the same rights and freedoms for people in Islamic countries. It is so arrogant to suggest that we own these values. If implementing these rights and freedoms have proven to work, they should be implemented everywhere. The values behind the demand for such rights and freedom already exist and have been fought for, for hundreds of years. The difference is that these voices have been forced in the dark. That’s where we come in and shine the light on them.
Morally Superior
Many people who have inherited enlightenment values see themselves as morally superior without actually being responsible for the adoption of these values. They might claim “We came to these values ourselves. It is up to them do the same thing.” I call bullshit. There is no country, no idea, and no value that hasn’t been influenced by other countries, by other values, and by philosophers and thought leaders from different corners of the world. Europe was introduced to its own ancient Greek philosophers through the Arab Empire.
No group of people or country lies in a bubble. Of course, they are going to be influenced by foreign countries. And they are going to influence other countries.
The world is connected. If that was true a thousand years ago, how is it not a ridiculous expectation for countries not to influence each other today? If European countries’ enlightenment was due to the influence of foreign countries at that time, are we going to deny foreign influence to Islamic countries today?
Jacobsen: What about the people in Islamic countries who do not want to be influenced by other countries’ cultures?
Navabi: People who do not agree with these values should bring values they prefer and compete with the rest of us in the free market of ideas. If your values are superior for your country, you should be able to sell them and win in a free and fair environment where all arguments are presented. If you have valid arguments, you should not need to deny others the opportunity to introduce competing ideas. Let the people make their decision instead of speaking on their behalf.
That is how we respond to your shitty backwards barbaric ancient ideas. Because it works. We do not silence you. We compete with you. If your ideas are better, challenge us. If you think our ideas are too liberal, too empty of spiritual guidance, too empty of meaning, and provide no purpose to life, then I am sure your ideas are going to win. So bring it on.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (Op-Ed)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/09/20
According to Laughing in Disbelief, one atheist is bringing his own brand of atheism to the world of stand-up comedy.
There is a clip called The Lock In. In it, there is a discussion around the subject matter of atheism and God, and the connection with the youth world and dating arena for the young people. It is part of a larger special called Bad Comedy For Bad People.
In the synopsis of the special, it describes how Keith Lowell Jensen began a Twitter account for his daughter. It garnered an international audience: @MaxTheTiger. He did not expect international audience. One usually does not even expect a national audience with a Twitter account for a daughter, or for themselves for that matter.
As reported, “Then again, he probably never pictured having the “death talk” with li’l MaxTheNecromancer as his small, ardent atheist tried to Lazarus a froglet. And even that one wasn’t as odd as learning a thing or two from the comprehensive “sex talk” his wife and several organic, fair trade bananas laid on their nephew.”
With the latest release through Stand Up! Records, he talks about the ethics around homelessness and incarceration. The complexities around veganism and teenage depression. Then he slides into a monologue on the Civil Rights Movement and the music around it.
This then moves into speaking to the gay marriage and the issues of aging with hope for a “better, kinder, future.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (Op-Ed)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/08/19
According to Friendly Atheist, Faithiest, by Melanie Wilderman, has been transformed into a stage play.
In the report, the premise of the story is described as an atheist who is from Oklahoma. The atheist survives a tornado. Then the atheist blurts out that they do not believe in God. It is during a live interview on cable news. Her world begins to spiral out of control after that interview.
Apparently, this is a real story fictionalized. It happened to a real woman named Rebecca Vitsmun. Her real life story, in a fictionalized form, will be presented as a stage play in Oklahoma City. The author is a woman, Melanie Wilderman.
As stated, “A dramatic comedy, Faithiest tells the story of small-town Oklahoma school teacher Abigail Asher, a well-liked young woman respected as a dedicated educator, church volunteer, and all-around good person. But her standing in the community crumbles as quickly as the locals can yell, ‘It’s a twister!’”
With the tornado, the woman, Abigail, rescues some children and then is given national news coverage. It became an accidental reveal of personal atheist beliefs and convictions. After that confession, her friends and everyone else – even those in family – view her in a different light.
Now, the personal atheism gets blasted on social media. Abigail’s loved ones do not know how to feel about her anymore. It becomes a play of personal belief and then coping in the midst of the backlash against atheism.
The director, Rodney Brazil, stated, “The central theme of the play is being able to have those tough conversations with people that have differing opinions, people who aren’t going to change their beliefs…. (The play is about) being able to have a productive dialogue about those differences in belief without it causing an end to your relationship.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Republic (Op-Ed)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/06/30
Camille Beredjick announced a new book earlier in 2018 entitled Queer Disbelief. She was a former frequent writer for Friendly Atheist back in the day.
Beredjick wrote on the important topic of the rights of sexual orientation and gender identity minorities under the banner of LGBTQ rights.
As noted by the Friendly Atheist article reporting on the announced book, “The book was called Queer Disbelief and it was all about the LGBTQ and atheist communities: how they overlapped, where the comparisons broke down, how religion hurt (and helped!) LGBTQ people, and why atheists couldn’t ignore this issue.”
With June as Pride Month, the cost of book has been lowered now. It has been listed at only $9.99 in paperback version and $6.99 in Kindle. This deal, as per the month of Pride, will end at the completion of the month.
If you have not read it, and have a deeper interest in the LGBTQ rights, and the activism and writing of Beredjick, then you may want to take a look into it.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Miscellaneous (Unpublished)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): n.d.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is family background, e.g., geography, culture, language, religion or lack thereof?
Anonymous Reverend: My parents, my father and mother, both from Japan. So, it is totally Japanese. Of course, they were born in Japan. I have a father, mother, and two younger brothers. My father, he became a Nichiren Shōshū Buddhism sect priest when he was 12.
My mother was a Nichiren Shōshū believer. They got married. They had three brothers. My brother is a Nichiren Shōshū Buddhism sect priest. So, Nichiren Shōshū is establishment by Nichiren. He is also Japanese.
It is almost 800 years ago. His teaching is based on the Lotus Sūtra taught by Shakyamuni Buddha in India. So, following the Nichiren Daishonin Buddhism, but the Nichiren Daishonin Buddhism based on Lotus Sūtra’s teaching, why use the Lotus Sūtra?
Because Shakyamuni Buddha taught in Lotus Sūtra. The Lotus Sūtra is his true purpose of his teaching. Nichiren Daishonin followed the Lotus Sūtra teaching in this era. In original Buddhism, Shakyamuni Buddha taught his teaching affecting next to 2,000 from his era.
So, Shakyamuni Buddha was born almost 3,000 years ago. So, from now, almost 3,000 years ago, he taught that there would be a new Buddha for this world using this Lotus Sūtra. Prediction, he did.
Nichiren Daishonin competed with the prediction and realized: he is the Buddha of this era. That’s why he established this Nichiren Shōshū Buddhism sect continuing until now. My father is a Nichiren Shōshū Buddhsim sect priest. My mother is a Nichiren Shōshū Buddhism sect believer.
That means that they pass this down to the children. My two brothers and I became Nichiren Shōshū priest. Our whole family is Nichiren Shōshū believers. That’s my background.
Jacobsen: Following from the last question, how have these factors influenced personal life and views? Some which you have touched on in the previous response.
Anonymous Reverend: Because my father is a priest of Nichiren Shōshū. He teaches many things to me. Of course, it is based on Buddhism’s teaching. I remember once him teaching me, “You should think of the next three steps for any occasion.” If you think, for example, of a conversation, and if you say something, he will say a response.
So, I should say something based on the answer. Every time, we should think of the three steps in the near future. Then you will, naturally, follow the proper way. It is why the Buddhism idea, especially in Buddhism idea with cause and effect.
If you make some cause, it will have some effect. That effect also becomes the future causing into more effects. My father, every time, taught about the three steps to think about with decisions.
My view has many influences from Buddhism teachings. One point in Buddhism. It teaches oneness of the individual, the environment, and the neighbourhood. If you focus too much on yourself, if you ruin a relationship, then it is not making a good result.
Of course, you are important, yourself, as an individual. But also, you should be polite with others. Then you will be making more comfortable the environment for you. It will bring many benefits to you.
Not only, like, selfish, but be polite with others. That is what Buddhism teaches too. Many of my personal views or ideas consist of Buddhism teachings.
Jacobsen: As a reverend of the Nichiren Shōshū Temple, what tasks and responsibilities come with the position?
Anonymous Reverend: Priest means becoming a disciple of the High Priest of the Nichiren Shōshū Temple. Only one person can be the High Priest for Nichiren Daishonin. Nichiren Shōshū Buddhism sect founded and then passed down to 67 high priests.
I am his discipline (67th High Priest for Nichiren Shōshū). My purpose is protecting this Nichiren Shōshū Buddhism sect. One idea is propagating Nichiren Shōshū teaching to others.
I think it is part of my work as a priest. One more thing, I am the Chief Priest of this Nichiren Shōshū Temple in Vancouver. I have to protect in running this temple. I am kind of the owner of the temple and protector of the worship in this temple.
It is to protect this temple. Another important mission is guiding or teaching, or educating, or encouraging, the Nichiren Shōshū Temple’s members. As a Chief Priest, I will conduct the morning and evening service every day [Ed. I was permitted to sit in the member seats and watch one of the services with Reverend Kurosawa and his assistant performing the service.]
I will have ceremony for the weekend. Also, I will teach to members the Nichiren Shōshū Buddhism sect. The teaching is about the faith and practice of Nichiren Shōshū. Especially for faith and practice, it is important to practice yourself, not only the priest.
All members are required to do the morning and evening service daily, and to chant, “Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō.” Also, another point, our Buddhism, the important point of the practice is teaching to others.
It is an important practice. I encourage our members to try to teach or tell others about our Nichiren Shōshū Buddhism sect. If you can teach to many members, then that person will become new Nichiren Shōshū believer.
In that way, somehow, in the end, we can spread Nichiren Shōshū Buddhism sect. We can achieve world peace through propagating Nichiren Shōshū Buddhism sect. As a Nichiren Shōshū Chief Priest, my mission is like that.
Jacobsen: Religions and ways of life, or both, come with a view on life following through the practices. What is the outlook on life for the Nichiren Shōshū Temple sect of Buddhism?
Anonymous Reverend: I think it is a little similar with members. We teach to members, as Nichiren Shōshū Buddhist. Of course, we require daily doing faith and practice. You should see this as a way of life, as a Nichiren Shōshū Buddhist.
Of course, it is morning and evening service daily. The idea is because through the service. You should pray to the Buddha for a safe day in the morning. Then after finishing the day, at the evening service, you should pay debt of gratitude to the Buddha.
It should make proper scheduling for your daily schedule. It will bring you a more proper lifestyle. Also, as a Nichiren Shōshū Buddhist, our purpose is propagating Nichiren Shōshū Buddhism sect to the whole world.
It is aiming at world peace. Why does world peace need propagating? Because if everyone’s idea is different, of course, they will fight each other on ideas [Laughing].
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Anonymous Reverend: In Buddhism, of course, as you know, we shouldn’t kill people. In Buddhism, because Shakyamuni Buddha, you shouldn’t kill people. We completely follow this way. You cannot kill people.
This will get you bad karma. It will, somehow, come back you, because you made a bad karma. In general, people, why do they think we shouldn’t kill people? Because many people will say, “Because it is set by law.” Why does law say that?
Because of other common things. People thinking that we shouldn’t kill people. It means: if the majority people thinking, “We can’t kill people,” then it becomes law in the community. It means people’s common sense will make the law, not law making the people’s common sense.
Where is the common sense from? We are thinking of the religious teaching. We are bringing the people for common sense. I think following Buddhism’s teachings will propagate to people proper common sense.
That’s why if everyone has proper humanity sense. If that’s getting majority, then, following that, our environment too; that means, this society, community, or this city. If all over the world, then it will achieve world peace.
Jacobsen: As I experienced, what does a community event, service, or ritual look like?
Anonymous Reverend: Community event, as a temple, we provide everyday service [Laughing]. Every Sunday, we are conducting the ceremony. Mainly, it is for members. It is open for any community person.
But if you want to join, then you can come any time [Laughing].
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Anonymous Reverend: Also, particularly, we have an open house every second Saturday of each month. We invite a community sit-in, or we are posting on the internet or somewhere for an open house. At the open house, we some class.
For example, next month, we have food art demonstration.
Jacobsen: It sounds delicious:
Anonymous Reverend: [Laughing] it is cultural class every month. We have it. Next month, we will have origami. Do you know origami?
Jacobsen: Yes, some of these things are extraordinary.
Anonymous Reverend: We have something every month for fun. The purpose is teaching art or teaching to people what we are as a Buddhism temple in here. Also, sometimes, we have a talk event, a speaker. Once, I had one on Broadway, in one of the libraries in Vancouver.
I had a talk event. I talked about the seed of happiness through the Buddhism teaching. Once, I had a similar event at the Bowen Island with some of our members – maybe 10 or 20. Also, I am remembering the Springtime.
Every year, as you can see, you can bus into Surrey City Centre. They have a curriculum about learning about religions. In one of their programs, they have to do the visiting some temples there and then make a report.
This year, 3 or 4 students separated and came into our temple. They visited and joined our service. I think that they made a report for that. It is [Laughing] a community event, I think.
Jacobsen: How is the integration with the larger culture of British Columbia for Nichiren Shōshū Temple?
Anonymous Reverend: The culture in Vancouver area, or in British Columbia. It is very open, their mind. I think that’s because many of the residents here; they are immigrated from different countries. Canada had this celebration of 150 years not too long ago.
Jacobsen: Only a 1-year difference between Canada as a modern state and Japan as a modern state.
Kurosawa: It is very new. Many people have different backgrounds. Many immigrants make this community in Vancouver or British Columbia. It means that they have to live together with different ideas and backgrounds.
It means that they cannot bring only their own ideas or own cultures to others. So, people have to accept each other, especially the differences. We should understand the differences. When I or our members try to teacher to the people, they are listening about our Buddhism.
Even if they come from a different background, of course, I don’t think the Buddhism background is the main here. Most is Christian. But they listen about the Buddhism and try to understand.
They try to understand our Buddhism. I think that is very positive, how they open to the ideas. It is very important to tell people of our faith and practice, our Buddhism. Canada is very important for us, this environment. I think even the majority of the background is Christianity. But now, they are getting more variety and different kinds of background.
Still, there is a big opportunity for us to propagate and spread our Buddhism. I am feeling this is a good environment for Buddhism too.
Jacobsen: What are some joint activities with other faith/non-faith groups in the larger community?
Anonymous Reverend: There’s no specific yearly event or something. But I talked about the speaking engagement. We, sometimes, talk about having the community event in the temple, library, or somewhere.
Of course, that’s SFU students. I try to contact with UBC. They have some religious group. It is a Centre for Buddhist Studies. It was to speak on campus. It is in-progress. It is not something that we have done in full yet.
It is to see if students are interested in coming out and speaking. It is growing every year [Laughing]. I am sure there will be one.
Jacobsen: For those who are reading this, as a side note, this is the only Nichiren Shōshū temple of this sect in Canada.
Anonymous Reverend: Yes, if I may comment, it is the Japan head temple [Laughing].
Jacobsen: There are over 600 temples.
Anonymous Reverend: Every temple is regulated by the head temple. We can ask the head temple, officially. They have a department as an organization for the Nichiren Shōshū Temple. In North America, we have 6 temples.
There are so many other countries with Nichiren Shōshū temples. It is similar in Japan with its largest in Tokyo with 10,000. In Taipei, in Taiwan, they have the biggest membership with the 20,000 members.
They have so many members and so many strong believers. They have so much experience.
Jacobsen: If I remember in the English translation of the prayer book today, there was one statement about “True Buddhism.” Does this particular sect represented through the temple, and yourself, consider this the true practice and the true Buddhism?
Anonymous Reverend: We call this teaching the true Buddhism because we completely follow the teaching of Buddhism. That’s our logic. Because our founder Nichiren Daishonin teaches everything follows the Lotus Sūtra.
Why following everything with the Lotus Sūtra and not the previous sutras? Shakyamuni Buddha taught this is the true purpose of his teaching, which means that if we follow Buddhism or Shakyamuni Buddha. It means following Lotus Sūtra.
Not as many kinds of sutras, even though, he taught 1,000 to 10,000 sutras in his 40 years teaching. He said this Lotus Sūtra is the true teaching. In this following the Lotus Sūtra as the true teaching, we say this is the Former, Middle, and Latter Day of the Law.
It was also set by Shakyamuni Buddha. Shakyamuni Buddha Era and the next 1,000 years is called Former Day of the Law. The next 1,000 years is called the Middle Day of the Law. The next 1,000 years called the Latter Day of the Law.
It is his prediction. Nichiren Shōshū Daishonin come and match with the prediction’s conditions. He realizes that he, himself, is the next era’s Buddha. He established the reliance on the Lotus Sūtra and teaching with a little adjustment for our era’s conditions.
That’s why we are thinking these teachings are the true Buddhism teaching because we know many other Buddhism sects. They are following their own sutras. Their sutra is true teaching. But it is not much for us.
Because Shakyamuni Buddha taught to many people. It is not many people’s teaching to just get the sutra, as historical. That sutra is not for that person, for different people, and at that time. If following that sutra, like a similar idea is a doctor giving a prescription to the patient to take a medicine, then it will go down.
But we cannot take other people’s medicine. We should take for us – a proper prescription. Shakyamuni Buddha also taught this Lotus Sūtra is useful after those 2,000 years. It means the Lotus Sūtra can only be our prescription as a Buddhism teaching.
That’s why we particularly call the Lotus Sūtra the true teaching.
Anonymous Reverend: Any final feelings or thoughts in conclusion?
Anonymous Reverend: As a conclusion, it is important, for us, to propagate our Buddhism and to ensure Nichiren Shōshū Buddhism sect teaching will help people be happy because through proper Buddhism practice. You can overcome negative karma.
You can raise your life condition. If many people understand the proper view of humanity through Buddhism teaching, then society will get more peaceful minds. Then our final aim and goal is propagating our Buddhism, and the appearance of world peace.
So, of course, many religious teachings, there are so many teachings trying to teach people how to solve problems. We have to face many problems or obstacles, simply living our lives. Buddhism teaches because of this world condition or this humanity condition. It is a lower level, so not our mistake.
The world is a condition as aging is a condition. We have to accept this world is full of suffering. You have to face suffering once you are born into this world, e.g., getting illness even as you try to get healthy.
Even a very healthy person, they can get a cold. Even in the end, you have to accept your passing. Everyone will die; you will die. Everyone has that kind of condition with good karma. But people following good karma without understanding the idea.
People cannot just follow. In Buddhism, we teach that we can change our karma through faith and practice. Which means, if we can provide that opportunity to many people, you can change something in your life.
It will be better for many people to get opportunity, even a little bit. If you have an opportunity to get a little bit better life condition, it is not only learning through study or something. You have to experience that.
Because knowledge is not enough for changing your actual life. You have to take action after you learn something. Buddhist teaching, especially Nichiren Shōshū Buddhist sect teaching. You have to take action, not just get knowledge.
If you take action, then you can change your lifestyle. Many people change to a better way. It can ensure world peace is truly possible to achieve.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
Anonymous Reverend: Thank you so much, it is a good opportunity for me.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2023/01/26
Tooking Assdance: PeerI lookmy mecook youpair you’recool yourkook indownoutup at the tempête of the jejune juju; askance lookat.
See “me”.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/11/15
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Are there any civilizations or periods in which humanist beliefs were simply not present in any way?
Dr. Herb Silverman: I think Humanist beliefs and values have always been present in every society, long before Humanism was defined. Many people have been and are humanists who hadn’t heard of Humanism. I used to be one of those people, as I suspect most Humanists were. Unfortunately, Humanism has not and does not dominate most cultures (think Nazi Germany, and authoritarian regimes today).
Jacobsen: It claims Humanism as a culmination of these traditions of meaning, ethics, and reason. What does Humanism shed from other less effective traditions in the light of this culmination mentioned?
Silverman: Humanism sheds religious beliefs based on so-called “holy” books written thousands of years ago. Many well-meaning religious people pick and choose from their preferred ancient book and ignore embarrassing parts. They haven’t taken one addition step of rejecting their holy book and treating it as any other book where we keep the good parts and reject the bad parts. A friend who supports gay marriage pointed out that that the Bible has countless passages about social justice and only five that condemn homosexuality. He didn’t have a good answer when I asked how many condemnations of homosexuality it would take to reverse his position. Humanists don’t have rules etched in stone. We have principles and values written on paper, and some of our ideas might change through a continuing process of observation, learning, and rethinking. Reason usually hasn’t been present in religious traditions, and our ethics sometimes change as we learn more about how better to interact with and treat others.
Jacobsen: As science is an epistemology and technology is ethically neutral, but comes out of discoveries from science, they followed in the footsteps of the other declarations about never using science and technology “callously or destructively”. How important is this note for human wellbeing and the species’ survival?
Silverman: Science and technology can be used wisely by Humanists, while considering human values. I first thought about this as a child when I read about Frankenstein (an example of science and technology gone haywire). We need to use science and technology to enhance human well-being, not simply because we have the technical know-how. Though we have lethal weapons, we should try to avoid using them. We should promote peace and peaceful negotiations whenever we can. I consider myself a pacifist, except for World War II.
Jacobsen: They emphasize something dear to me: The pursuit of a creative life. To me, this is core. I value the pursuit of creative and enjoyable pursuits of open discovery more than most things. For a life of fulfillment, have you found any limits in humanists known to you?
Silverman: I think some Humanists can be too woke for me. Some insist that everybody proclaim which pronoun they identify with, and they criticize those who say “Black” instead of African-Americans. Those who try to restrict people from using language that others might find offensive should know that the antidote to offensive speech is your free speech right to rebut. I think Humanists acting too woke can be counterproductive when we try to bring others into the Humanist camp. I’m also concerned when Humanists publicly criticize other Humanists unfairly. One recent example is when the American Humanist Society took back the 1996 award to Richard Dawkins as Humanist of the Year, mostly because they disliked some of his tweets that they felt demeaned some marginalized groups. I think Dawkins has done more to bring atheism and humanism to countless Americans than any other individual. If the AHA stopped respecting Dawkins, they could just not give him any more awards. Such public rebuke, in my mind, was unconscionable.
Jacobsen: The declaration ends on a fourth point. This is a shortlist, but comprehensive: ethics, rationality, fulfillment, and alternative meaning (signification) and purpose. They mention Humanism as an antidote to “dogmatic religion, authoritarian nationalism, tribal sectarianism, and selfish nihilism.” This is a full list. The demands on oneself are high with Humanism, but humane. That’s what I gather from this. The building of the better world is a recognition of both human refinement by oneself and others, and human fallibility to make mistakes and then to work to be better the next time around. How do you view this fourth point, especially in relation to the other points about ethics, rationality, and fulfillment?
Silverman: I especially agree with the point that all humans, including Humanists, are fallible. That is why we try to learn from our mistakes, exchange ideas with other Humanists and people who are not (yet) Humanists. We can learn from others and sometimes change our own ideas. I like when this happens to me. By sharing our values with others, I think we can help build a better world.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/01/20
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: “Would You Be My Neighbour?” is named in honour of an advocate of kindness, fairness, and compassion in the United States: Fred Rogers. I posed this as a collaborative series while kept with core conversations between you and me. In short, we have discussions, invite guests, and publish the results. The ‘blue collar’ is ignored for the ‘white collar’ academicism of secular humanist thought; the human rights activism can triumph in attention due to its grand intents over daily acts of magnanimity. What is the hope or expectation in this collaborative endeavour for the ongoing work together in this series for you?
Dr. Herb Silverman: I guess I’m considered a “white collar” rather than a “blue collar” person because I am an academician who enjoys philosophical discussions about secular humanism. In truth, I’m a “no collar” person, since I mostly wear T-shirts that I got from running in races, or T-shirts that I wear to promote secular humanism. I agree with you that we need to expand our base and find ways to reach the “common man” and “common woman,” many of whom are humanists who have never heard about humanism. A limited way I engage with such people is through common interests in other areas, including concerns about the environment, civil rights, education, health, and charity work. I often try to bring humanism into the conversation, showing why it is consistent with the issues they care about. My expectation in this collaborative effort is to hear how others are reaching out to potential humanists and then try to follow their lead.
Jacobsen: If we take the perspective of future directions, we can explore some of the more high-falutin’ material within secular humanist philosophy, while grounding this in the item of most import to me: The banalizing of it, making it everyday, humdrum, ordinary, normative. What are some topics of interest to you? Those with which every secular humanist must become acquainted to protect the way of life, the lifestance.
Silverman: What every secular humanist needs to know is that our U.S. Constitution grants us freedom of religion, which must include freedom from religion. When religion is discussed in public, it’s okay to say we have no god beliefs. We should not belittle the religious beliefs of others. That is not the way to make friends and influence people. Better to be a role model based on what we do, rather than what we say.
Jacobsen: Who is dead, but would have made a great guest? Why them?
Silverman: Christopher Hitchens, whom I had the pleasure of knowing, would have made a great guest. He was a member of the Advisory Board of the Secular Coalition for America. He could discuss and give good arguments on just about any subject. His book, god is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, deservedly became a best seller. A lesser known but terrific book of his is The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. Hitchens was a true contrarian, with a sharp wit, who could easily get to the heart of the matter. One of his best known quotes, referred to as “Hitchens’s razor” is, “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” I hope Hitchens wasn’t thinking of my autobiography, published in 2007, when he said in 1997: “Everybody does have a book in them, but in most cases that’s where it should stay.” In 1992, long before Donald Trump decided to run for president, Hitchens commented about Trump, “Nobody is more covetous and greedy than those who have far too much.” Richard Dawkins said of Hitchens, “He was a polymath, a wit, immensely knowledgeable, and a valiant fighter against all tyrants, including imaginary supernatural ones.”
Thomas Paine, from a much earlier era, would have been a very good guest. Paine has a claim to the title “The Father of the American Revolution,” due to his inspiring pamphlets, especially Common Sense. In 1776 it was the all-time best-selling American title and aroused the demand for American independence from Great Britain. Many phrase in Common Sense became part of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. In The Age of Reason and other writings, Paine argued against institutionalized religions in general and the Christian doctrine in particular. He thought that Deism should replace all revelation-based religion. At the time, as well as now, such words were rather unpopular among Christians and politicians. I visited the Tom Paine Printing Press in England, and purchased a framed quote of his that now hangs on my condo wall: “My country is the world. My religion is to do good.” If I could talk to Paine today, I would ask if he would have switched from Deism to atheism in light of what we now know about evolution and the Big Bang, showing that no creator was necessary.
Jacobsen: Who might embody the ordinariness of a secular humanist philosophy to you?
Silverman: The many “nones,” people who are religiously unaffiliated. They are the fastest growing “religious” demographic in the U.S. They are not all secular humanists, but a significant percentage are and many others are secular humanists without knowing it. A lot of “nones” have examined the available evidence and stopped believing in any gods.
Jacobsen: For those who might be interested in this new educational collaborative discussion series, what would be your statement or enticement for them to join us?
Silverman: I think it is a good idea for us to collaborate and pick up new ideas and ways of explaining things about secular humanism. It is always beneficial to communicate with other secular humanists. We inspire one another in our work to improve society.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Silverman.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/01/05
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: With the large number of manifestos, one of the larger documents is A Secular Humanist Declaration (1980). What was Kurtz’s intention behind such a comprehensive statement of Secular Humanism?
Dr. Herb Silverman: Paul Kurtz’s Secular Humanist Declaration (1980) described why democratic secular humanism has been a powerful force in world culture, and what we can do to fight anti-secularist trends posed by religion. Kurtz explained why the separation of religion and government is essential and why we needed to oppose the shackling of any type of free thought. He supported trust in human reason and compassion, rather than in divine guidance or untested superstitious beliefs. Kurtz promoted following the best science available. Paul Kurtz’s greatest strengths were his abilities to found and grow organizations, including the current Center for Inquiry (formerly named the Council for Secular Humanism). He will be remembered as perhaps the most significant force in the second half of the 20th century supporting secular humanism and the ability to live a good life without religion.
Jacobsen: Also, as a short aside, what was Kurtz like as a person – behind the curtain so to speak?
Silverman: I first met Paul in the early 1990s at a meeting of the Council for Secular Humanism (CSH), and I became a regional director of CSH. It was the only nontheistic organization I had known about, and its fine magazine Free Inquirywas the only publication I knew that supported living a good and reasoned life without religion. Prometheus Books, another creation of Paul Kurtz, was the only publisher I knew that was devoted to books about Freethought. I think Paul’s greatest weakness was his less than enthusiastic willingness to play well with others he saw as competitors. Kurtz became upset with me when I joined the board of the American Humanist Association (AHA). Both CSH and AHA seemed to be fine organizations worthy of my support, but I soon learned about their divisive history. Kurtz had been on the board of AHA and was the editor of The Humanist magazine, published by AHA. After Kurtz and the AHA parted ways in 1978, on less than friendly terms, Kurtz founded the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, the Council for Secular Humanism, and the Center for Inquiry. When I helped found the Secular Coalition for America in 2002, Kurtz wanted no part of it. He tended to view with suspicion any organization he didn’t lead or create. Shortly after Kurtz left CSH, they joined the Secular Coalition for America. I was pleased when, in 2007, the AHA, at its annual conference, presented Kurtz with its Humanist Lifetime Achievement Award, which I think he richly deserved.
Jacobsen: One of the main emphases of American Secular Humanism has been freedom of speech. In other countries and at the United Nations, this gets labelled as freedom of expression in legal documents and human rights stipulations. The fundamental idea here seems as if the free inquiry, which is the first idea presented in A Secular Humanist Declaration – a document founded well before I was born. Why is free inquiry the first point made in such a document by a pillar of the intellectual history of Secular Humanism?
Silverman: First, Free Inquiry was the magazine that Paul Kurtz started, so you would expect his document to emphasize free inquiry. Commitment to free inquiry means we tolerate diversity of opinion and respect the right of individuals to express unpopular beliefs. Of course, all views should be open to critical scrutiny. The premise is that free inquiry is more likely to lead to truths with a free exchange of ideas. This applies to science, as well as to politics, economics, morality, and religion. Free inquiry also necessitates recognition of civil liberties, which include freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of and from religion. Neither states nor religions may impose a religious doctrine on people.
Jacobsen: With the Trump Administration over, another poignant point made by Kurtz was the separation of religion and state, what have been some more aggressive moves in various states in the United States of concern and hammering home the points made by Kurtz once more?
Silverman: Currently, one of the most aggressive moves against separation of religion and government is in the state of Texas, which wants to allow a woman who has an abortion or someone who performs an abortion to be charged with assault or homicide, a crime punishable by death in the state of Texas. Other states have passed bills that greatly restrict a woman’s right to an abortion. The Supreme Court is also imposing a set of religious views on the rest of the country, like insisting a fetus is a person from conception. Our courts and our democracy face a crisis of credibility.
The good news is that many Americans are abandoning organized religious institutions. The “nones,” people who describe themselves as atheists, agnostics, or “nothing in particular,” has risen to 29 percent in America. The Make America Great Again crowd appeals to the nostalgia of a 1950s-era White Christian America. Before he ran for president, Donald Trump favored abortion rights. He changed to get the support of White Evangelical Christians, who rely on the politics of grievance and resentment. Rather than trying to expand its base, the Republican Party is passing restrictive voting and voter suppression laws in different states, and looking for ways to allow Republican-controlled state legislatures to throw out the results of fair elections. This attempt to turn the United States into a Christian authoritarian regime is a grave threat to the secular democracy that Kurtz wrote about.
Other similar concerns include adoption and foster care service where taxpayer funding is going to some faith-based institutions that discriminate against same-sex couples. School voucher programs are funneling taxpayer money to private religious schools that can be exempt from civil rights laws protecting minority faiths, atheists, and LGBTQ students. Tax-exempt nonprofit organizations, including churches, are not allowed to endorse candidates. With Donald Trump’s “blessing,” during his administration many churches endorsed candidates with no negative consequences to the churches. Using public funds to support religiously based discrimination violates the Establishment clause of the US Constitution and the civil rights of those who are denied access to government services. To promote separation of religion and government, we need to ensure that government money is made available only to programs and institutions that provide religiously neutral services without discrimination.
Jacobsen: What is critical intelligence? How is this an important part of living an ethically good life via Secular Humanism?
Silverman: Secular humanists are much more than just atheists, those without a belief in any gods. A secular humanist generally has a positive outlook on life, the view that we can do good and make a difference in our one and only life. Secular humanists recognize that ethics was developed as a branch of human knowledge long before religionists created moral systems based on divine authority. Some early developers of ethics include Socrates, Democritus, Epicurus, Erasmus, Hume, Voltaire, and Kant. They felt that ethical judgments are independent of revealed religion, and that we can apply our intelligence, reason, and wisdom to achieve the good life. For secular humanists, ethical conduct should be judged by critical reason, and the goal is to develop autonomous and responsible individuals capable of making their own choices in life based on an understanding of human behavior.
As Bertrand Russell said, “A good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.” I’ll close with two quotes from Robert Ingersoll, the Great Agnostic: “The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray.” And, “Reason, observation and experience, the Holy Trinity of science, have taught us that happiness is the only good, the time to be happy is now, and the way to be happy is to make others so.”
Jacobsen: What should be the contents of a moral education without supernaturalism?
Silverman: The real question is: What should be the contents of a moral education with supernaturalism? I see no realistic answer. We live in a natural, not a supernatural, world. We can make up the supernatural, and somehow bring morality into it. But that is just a fantasy, and people have a wide variety of supernatural beliefs.
Moral development should be promoted in children and young adults by public schools dealing with these values independent of religion. Children should learn about the history of religious moral practices, but they should not be indoctrinated in a faith before they are mature enough to evaluate the merits for themselves. A moral education makes use of the scientific method, which is the most reliable way of understanding the world. Science and technology have improved the human condition. They have had a positive effect on reducing poverty, suffering, and disease in various parts of the world, in extending longevity, and in making the good life possible for more and more people. And while technology can be good, we should not accept what we see on the Internet without evaluating it critically.
In comparing religious and secular morality, we should ask whether it is right to stone homosexuals and disobedient children to death or whether it’s okay to beat people you own as property. If you don’t think it’s moral to do these things, then your moral principles do not come from holy books.
Jacobsen: Kurtz synonymizes religion and supernaturalism in the point about religious skepticism. How are they the same? Are they different? If so, how so?
Silverman: Religion and supernaturalism have much in common. Most religious people believe in a supernatural deity. However, not all religions believe in the supernatural. I belong to three different religions: American Ethical Union, with Ethical Culture Societies; Society for Humanistic Judaism, with atheist rabbis; and the UU Humanists. All three religions are nontheistic and active participants in the Secular Coalition for America. I’ve also met people who claim not to be religious, but believe in supernatural things like astrology, psychics, and crystals.
Jacobsen: What is reason, properly defined, in a secular humanist philosophy?
Silverman: Reason, for secular humanists, is the use of the rational methods of inquiry, logic, and evidence to develop knowledge and test truth claims. Since humans are prone to err, future corrections sometime need to be made. There are no dogmas in secular humanism. Though our reasoning isn’t infallible, we think reason and science make major contributions to human knowledge and intelligence. Reason has led to the emancipation of hundreds of millions of people from a blind faith in religion and has contributed to their education and the enrichment of their lives.
Jacobsen: How does evolutionary theory present a robust support for a secular humanist philosophy and ethic compared to religious ethics based on interpretations of holy scriptures or holy books?
Silverman: The theory of evolution is under attack by religious fundamentalists, who would like to see creationism taught in schools. A scientific theory like evolution or gravity is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through observation and experimentation. From Darwin on, countless peer-reviewed scientific papers have supported evolution. We wouldn’t have expected scientifically ignorant writers of so-called holy books who lived thousands of years ago to have described the theory of evolution, DNA, or any discovery of modern science, and they didn’t. Evolution is controversial, but the controversy is religious and political, not scientific. Some religions feel threatened by evolution because it contradicts the creation story in Genesis. Even though there is a Flat Earth Society, we don’t teach the flat/round controversary in science class. Creationism should no more be taught as an alternative to the theory of natural selection than “stork theory” should be taught as an alternative to sexual reproduction. Creationism is an alternative to Zeus or Krishna, not Darwin.
As secular humanists, we recognize that we are a highly so
cial and cooperative species. We have evolved to have an innate sense of empathy as a survival mechanism, coupled with thousands of years of experience creating and maintaining complex societies. We have learned what behaviors are best at keeping our species functioning smoothly.
Jacobsen: What might an education broader than simply critical intelligence, moral education, and defining what is and what is not Secular Humanism, to encapsulate Kurtz’s ideas of a “melioristic” form of educational mindset?
Silverman: Meliorism is the belief that the human condition can be improved through concerted effort, and that we have an inherent tendency toward progress. This fits in well with Kurtz’s view on democratic secular humanism, where we look forward with hope rather than backward with despair. We are committed to extending the ideals of reason, freedom, individual and collective opportunity, and democracy throughout the world. The problems we will face in the future, as in the past, will be complex and difficult. Secular humanism places trust in human intelligence rather than in divine guidance. Secular humanists approach the human situation in realistic terms, holding human beings responsible for their own destinies. We believe it is possible to bring about a more humane world based on reason, tolerance, compromise, and negotiations of difference.
Jacobsen: What does this 1980 document seem to get right and appear to miss?
Silverman: I agree with just about everything in the document, possibly with one minor exception: “This declaration defends only that form of secular humanism which is explicitly committed to democracy.” While I certainly favor democracy, I can picture a country with a benevolent dictator who is a secular humanist and supports human rights. Since secular humanism continues to evolve with new information and evidence, an update to the 1980 document should probably address climate change, racism, sexism, and LGBTQ rights. I would also add suggestions on how secular humanists can improve the quality of their personal life, which includes physical activity, a good diet (perhaps vegetarian), getting enough sleep, reducing stress, and having a sense of humor with lots of laughter.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Silverman.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2021/12/12
Scott Jacobson: I am reminded of Isaac Asimov, “I prefer rationalism to atheism. The question of God and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism. Thus, you don’t have to waste your time in either attacking or defending.” It is about a scholasticism in the sense of coming to a rational comprehension of human irrationality, as found in the religions old and new. Are there any other positive outcomes in the study of the world religions, especially in the most sympathetic and objective light?
Dr. Herb Silverman: As much as I respect Asimov, I disagree somewhat with his saying that objects of faith play no part in rationalism. It depends on what you mean by “rationalism.” To me, it’s about using facts and coming up with a reasonable conclusion based on those facts. For instance, a person could say the following. Fact: My goal in life to be happy. Fact: I can only be happy believing that I will have an eternity of bliss when I die, and therefore, it only makes sense for me to believe I will have an eternity of bliss. This person makes a logical and rational argument to maintain his belief. He will not suffer negative consequences in this life, nor will we be able to convince him that his afterlife belief is wrong. When Asimov says he prefers rationalism to atheism, I would say atheism for me was a natural outcome of rationalism. I don’t think it is a waste of time to defend atheism when so many people attack it. I like to give thoughtful arguments defending my beliefs or lack thereof, and discuss with theists their beliefs and how they came to them. In terms of positive outcomes in studying world religions, I think it’s important to learn what other people think, and why. Theists who study world religions might begin to question why their religion is correct (usually the religion in which they were raised) and all the others are wrong. As well, while studying world religions, we might also see a lot of positives in them (like various versions of the Golden Rule), and a reason why we should treat all humans with respect, even if we think some of their beliefs are nonsense.
Jacobsen: How can empathy and reciprocity be improved in social relations at the individual level?
Silverman: It helps if we try to look at any situation from the other person’s point of view. As members of a highly social and cooperative species, we can recognize that our innate sense of empathy evolved as a survival mechanism. That, along with thousands of years of experience creating and maintaining complex societies, enables us to know what sort of behaviors best keep societies functioning smoothly. I must acknowledge that “tit for tat” is one of the most effective means for survival—treating others the way they treat you. This often encourages others to be as nice to you as they want you to be nice to them.
Jacobsen: To a scrolling creationist making criticisms of reciprocity in human life, as if against principles of selection in nature, so attempting to use straw men of evolutionary thinking to country evolutionary arguments empathy and reciprocity, any response? As I am sure, you must have come across these phenomena before.
Silverman: Many creationists are not interested in what you think because they claim to be so sure that they are right. They only wish to impart their “knowledge” to you. Some of them do not want to wear masks or get vaccines because they believe their god will save them from disease, despite so much contrary evidence. If we can find common ground with creationists on some issues, we might be able to encourage them to hear our point of view.
Jacobsen: What do you consider the most valuable contribution to the secular humanist community in your life?
Silverman: In my life, it was finding out that secular humanists exist and are now out of the closet. I had been a secular humanist most of my life without having heard of the term until people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson criticized it. So, I knew it must be a good thing. When I ran for governor of South Carolina in 1990 to challenge the provision in the SC Constitution that prohibits atheists from becoming governor, I heard from a number of atheist and secular humanist groups about all the worthwhile things they were doing. I proudly became part of that movement of people who are good without any gods.
Jacobsen: Will the gap ever completely close for God of the gaps arguments to stop?
Silverman: I doubt it. There will always be a “god of the gaps” argument because there will always be gaps in human knowledge. When science solves a problem, new questions often arise from that problem. Darwin’s Origin of Speciesanswered many god of the gaps questions. When gaps are filled, the remaining gaps for God keep getting smaller. We now know that lightning is an electrical buildup and discharge in the atmosphere, and that earthquakes are shifts in the plates of the Earth’s crust. An interesting modern example of complete ignorance came from Bill O’Reilly on Fox News when he said that tidal movement was an unexplained phenomenon, implying that God willed the oceans to move. We have known for centuries that tides are caused by the gravitational interaction between the Earth and its moon, and we can say in advance when it will occur. One of my favorite quotes, long before the phrase “god of the gaps” was used, comes from the physician Hippocrates: “People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don’t have any idea what causes it. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it’s divine. And so it is with everything in the universe.”
Jacobsen: How are private post-secondary evangelical Christian universities contributing to this culture of Trumpism or a post-Trump administration, and the sense of besiegement against white Christians in America? A personal and collective sense, amongst themselves, of losing the country. When, as a Canadian looking onwards, America is meant, or should be seen as, for every citizen of the nation, so when one group sees themselves as losing, then everyone loses, because of seeing themselves as a group apart from the whole and deindividuating into a mass, and in resentment and hostility, which seems nationally self-destructive in the long-term (if kept up).
Silverman: When Donald Trump used the phrase MAGA (Make America Great Again), he was probably hearkening back to growing up in the 1950s when Blacks “knew their place” and white Christianity was privileged and viewed by many as America’s religion. Even though our godless U.S. Constitution prohibits favoring one religion over another or religion over non-religion, it was true that the majority of citizens at that time were white Christians. Times have changed, and Christian nationalists are upset by changes that have happened to the country.
We know that many religious universities do not teach subjects like evolution, which conflicts with their religious agenda. Even worse, some religious universities have political agendas, including the well-known Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. Its former president, Jerry Falwell Jr., considered it immoral for evangelicals in 2020 not to support President Trump, adding that Trump could do nothing to lose his support. Falwell was later forced to resign the presidency because of a sex scandal. He hadn’t objected previously to Trump’s sex scandals.
Today, minorities are demanding and receiving some of the equal rights they deserve. We certainly are not yet where we should be, but I think we are moving in the right direction despite Trump and his followers. In the 1950s, in my home state of South Carolina, there were separate water fountains for white and black people. And black people were expected to step into the street to let a white person pass on the sidewalk.
Jacobsen: What specific programs and benefits can help poor schools attain greater equity with the rest of the nation, e.g., decent nutritional programs for kids to have energy and to be able to develop strong minds and to have clarity of mental life, etc.? I ask this as a practical example of secular humanist ethics for those who may benefit the most from it.
Silverman: No school needs to be deficient in any way—enough examples of successful schools exist throughout the country. Students and teachers need adequate resources. When state and local governments make having good schools a specific, primary goal, they allocate adequate tax funds, hire enough competent teachers for smaller-size classes, and have needed counselors. Residents of state and local communities choose what kind of schools they will have, by electing candidates who will or won’t support excellent education for all students, regardless of race or economic level. Education is the tide that lifts all boats and addresses most societal problems.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Silverman.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2021/04/23
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I want to take an interlude session into unifying evolutionary ethical frameworks as exemplified in part, in Humanism. Some religions ignore the parts of brutality, cruelty, bigotry, and supernatural superstition, only focusing on the Golden Rule. Some turn into postmodernist philosophers, they ramble off into incoherency and don’t make any sense, while puffed up and self-proud as a cock (rooster) on a dunghill. What are some of the paths Humanism could evolve into the future?
Dr. Herb Silverman: It may be true that just about all religions have some version of the Golden Rule about treating others as you would want to be treated. And a version of this can also be found in almost every ethical tradition, with no gods necessary. In my Jewish tradition, the first century BCE Rabbi Hillel was allegedly asked by a prospective Jewish convert to teach him the entire Torah (Hebrew Bible) while standing on one leg. Hillel replied, “That which is hateful to you do not do to your neighbor. The rest is commentary.”
Some equate the Golden Rule with the rule about loving your neighbor as yourself. The problem arises with who we consider our neighbor. In the Hebrew Bible, neighbors were the “chosen” people, other Israelis. Jews were supposed to kill outsiders on their way to the Promised Land. Today in America, many White Christian Nationalists view only their fellow Christians as neighbors and so justify discriminating against non-white immigrants.
Another problem with the Golden Rule is that some people may not want to be treated as we want to be treated. Our values may be so different that the Golden Rule makes no sense. For instance, some fanatics have no aversion to death, so the Golden Rule might inspire them to kill others in suicide missions. For humanists to live by the Golden Rule, we mustempathize with other people, including those who may be very different from us and might want to be treated differently.
When you mentioned “dunghill,” I thought of Thomas Jefferson, who in many ways (but not all ways) was a humanist. As he correctly pointed out, there are some words of wisdom in the Bible, but I agree with Jefferson when he referred to them as “diamonds in a dunghill.”
When you ask for paths where Humanism could evolve in the future, I think Humanism is a philosophy that is continually evolving. That’s why we have had three Humanist Manifestos, and will undoubtedly have additional “manifestos” as we learn more about how better to live ethical lives, along with new scientific discoveries.
Jacobsen: Continuing from the previous question, there are areas in which Humanism is a laundry list of principles rather than a unified ethical framework. Such a framework in which it can continually, dynamically evolve while maintaining its former evidentiary coherence, in fact, many of the declarations are such listings. Do you think that there are ways Humanism can be more compact, more unified, showing how its principles interact with one another to create a whole other than a simple titular stamp: “Humanism”?
Silverman: A compact way to talk about Humanism is to describe, without a laundry list, its basic principles, which serve as guidelines for how we should live. Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that also aspire to the greater good of humanity. We are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change, and ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience, along with a greater knowledge of the world. Humanists are guided by reason and inspired by compassion.
Jacobsen: Are there any parts of Humanism that you think should just go, not be there? I believe you had some qualms in earlier variations of declaration with the inclusion of supernatural versus atheist or non-theist as an appeasement to some who couldn’t quite stomach a complete rejection of the impossibility of the gods.
Silverman: I know some good people who can’t stomach a complete rejection of the existence of gods. They may act in a lot of ways like humanists, leading ethical lives and aspiring to the greater good of humanity. I just don’t like the god baggage that might go along with it. I can’t prove there are no gods. An atheist is simply someone without a belief in any gods, and I think we should not claim to be guided by imaginary beings. That’s why my brand of Humanism is atheistic. I can’t prevent the Pope from calling himself a humanist because he supports immigration, opposes wars, and accepts that humans are partially responsible for climate change.
Jacobsen: Human rights and democratic ideals feature prominently in the humanist lifestance. Are there any particular weaknesses in the claims of human rights, as said in the formal documents of human rights, or in the principle of majority rule (adult age majoritarian voting rule)?
Silverman: The notion of human rights is a modern concept from the 18th century Enlightenment, not from ancient times when the Golden Rule was first quoted. Thomas Jefferson incorporated such “inalienable rights” into the U.S. Declaration of Independence. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 was a milestone for its universalist language, which recognizes that all humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights regardless of nationality, place of residence, gender, national or ethnic origin, color, or religion.
I do have some problems with majority rule, especially if we have an uneducated populace, and leaders (dictators) decide who constitutes voters. After all, Adolf Hitler came to power in a democracy in 1933. Not that it is any way comparable, but democracy may not be working so well in the U.S. now, with many Republicans trying to make it difficult for some African Americans to vote. So, I must agree with Winston Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
Jacobsen: In the moral philosophy of Humanism, as in some things can never be known, others partially known now, while others known with a reliably high degree of accuracy. Sometimes, there’s tons of information; other times, there’s little; still others, we have, basically, none, and may never have any data to inform the ethic, which would make ethical decisions solely grounded in the lattermost equivalent to a base-level faith-based moral decision-making frame of reference (that which we try to avoid at all costs).
Silverman: When it comes to what we know and don’t know with a reliable level of accuracy, I usually look to science. I recently read a wonderful new book by Jeff Hawkins called, A Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence. It compares our old reptilian brain to our new mammalian brain (the neocortex), with implications for moral behavior.
I’ve been in debates with Christians who insist that objective morality must come from God. My contention is that we don’t know if there is such a thing as objective morality but, if so, we are coming closer to it by learning more about human nature and what works best for individuals. We often learn this through science or experience, not through ancient “holy” books. We need to be careful when we talk about what we know, and, even more important, about what we don’t know. To quote Mark Twain: “What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know. It’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Silverman.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2021/03/03
Scott Jacobson: Fundamentally, what is the difference in a philosophical stance representing evolutionary changes even to ethical founding documents compared to others declaring foundational texts as complete and comprehensive for all time with nothing ever capable of edit, as in Quranic theological orientations – can’t edit it – akin to the necessity of acceptance of the resurrection of Christ in Christianity? In short, what makes foundational evolution of an empirically informed ethic better than an unchanging asserted morality in centuries-old texts?
Dr. Herb Silverman: Evolution made it possible for us to become Homo sapiens (humans), though my DNA shows that I am 3% Neanderthal. Charles Darwin felt that a difference between Homo sapiens and other animals is our moral sense. He said that our enhanced ability to cooperate may be the most significant distinction between us and our closest evolutionary relatives. Such cooperation, along with concern for others and a sense of fairness, may be the basis of morality in humans. Since evolution works so slowly, I don’t think we can relate evolution to how moral behavior differs in humans today, often based more on philosophical or theological differences.
You ask why our empirically informed ethic today is better than an unchanging, asserted morality in centuries-old texts. Science is empirical and thrives on disagreement and on a willingness to question assumptions critically, while we search for evidence until a consensus is reached. Centuries-old texts, often called “holy” books, were written by scientifically ignorant men. Their ideas of ethics included discriminating against gays, not allowing women to have responsible positions, punishing blasphemers and heretics, and advocating for holy wars. Tying our principles to unchanging, dogmatic religious text makes no sense. Morality, to us, involves using available evidence to help decide what actions might be for the greater good of humanity. We base our ethics on what we learn from human experience, which includes the efforts of thoughtful people throughout history who have worked toward achieving their ideals. We also know that some of our values might change as our knowledge and understanding advances.
Jacobsen: For those points brought forward, “sport or physical activity, non-human intelligence, the environment, and non-Western sources within the humanist tradition,” what seems like the relevance of each to the potential next edition of the declaration?
Silverman: I’ll address your question of “sport or physical activity” here. The other parts (non-human intelligence, the environment, non-Western sources) are asked about in your other questions, so I will answer those later.
Regarding sport or physical activity, I think we should encourage people to remain active for as long as they can. Playing sports, preferably non-contact, can be fun and help us keep a sound mind and body. At 78, I no longer play sports, but I exercise a lot. I walk a few miles every day with my wife, Sharon. We also lift weights or swim several times a week. What I don’t like to see are so many people who only watch others play sports. When a professional player on their favorite team hits a home run or scores a goal, they congratulate each other, as if they themselves deserve credit for it. Being active in sports (and in life) is beneficial; being passive is not.
Jacobsen: Would you add anything else for consideration to such a new Amsterdam declaration?
Silverman: I would add more suggestions on how humanists and others can improve their quality of life. In addition to physical activity, we could mention the importance of having a good diet (perhaps vegetarian), getting enough sleep, reducing stress (perhaps through yoga, meditation, or other relaxation techniques), and having a sense of humor with lots of laughter.
Jacobsen: What is the core of human intelligence? What seem like the prospects for non-human intelligence and the possibility for rights (and responsibilities) applied to non-human operators? Prominent humanists, e.g., Isaac Asimov, posited science fiction ideas of positronic brains, and the like, exploring ideas like these well before the current crop of humanists.[4] These likely have been stewing since that time, potentially even more so in the Computer Age.
Silverman: Human intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Intelligence has evolved in animals, perhaps many times. We must not forget that non-human animals can also be intelligent. Thinking about other intelligent animals causes some humans emotional distress because they may eat these animals or use them for neurobiology research.
When it comes to robots, perhaps one day they may be designed to have consciousness, and we will deal then with those implications. Isaac Asimov wrote science fiction stories about robots with a positron brain that functions as a central processing unit and, in some unspecified way, provides these robots with a form of consciousness recognizable to humans. I loved Asimov, who was president of the American Humanist Association from 1985 until his death in 1992. But keep in mind that his wonderful scientific fiction robot stories were still fiction. I hope one day we will have conscious robots, but I don’t expect to see that come to pass in my lifetime.
Jacobsen: What makes the environment a core necessity as this time, especially with the ongoing climate crisis temporarily overshadowed by the coronavirus pandemic?
Silverman: I think even now that the ongoing climate crisis should not be overshadowed by the coronavirus pandemic. The pandemic will pass, but the climate crisis might never pass, only get worse. The scientific consensus at the moment seems to be that we need scientific breakthroughs and global cooperation to avoid a catastrophic rise in temperatures and climate disaster.
Jacobsen: Something which I consider important is the inclusion of non-Western, even Indigenous, proposals into the humanist canon formally. How can proposals provide neither a negative view on Western-based Humanism nor a rejection of the current mostly Western-based Humanism, but an expansive global Humanism inclusive of the tastes, sights, sounds, flavours, and unique manifestations of Humanism seen around the world?
Silverman: We tend to focus on Western culture and assume that other cultures should behave more like us. Perhaps sometimes they should, and sometimes they shouldn’t. We need to learn more about these cultures and watch how they interact with others, including with us.
One of my most memorable experiences was being a Visiting Mathematics Professor for a semester in 1987 at the University of Papua New Guinea in Port Moresby. My colleagues there treated me very well. Over eight hundred languages are spoken in Papua New Guinea, reflecting the isolation of its many tribes. Not only were most students at UPNG the first in their families to go to college, they were the first to leave their village tribes. Part of our mission was to persuade students not to continue their ongoing tribal disputes at the university, avoiding the “payback” system in PNG. A tribal member at the university explained to me how the payback system worked. If a member from Tribe A killed a member from Tribe B, a designated member from Tribe B could legally kill any member from Tribe A. If he killed more than one member, “payback” would again kick in. Fortunately, the university was a payback-free zone.
In the late 1920s and early 1930s, Australian explorers discovered the highlands of PNG, home to roughly one million people who had never before encountered Europeans. In a video I saw of this “first contact,” one PNG woman said they thought white people were gods, but changed their minds after having sex with them. Women in PNG were treated unbelievably poorly. Village men typically resided in a house, while women and pigs (yes, pigs!) lived together in a shack behind the house. Both women and pigs were sold or used for barter, the woman/pig ratio depending on the quality of both the women and the pigs. (This, of course, does not apply to men and women at the university.)
The country was teeming with missionaries of all kinds. Most tried to improve the lives of the inhabitants, usually accompanied by attempts at religious conversion. I hope missionaries now have become more humanistic than when I was there. At the time, I asked one priest why he deplored the practice of bare-breasted women, but said nothing about wife beating, which was legal there. He told me they couldn’t change everything that was wrong in the country, and bare breasts were a good place to start. Shortly thereafter, the university held a beauty pageant with five participants, four of whom were bare breasted. When I saw that the primary judge was this same missionary, I confidently predicted the winner to my colleagues. After the breast-covered woman won, my colleagues showed an undeserved respect for my powers of judging beauty.
Jacobsen: The second Amsterdam declaration (2002) or the Amsterdam Declaration 2002 posited a number of core values.[7] Its foci are ethics, rationality, ethical, “democracy and human rights,” “that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility,” a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion,” “values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art,” and “a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment.”[8] Non-dogmatic principles for being in the world. These are so in line with cosmopolitan global values and positive scientific uses more than almost any other philosophical system known to me. As our ethics advance more and more, how do the more faith-based ethics appear in comparison year-by-year?
Silverman: Assuming faith-based ethics is not an oxymoron, I think more and more people are adopting our improving humanist ethics. This is especially true of younger people, most of whom no longer believe that homosexuality is a sin, willingly accept transgender people, think men and women should be treated equally, and agree that no law should prohibit abortion under all circumstances.
Jacobsen: What is the ultimate fate of religious ethics?
Silverman: Probably there will always be people who follow what they consider to be religious ethics. I hope most of those people will have a religion that allows them the flexibility to follow their own conscience, without being restricted to following everything in a book that was written thousands of years before. I have no problem with nontheistic religions, all of which seem to be humanistic.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Silverman.
Silverman: Thank you.
References
American Humanist Association. (2021). Definition of Humanism. Retrieved from https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/definition-of-humanism/
Grudin, R. (2020, October 22). Humanism. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/humanism
Humanist Canada. (2021). What is Humanism?. Retrieved from https://www.humanistcanada.ca/about/humanism/
Humanists International. (1952). Amsterdam Declaration 1952. Retrieved from https://humanists.international/policy/amsterdam-declaration-1952/
Humanists International. (2002). Amsterdam Declaration 2002. Retrieved from https://humanists.international/policy/amsterdam-declaration-2002/
Humanists International. (2021). What is humanism?. Retrieved from https://humanists.international/what-is-humanism/
Humanists UK. (2021). Humanism. Retrieved from https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/
Memory Alpha. (2021). Positronic Brain. Retrieved from https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Positronic_brain
United Nations. (n.d.). Indigenous Peoples at the United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/about-us.html
Footnotes
[1] Grudin (2020), Humanist Canada (2021), Humanists UK (2021), American Humanist Association (2021), and Humanists International (2021).
[2] Humanists International (2002) and Humanists International (1952).
[3] Humanists International (2002).
[4] Memory Alpha (2021).
[5] United Nations (n.d.).
[6] The letter in full as follows:
I send as an independent proposal and through filtration of the Aboriginal Committee of Humanist Canada. In other words, I send this based on prior correspondence alongside feedback caveats from the Aboriginal Committee of Humanist Canada, of which I am a part, in addition to personal justifications and qualifications before too. This amounts to the formalized presentation, numerically ordered (not by importance), of the caveats from Humanist Canada’s Aboriginal Committee and myself. The document below entitled “Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Formal Recognition in the Global Humanist Movement” implies global democratic Humanism before comprehensive consultation with the international Humanist indigenous and tribal peoples diaspora should:
1. not speak for indigenous or tribal peoples in general;
2. not speak for indigenous or tribal peoples who are humanist;
3. not take this draft statement as a declaration, resolution, or policy;
4. take this as a statement of reflection and consideration for the global democratic body of Humanism to seriously consider endorsing established international documents like the UNDRIP; and
5. further serious reflection on the inclusion and furtherance of consultation and dialogue with humanist groups around the world in bringing in feedback from and having consultation with the humanist indigenous and tribal people diaspora in the “over 70 countries” and beyond?
I drafted the below alone – taking full responsibility for negative and positive implications of its presentation to Humanists International – with feedback (with minor alterations) from the Aboriginal Committee of Humanist Canada:
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Formal Recognition in the Global Humanist Movement
Indigenous and tribal peoples continue to muster and garner deserved recognition in international institutional and rights documents, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) from September of 2007 and the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169 (Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention) from 1989, and, by the nature of Humanism, deserve formal recognition in the global democratic Humanist movement too.
Global democratic Humanism marches forward in its greater moves towards a true representation of the vibrant fabric of the human species with more nations, peoples, and flavours of Humanist communities accepted into the international community in a formal manner in spite of the short period ebbs and flows of theocracy and secularity, authoritarianism and democracy, xenophobia and inclusivity, superstition and science, and, indeed, supernaturalism and naturalism. An oft-neglected sector of the international community comes from minorities within minorities. One such sector of the global humanist movement emerges in the context of indigenous and tribal peoples throughout the world. More than 370 million indigenous and tribal people exist in over 70 countries in the world based on estimations of the International Labour Organization (ILO). Those indigenous and tribal peoples recognized in international rights documents including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in September 2007, and the ILO Convention 169 (Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989). Together considered the highest standards and singularly comprehensive international instruments available to the indigenous and tribal peoples throughout the world in the defence of their most basic human rights, in particular, with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the oldest and most general. When Humanism enters into the practical applications of daily living and ordinary recognition in a global democratic movement and capacity, Humanists International performs a fundamental role in this regard, especially as its evolution incorporates previously unheard voices and unseen faces. For the full flourishing of the global Humanist movement, indigenous and tribal peoples throughout the world who adhere to the principles of Humanism deserve recognition and support at the international level. This instantiates the first formal effort as such, in the tradition of global democratic Humanism.
We recognise:
· the Preamble stipulations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) on “the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women,” “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations,” and with special emphasis on Article 1 stating “all human beings are born free and equal,” Article 2 stating “everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms… without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status… [or] on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs,” Article 7, Article 15, Article 18, Article 20, Article 22, and Article 28;
· the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169 or Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (1989) subjective and objective criteria for the inclusion as indigenous peoples or tribal peoples within an international context in Article 1, and with special emphasis on Article 2, Article 3, Article 5(a) and 5(b), Article 6(1)(a), Article 7(1), Article 27(1) and 27(2), Article 28, Article 29, Article 31, Article 34, Article 35, and Article 36;
· the Amsterdam Declaration (2002) affirms the “worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual,” “human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government,” “Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents,” and “Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment… [and] can be a way of life for everyone everywhere.”
· the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) in full.
We support:
· the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948);
· the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169 or Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (1989);
· the Amsterdam Declaration (2002); and
· the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007).
Suggested academic reference
‘Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Formal Recognition in the Global Humanist Movement’, Humanists International, General Assembly, Miami, United States, 2020
The Reconciliation with indigenous peoples (2000-11) for Australia represented a generic and national, not international, statement.
[7] “Amsterdam Declaration 2002” states:
- Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction.
- Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the world’s problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends.
- Humanism supports democracy and human rights. Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right. The principles of democracy and human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government.
- Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society, and recognises our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world. Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination.
- Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. The world’s major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time, and many seek to impose their world-views on all of humanity. Humanism recognises that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process. of observation, evaluation and revision.
- Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art. Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment.
- Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our times. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere.
Humanists International (2002).
[8] Ibid.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2021/02/09
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The Amsterdam Declaration (1952) was another huge stepping stone in the development of Humanism within the earlier discourse of modern secular freethought. Before asking those main questions, I had a side question important to this educational series, actually two. You seem like a great person to ask these questions because of the longevity of leadership in the movement and the efforts at collaboration and unification of efforts through the Secular Coalition for America. First, how much does the development of empirical philosophies create a basis for modern formulations of Humanism, instead of a straightforward focus on eudaimonia, the humanities, moral education, and the like? I understand Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of Humanists UK and the President of Humanists International, has spoken on the spotted nature of Humanism in the historical record akin to the manner in which Professor Noam Chomsky speaks of Anarchism as a philosophical trend in the history of human thought and action. As in, no one owns them, as they, Humanism or Anarchism, amount to facets of human nature (to one degree or another) and, therefore, express themselves without regard to the culture or the geography, merely transforming superficially while manifesting the same fundaments.
Dr. Herb Silverman: As I understand the question, you are asking if I more favor empiricism or eudaimonia when it comes to Humanism. To answer, I’ll first define the terms as I understand them.
Empiricism is a theory that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. Empiricism is a fundamental part of the scientific method, which requires that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting on intuition or revelation.
Eudaimonia describes virtuous activity in accordance with reason, which gives us happiness and pleasure. To illustrate, if you’re a doctor, you should excel at healing people; if you’re a philosopher, you should excel at gaining knowledge and wisdom. Of course, each person plays many roles in life, and by excelling in all of them one achieves eudaimonia.
As to whether I favor empiricism or eudaimonia, I can say confidently—that depends. If I want to look at scientific questions, empiricism is the way to go. But I don’t think everything should be viewed through a scientific lens. Aesthetics, without science, makes sense to me. Different people can find different pleasures using only reason. For instance, not everyone might think like I do that my wife, Sharon, is the most wonderful person in the world.
Of course there are times that empiricism and eudaimonia work in combination. To illustrate, empiricism is used to help find a vaccine for Covid-19. Then an individual can make a rational choice to take the vaccine to safeguard his or her health, and this expresses eudaimonia.
Jacobsen: Second, I have worked to bring together some of the voices in Canadian Humanism in one voice with some group discussions, so to speak, e.g., “Humanism in Canada: Personal, Professional, and Institutional Histories (Part One)”[1]. The series incorporated the leadership voices of most of the secular organizations in Canada, i.e., at the time: Cameron Dunkin as the Acting CEO of Dying With Dignity Canada, Dr. Gus Lyn-Piluso as the President of Center for Inquiry-Canada, Doug Thomas as the President of Secular Connexion Séculière, Greg Oliver as the President of Canadian Secular Alliance, Michel Virard as the President of Association humaniste du Québec, Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson as the Vice-President of Humanist Canada, and Seanna Watson as the Vice-President of Center for Inquiry-Canada. As far as I am informed on the issue, that’s a first. I have been interviewing a large contingent of the ex-Muslim community within Canadian society. In the midst of them, in March of 2019, something occurred to me. So, I decided to write down the idea succinctly for an article for News Intervention. I made a proposal in “An Immodest Proposal: International Coalition of Ex-Muslims (ICEM)”[2]. I was informed by a British colleague the International Coalition of Ex-Muslims[3] was formed in early 2020, about a year after the proposal. It’s hard to track the history of these things because it can be a bubbling in communities of the same ideas and then the formulation of them into a convergent creation of an organization. Also, a single proposal can be the source of the formation of these things. Nonetheless, they’re there, present, and active. Why was the Secular Coalition for America a necessity to bring together a larger contingent of secular voices?
Silverman: Scott, I’m so pleased that you are working to bring the voices in Canadian Humanism together. However, I doubt that you can get them to speak with just one voice, except on selected topics. Humanists speak with many voices and have a lot of opinions on countless topics. That’s one way humanists are different from some religious cults.
I do think most humanists would agree that humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment for the greater good of humanity. Humanism also promotes democracy, civil liberties, human freedoms, separation of religion and government, and elimination of discrimination based on race, religion, sex, age, or national origin. Humanists respect the scientific method and recognize that we are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change, and that ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.
You asked about the importance of bringing a large contingent of voices together within the Secular Coalition for America. In 2002, I helped form the Secular Coalition for America, whose mission is to increase the visibility of and respect for nontheistic viewpoints, and to protect and strengthen the secular character of our government.
Our 19 national member organizations cover the full spectrum of freethought. Members don’t argue about labels. People in the Coalition call themselves atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, whatever. They cooperate on the 95% they have in common, rather than bicker about the 5% that might set them apart. Interestingly, four of the member organizations are classified as religious (nontheistic). They are American Ethical Union (with Ethical Culture Societies), Congress of Secular Jewish Organizations, Society for Humanistic Judaism (with atheist rabbis), and UU (Unitarian Universalists) Humanists.
All the Secular Coalition member organizations have strict limits on political lobbying, so the Secular Coalition incorporated as a political advocacy group to allow unlimited lobbying on behalf of freethought Americans. The Secular Coalition also collaborates with organizations that are neither theistic nor nontheistic, like the American Civil Liberties Union, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. It cooperates on some issues with theistic organizations, like the Interfaith Alliance, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, and Catholics for Choice. Working with diverse groups provides the additional benefit of gaining more visibility and respect for our unique perspective. Improving the public perception of freethinkers is as important to many of us as pursuing a particular political agenda.
Jacobsen: To the first Amsterdam Declaration (1952)[4], it opens starkly on “an alternative to the religions which claim to be based on revelation on the one hand, and totalitarian systems on the other.” What made these post-WWII ideological reflections important on secular fundamentalism in totalitarianism and in religious revelatory fundamentalism? Something of a third alternative to the loggerheads of the aforementioned.
Silverman: We have to remember that this 1952 document was written during the Cold War, and represents an alternative to both religions based on revelation and totalitarian regimes like the atheistic Soviet Union. Not that there is anything wrong with atheism, but it should not be government-sponsored or imposed. The document promotes ethics and the right of the individual to the greatest possible freedom of development compatible with the rights of others. Such a third way opposes religious indoctrination and totalitarian regimes. It advocates the creative use of science with humanistic principles.
Jacobsen: The framers of the Amsterdam Declaration (1952) did not view Humanism as a sect, but as an eventuation of long traditions of thinkers leading to the scientific revolutions of the time. They continued, “Ethical humanism unites all those who cannot any longer believe the various creeds and are willing to base their conviction on respect for man as a spiritual and moral being.”[5] How does this point connect to the previous response about science, in a 20th century understanding and development, relate to this mid-20th century stipulation?
Silverman: I think we all agree that science should play an important role in the life of an ethical humanist. Sometimes, though, there is a question about where ethics come into science. One example is the use of nuclear power, which generates about a fifth of our nation’s energy supply. Nuclear energy reduces greenhouse gas emission and produces far less waste than conventional energy. On the other hand, nuclear fuel and waste are highly radioactive, which can pose many threats to public health and the environment. I favor the use of nuclear power, though I know many humanists who don’t. I don’t think scientific research should be restricted, even though certain findings might eventually cause harm. It is up to those in the field to discuss and help us decide how we can use science for good, which is not always easy.
Also, I don’t like some of the terminology used in 1952, for example, respect for “man,” rather than for “people.” And there is confusion when we call ourselves “spiritual.” I understand that some humanists define the word “spiritual” in ways that make them comfortable, but I leave that word to religious people believing in “spirits” who inhabit an unseen spiritual world.
Jacobsen: The five principles mentioned democracy, creative uses of science and not destructive uses of science, Humanism as ethics, personal liberty above tied to social responsibility, and cultivating ethical and creative living.[6] These seem, at a minimum, in part or on the whole, 68 years ahead of their time and more needed than ever. Now, we may have mentioned this before with the statements on Ethical Humanism as a faith, etc. The ways in which this was removed in later formulations of the various declarations of humanists with the most recent moving as far as a rejection of supernatural. In fact, I would extend the previous opinion. These are still far ahead of their time in the reach and
implications. The ideals of the Rennaissance permitted to a small coterie of individuals could become something to relish for a not-insignificant minority of people. So, more to the point, if you reflect on these five principles, what are some cases in the end of the Trump-Pence Administration and the transition into the Biden-Harris Administration showing the greater necessity of humanist values, simply as formulated in 1952?
Silverman: I agree with eliminating the word “faith” from the definition of ethical humanism. I must confess, though, that I once had a bumper sticker that said, “I have faith in reason.” There is no question that the Biden-Harris Administration is a giant leap forward in support of these humanist values. Democracy took a hit under President Trump when he failed to concede after he lost a fair election, and encouraged his supporters to riot. Trump also supported some undemocratic and authoritarian regimes, including Russia, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea. Trump’s actions have emboldened other countries, including Myanmar, China, Rwanda, Iran, and Turkey to violently silence campaigns, causing global democracy to backslide.
President Biden, in his short time in office, has reversed many of Trump’s executive orders, which includes recommitting to the US Paris Climate Accord, rejoining the World Health Organization, and promoting racial equality in health care and other areas. Biden also signed orders to halt construction of Trump’s US-Mexico border wall, reverse Trump’s environmental deregulation, affirm the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival Program (DACA) that protects from deportation people brought illegally to the US as children, and create a task force to reunite migrant families separated at the border. Biden reversed Trump’s 2017 travel ban that targeted primarily Muslim countries. Biden repealed a ban on transgender people serving openly in the military and he expanded protection of LGBTQ people around the world by revamping the offices at the State Department and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which supports LGBTQ rights. He also re-established the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and directed agencies to make decisions on the best available scientific evidence.
These actions of the Biden-Harris administration are consistent with the 1952 principles of ethical humanism. Though President Biden is a religious Catholic, he tries to separate religion from government. I hope he includes secular voices when he does interfaith outreach. Biden’s Catholicism seems to be grounded in social justice, rather than exclusively in church doctrine, which is why he has been criticized by conservative Catholics for some of his positions, like a woman’s right to choose.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Silverman, we will cover the 2002 version of the Amsterdam Declaration in the next session.
Silverman: Thank you
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/12/09
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Humanist Manifesto III (2003) provided a succinct manifestation of modern Humanism. In turn, this both represents a more well-understood philosophical stance and a more concise statement as to the core of the concept “Humanism.” In this interview, I want to cover some of the modern conceptualizations of modern Humanism, as an evolution from 1933 to 2003. What was the inspiration for this updated document?
Dr. Herb Silverman: The updated third document was expected, as was the updated second document, without knowing in advance what dates they would come. The first Manifesto was written in 1933, the second in 1973, and the third in 2003. Similarly, the founders who wrote the US Constitution understood that their document was not perfect and allowed for future amendments. As we learn more about the world and best practices for humans, we update manifestos. After all, these manifestos are written on paper by humans, not written on stone tablets by an alleged deity. There undoubtedly will be a fourth manifesto, but I can’t say when.
Jacobsen: What does “without supernaturalism” mean in the context of a “progressive philosophy of life”?
Silverman: “Without supernaturalism” means no belief in any gods. It also includes no belief in reincarnation or magic crystals, not fearing black cats crossing your path or dread of Friday the 13th or the number 666. A rabbit’s foot or knocking on wood does not bring good luck. In other words, no superstitious beliefs of any kind. So we need a philosophy of life without superstition. One can have such a philosophy without being a progressive, but the humanist philosophy incorporates progressivism. It is based on the idea of progress, incorporating advances in science and technology, and advocating for social reforms and social organizations, all vital to improve the human condition.
Jacobsen: How does negating consideration of the supernatural change thinking about “our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity”?
Silverman: Most people want to lead ethical lives, but folks disagree about how best to do it. Some rely on so-called “holy” books written during the Bronze Age by scientifically ignorant men. Their ideas of ethics might include discriminating against gays, beating disobedient children, not allowing women to have responsible positions, punishing blasphemers and heretics, and advocating for holy wars to capture land promised by “God.” Being free of the supernatural, we can use available evidence to help decide what actions might be for the greater good of humanity.
Jacobsen: Why are the core principles of Humanism reason, compassion, and experience? Why is non-dogmatism, as in “values and ideals… subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance,” a key distinction from most religious stances?
Silverman: As with most people, humanists appreciate the ability to reason. Part of what we want to do with our reason is learn how to help make the world a better place. This entails empathizing with others and showing compassion toward those less fortunate than ourselves. We learn from our mistakes and, hopefully, improve on how best to act. When tied to a never changing, dogmatic, religious book, principles become more difficult to change or improve.
Jacobsen: It stipulates “consensus of what we do believe” as part of the orientation of the document. How does this universality differ from the other ethics devoted to the transcendent? How does this universality still permit individual deviance of expression?
Silverman: Humanists are not all required to believe the same thing, which explains individual deviance of expression. However, there does seems to be a consensus about certain things that most humanists agree on. They include these beliefs: Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis; humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change; ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience; working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.
“Transcendent” usually refers to religion, where a transcendent god has powers independent of the material universe and outside of nature. Some people feel they have experienced transcendence by overcoming the limitations of physical existence through things like prayer, meditation, psychedelics, and paranormal visions. Such transcendent experiences, which can’t be measured, do bring some comfort to many people.
Jacobsen: Why is science “the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies”? What is a “critical intelligence” in this sense? How does freedom of thought work better, or more freely rather, in this humanistic framework?
Silverman: Science is empirical, meaning based on observations of nature, and it is potentially falsifiable by new observations of nature. In other words, new evidence can lead us to revise scientific theories. We know how to distinguish good scientific ideas from bad ones. Science relies on experimentation, testing, and skepticism. It thrives on disagreement and on a willingness to question assumptions critically, while we search for evidence until a consensus is reached. That’s why scientific truths are the same in Pakistan, the United States, Israel, or India, though their citizens may have very different religious beliefs. And scientists will change their views when the evidence warrants. To me, critical intelligence means we should carefully and critically examine our reasoning and our conclusions to eliminate errors. We should be free to pose any questions, regardless of how counter they are to what others might think, and then try to provide answers based on evidence.
Jacobsen: Why do humanists posit “nature as self-existing” rather than existing contingent on some transcendent object or metaphysical being?
Silverman: There is absolutely no evidence for a transcendent object or metaphysical being, and we have a pretty good understanding of nature through Darwin’s theory of evolution. We know how nature can exist without the need of a transcendent object or metaphysical being.
Jacobsen: How does limiting human ethics to human experience help simplify and clarify a humane ethic in Humanism? Why are “peace, justice, and opportunity for all,” more attainable by this methodology, of ethics, than their transcendentalist counterparts? Does this include an opportunity for all to speak their mind or write down their thoughts?
Silverman: Basing human ethics on what we know from experience, rather than on what we don’t know, certainly makes more sense. Applying certain transcendent or religious precepts to everyone is too limiting, since we have no objective way to test if we have the one “true” religion. We learn through human experience and the efforts of thoughtful people throughout history how to work toward the ideals we hope to achieve. We also know that some of our values might change as our knowledge and understandings advance.
Jacobsen: Ultimately, why does this mean our life is “ours and ours alone,” our mind’s ability for freethought of thought?
Silverman: No one else, certainly no transcendent being, is responsible for our life. We must take personal responsibility for how we live, not give credit to an imagined deity for our good fortune or blame satanic forces when we behave poorly. We are free to think about whatever comes into our mind, but we are not necessarily free to act out all our thoughts. We can choose our actions as long as they don’t infringe on the freedoms of others. As the saying goes, your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/09/16
Scott Jacobson: Over the course of a Jewish life, of a secular humanist life in particular, how has the individualized Humanism changed for you?
Dr. Herb Silverman: I grew up in an Orthodox community and had an Orthodox Bar Mitzvah in 1955 when I was 13. My family mainly instilled in me that I shouldn’t trust goyim (gentiles) because of what they did to us in the Holocaust, and that I should marry a nice Jewish girl. (My wife, Sharon Fratepietro, is not Jewish.) In Hebrew school, my rabbi refused to answer my question, “Who created God?” He told me the question was inappropriate, but I assumed he just had no answer. One of my best teachers in Hebrew school asked, “Why does the Torah (Hebrew Bible) say ‘God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob,’ instead of the more concise ‘God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’?” His explanation was that each had a different god, and we must search for and find our own god. I took his statement seriously and my search, beginning at age 12, led me to a god who did not exist. I decided to follow all the things in the Torah that made sense to me, like performing mitzvahs (good deeds), but I stopped doing things like fasting on Yom Kippur, the day that God allegedly determines who shall live and who shall die in the coming year. Perhaps that is when I became a humanist without having even heard the term.
As an adult, I first learned about Humanism from the American Humanist Association, and later became a board member of that organization. I still considered myself a Jew because there is no requirement for a Jew to believe in God. I eventually found a proper home for myself in Judaism when I learned about and joined the Society for Humanistic Judaism (https://shj.org), with its atheist rabbis. SHJ is a member organization of the Secular Coalition for America and has an active social justice program known as Jews for a Secular Democracy.
Jacobsen: Do you agree with Kurtz and Wilson in the opening, as an aside?
Silverman: I mostly agree with them that Humanist Manifesto I was too optimistic about what the state of the world would be like after 1933, and that we need a more realistic vision. One sentence I was uncomfortable with was “Faith, commensurate with advancing knowledge, is also necessary.” I prefer to leave the word “faith” to theists. The authors correctly add that traditional theism, especially faith in a prayer-hearing God, makes no sense. It was wise of them to say, “New statements should be developed to supersede this,” one of which is known as Humanist Manifesto III. We should note that these manifestos are written on paper by humans, not written on stone tablets by an alleged deity, and no humanist is obliged to follow all of their assertions.
Jacobsen: How are the varieties of referenced humanisms connected via the idea of freedom of expression?
Silverman: I think all these referenced humanisms include freedom of expression, whether stated explicitly or implicitly. The humanists I know all think everybody has the right to express ideas and opinions freely, though we should try to avoid making false or misleading statements. Some people consider themselves theistic humanists, and might wish to silence those in their flock who have problems believing in the type of god they espouse. My idea of humanism precludes supernaturalism.
Jacobsen: What is this “moral devotion and creative imagination” inherent in the idea of freedom of expression as played out in the lives of freer human beings?
Silverman: I think we have a moral obligation to speak out against injustices, and it helps to imagine what kinds of injustices are suffered by people who are viewed as different from us in artificial ways. Unfortunately, some people use their imagination to develop “fake news” and consider this to be an appropriate form of freedom of expression. The moral problem with such freedom of expression is that fake news can unfairly hurt innocent people. One example is known as “Pizzagate.” This was a baseless rumor circulated in 2016 that Hillary Clinton and other Democrats were heading up a child sex-trafficking ring out of a specific Washington pizzeria. Based on such rumors and hate speech, a gunman with an assault rifle opened fire at the pizzeria, hoping to save the alleged abused children.
Jacobsen: How are freedom of speech and freedom of the press connected in a humanistic framework? How are they being attacked in the United States today?
Silverman: Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Humanists support this right to speak out verbally, in writing, and by action. Some Americans want to take away the right to burn the American flag, which thankfully the US Supreme Court ruled was constitutionally protected speech. There are also attempts to censor works of art that touch on sensitive issues like religion or sexuality.I think it is fine for people to attack verbally or in writing what someone else says. The problem occurs when someone thinks he has the right to use intimidation, threats, or violence. The way to attack bad speech is with good speech. I still believe the saying I learned as a child. “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”
Jacobsen: How is opposition to governmental policies being prevented in America today?
Silverman: Opposition to government policies is not being prevented. Many individuals and media have spoken against President Trump’s policies (or lack thereof) on the pandemic, healthcare, climate change, international alliances, and countless social justice issues. Unfortunately, from my perspective, the Republican-controlled US Senate gives Trump whatever he wants. So, opposition to government policies can best be achieved by Americans voting in the upcoming election.
Jacobsen: Regarding “freedom of association, and artistic, scientific, and cultural freedom,” what brings these together in one bundle so as to unite them under a banner of common expansion of freedom for more humanistic societies?
Silverman: Humanistic societies recognize that humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment for the greater good of humanity. Humanism promotes democracy, civil liberties, human freedoms, separation of religion and government, and elimination of discrimination based on race, religion, sex, age, or national origin. Humanists respect the scientific method and recognize that we are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change, and that ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Silverman.
Silverman: You’re most welcome.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/09/02
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The fundamental tenets proposed in the outdated and historical document Humanist Manifesto I does not speak to freedom of speech, free speech, free expression, or freedom of expression. It focuses on Humanism as a religious philosophy. First question, why was freedom of expression[3] in general not emphasized at the time?
Dr. Herb Silverman: To me, freedom of expression must include freedom of speech, as well as freedom of the press and the right to peaceably assemble. So my answer to this question will include my answer to your second question about freedom of speech.
Perhaps freedom of expression was assumed because it is included in the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Humanist ManifestoI (1933) is so-called because it was the first attempt to describe a formal humanist philosophy without any gods. The framers knew there would be additional manifestos as we increased our knowledge and cultural attitudes changed. The document spoke of social justice and scientific optimism. It referred to “socialized and cooperative economic order” and “equitable distribution of the means of life.” Though it wasn’t explicit, it seemed to favor socialism. There was no mention of racism, sexism, minority rights, or environmentalism.
Humanist Manifesto II (1973) promotes democracy, civil liberties, human freedoms, separation of church and state, and elimination of discrimination based on race, religion, sex, age, or national origin. It also refers to ecological damage and overpopulation.
I was on the American Humanist Association Board in 2003 when we approved Humanist Manifesto III. We defined Humanism as a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity. (I hoped to get “atheism” into the definition, but had to be satisfied by “without supernaturalism.”) This document also says that humanists are guided by reason and inspired by compassion. It adds that humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change and that ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.
Jacobsen: Second question, why was freedom of speech[4], in particular, excluded, too?
Silverman: See answer above
.
Jacobsen: What did this document provide for the foundations of modern Humanism through its “religious humanism”?
Silverman: “Religious Humanism” was an integral part of Humanist ManifestoI. The phrase is still used today by some freethinkers, though it is not without controversy. Ethical Culture societies as well as many Unitarian Universalist congregations describe themselves as religious humanists. There seems to be no difference in worldviews between secular humanists and religious humanists. Secular humanists see their worldview as a philosophy, while religious humanists see it as a religion.
But that depends on your definition of religion. Secular humanists think of religion as theistic. Religious humanists say that religion is that which serves the personal and social needs of a group of people sharing the same philosophical worldview. They say religious humanism offers a basis for moral values, an inspiring set of ideals, methods for dealing with life’s harsher realities, a rationale for living life joyously, and an overall sense of purpose.
When I first became a board member of the American Humanist Association, I discovered it called itself religious, for tax advantages, I argued for abandoning its religious designation, and it eventually did. One of its affiliates to which I belong, Humanist Society, is religious, because that helps its members in some states be allowed to perform weddings. I am a humanist celebrant who, in South Carolina, has performed several weddings, none of which were religious.
Jacobsen: What parts have the humanist movements kept as consistent parts over time because of the value of the principles?
Silverman: The movements have always had an evolutionary, atheistic worldview, though often with different terminology. What I said about Humanist Manifesto III in answer 1 above is a summary of what I think has always been the essence of humanism. We defined Humanism as a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
Jacobsen: Do freedom of speech or freedom of expression seem like fundamentally humanist values?
Silverman: They are fundamental humanist values, as well as fundamental values in any democratic society.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/05/26
The international community goes much farther than the US in the permission for the widest possible definition of freedom in the transmission of communication with the “Freedom of Expression” as opposed to the “Freedom of Speech” enshrined at a national level for America. Why are these international rights and laws important for the protection of individual Americans who may, for example, take a knee in protest of brutality against black Americans in front of the Vice President of the United States?
I think you are asking, in part, about the distinction between freedom of expression and freedom of speech. In the broad sense, I view “expression” as a form of “speech,” non-verbal communication. Taking a knee during the playing of the National Anthem is a non-verbal form of protest. Though it may be offensive to many, I support such a perfectly legitimate expression of dissent. I also support the free-speech rights of those whose actions appall me. Many did not want to allow the Ku Klux Klan to march in my hometown of Charleston, South Carolina, some years ago. I felt the Klan does a thousand bad things, and I didn’t want to deny them the right to do the one good thing they do—exercise their free-speech right to march. I also disagreed with a local school board that prevented a student from wearing a Confederate flag shirt to school.
The question of free speech often arises in the context of how offensive you are permitted to be, and the extent to which you may be harming others. I support the right of the American Nazi Party to march, even though it might lead to violence. For the same reason, I supported civil rights marchers in the South, which did lead to violence.
However, I am not a free speech absolutist. I agree with the old cliché that you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. I don’t support the right of anyone to purposely incite violence. Anti-abortion activists should not be allowed to publish addresses of doctors who perform abortions, with pictures of targets on their heads.
I don’t think any specific words should be censored. I was appalled when several schools banned the great American novel Huckleberry Finn because one of Mark Twain’s characters was “Nigger” Jim. Of course, the novel was anti-slavery. In one important scene, Huckleberry Finn helps free Nigger Jim from slavery, and says, “All right then, I’ll go to hell,” referring to the belief he was taught about the biblical correctness of owning slaves.
Interestingly, it’s considered OK for African Americans to use the word “nigger” when talking to other African Americans, but it is not considered OK for whites to use the N word. Similarly, it’s acceptable for Jews like me to tell anti-Semitic jokes to fellow Jews, but it is considered wrong for Gentiles to do so. Here is one of my favorite anti-Semitic jokes.
Two Jews see a sign in front of a church that says “$100 to convert.” One of the Jews asks,“Why not? It’s an easy way to make a quick buck,” and enters the church. The other Jew waits outside to see what happens. After forty-five minutes the first Jew comes out and the second Jew asks, “Well, did you get the $100?” The first responds, “Is that all you Jews ever think about, money?”
How can Americans when “ranting and raving” about freedom of speech keep in mind the right of other Member States [Define in footnote] to protest state violence against them by the United States without violent interference in this right to communication?
Ranting and raving is protected speech in the United States, including ranting and raving against official U.S. policies. I’ve been known to rant and rave during protests about entering wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and other countries. Many supporters of Donald Trump rant and rave about a so-called “deep state” in America, and something Trump calls “Obamagate,” about which he fails to define or provide evidence. As we can see, ranters and ravers are often misguided and wrong—depending on your point of view.
I also support non-violent civil disobedience (breaking the law) as long as participants are willing to take the consequences of their lawbreaking while trying to change bad laws.
How should the United States engage with other countries? I would like human rights to be a core value, which unfortunately it is not under the present administration. We ignore human rights violations when dealing with so-called friends in countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and North Korea, blatant abusers of human rights. We should look for ways to encourage countries we deal with to protect its citizens and treat them fairly. Through the Internet or by other means, we should try to give people in some countries valuable information about basic human rights they deserve. We should also work with our allies on issues like climate change and other science-based information to help make the world a better place.
What do most Americans forget about this First Amendment regarding rights for speech? What do they always remember, and also forget, about the right to the establishment of religion and the separation of church and state?
What many Americans forget about free speech in the First Amendment is that it is there to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech does not need protection.
As far as freedom of religion, many people don’t understand that you can’t have freedom of religion without also having freedom from religion. You are not free if you are forced to choose a deity to worship. Some people don’t understand that we have a secular Constitution with no mention of any gods. Its first three words are “We the People,” not “Thou the Deity.” Many Christian conservatives incorrectly claim that the United States was formed as a Christion nation. They also say that our country now discriminates against Christians, and favors Muslims and atheists. Losing some of the Christian privilege they once had does not constitute discrimination against Christians. Citizens must be treated the same, regardless of their religious beliefs or disbeliefs.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/04/23
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Herb, how is freethought represented in the secular communities now?
Dr. Herb Silverman: Freethought is represented in different ways in different freethought communities. When I first became engaged with freethought communities, I learned about several national atheist and humanist organizations. I joined them all because each was involved in issues I supported. But each group was doing its own thing and ignoring like-minded organizations, while competing for funds from what they viewed as a fixed pie of donors. I knew we needed to grow the pie to benefit all these organizations and the freethought movement as a whole. They were spending too much time arguing about labels (atheist, agnostic, humanist, freethinker, etc.) and too little time showing our strength in numbers and cooperating on issues that affect all freethinkers. Here’s an interesting distinction between Christians and freethinkers: Christians have the same unifying word but fight over theology; freethinkers have the same unifying theology, but fight over words. At least our wars are only verbal. So in 2002, I helped form the Secular Coalition for America, whose mission is to increase the visibility of and respect for nontheistic viewpoints, and to protect and strengthen the secular character of our government. Our 19 national member organizations cover the full spectrum of freethought.
Here’s what the Secular Coalition members don’t do: They don’t argue about labels. People in the Coalition call themselves atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, whatever. Here’s what they do: They cooperate on the 95% they have in common, rather than bicker about the 5% that might set them apart. All the organizations are good without any gods, though some emphasize “good” and some “without gods.”
Interestingly, four of the member organizations are classified as religious (nontheistic). They are American Ethical Union (with Ethical Culture Societies), Congress of Secular Jewish Organizations, Society for Humanistic Judaism (with atheist rabbis), and UU (Unitarian Universalist) Humanists.
All the Secular Coalition member organizations have strict limits on political lobbying, so they incorporated as a political advocacy group to allow unlimited lobbying on behalf of freethought Americans, finally giving freethinkers a voice in our nation’s capital. But even as the Secular Coalition fights against religious privileging on the federal level, some of the most egregious violations occur at state levels (I know. I live in South Carolina). The Secular Coalition is hoping someday to have volunteer coordinators in all 50 states, working with local groups to make sure elected officials throughout the country hear our voices.
The Secular Coalition also collaborates with organizations that are neither theistic nor nontheistic, like the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. It cooperates on some issues with theistic organizations, like the Interfaith Alliance, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, and Catholics for Choice. Working with diverse groups provides the additional benefit of gaining more visibility and respect for our unique perspective. Improving the public perception of freethinkers is as important to many of us as pursuing a particular political agenda.
Jacobsen: How can we bring about change based on the knowledge about the rise and fall of freethought into a new era of it, a renewed era in which we remain in a crisis requiring precisely its arsenal?
Silverman: We can explain to some people why being a freethinker makes the most sense to us, and perhaps convince them to follow our lead. If they are interested, we can provide them with helpful freethought literature. We already know that the “nones” are the fastest growing demographic, many of whom are freethinkers without knowing what the word means.
Whether people become freethinkers or not, what the world needs today (especially during the pandemic) is more respect for scientific viewpoints and rational thinking, and less respect for the irrational thinking found in ancient “holy” books. We can tell religious people that we may not share their beliefs, but that we hope they are willing to incorporate scientific findings into their lives and listen to reasonable explanations about the world around them. Unlike the minority of religious fundamentalists, most religious people are willing to act this way. We can point out to theists how our behavior is similar to theirs in many ways, and how their everyday actions have nothing to do with god beliefs. Whether we try to be good with or without a god has little to do with behavior.
To those who might try to convince you to choose a belief in God, we can explain that belief in God is not a matter of choice. I can pretend to believe, but I can’t choose to believe something for which I find not a scintilla of evidence. We can ask them if they can choose to not believe in God (it would be nice if the answer is “yes”).
To help bring about change, we need to keep governments secular. This is something all freethinkers want, and we need to convince some theists why moving closer to a theocracy (even their theocracy) is bad for everybody. I’ve heard some politicians in both parties say, “We have freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion.” What can that possibly mean? That we are allowed to worship the god of our choice, but we can’t choose to be good without any gods? Politicians might think they are being tolerant when they express support for all faiths. Instead, we expect to hear them publicly express support for all faiths and none, to promote freedom of conscience for all people. Freethinkers are not asking for special rights, but we do insist on equal rights.
Our Constitution demands that government must not favor one religion over another or religion over non-religion. Religious liberty must include the right of taxpayers to choose whether to support religion and which religion to support. Forcing taxpayers to privilege and subsidize religions they don’t believe in is akin to forcing them to put money in the collection plates of churches, synagogues, or mosques.
We need to encourage more freethinkers to run for public office. I’m pleased that we now have a national Congressional Freethought Caucus to promote policy based on reason, science, and moral values. The Caucus formed in 2018 with 4 members and now has 13, with more to come. See https://secular.org/governmental-affairs/congressional-freethought-caucus/
I hope to see an America where the influence of conservative religion is mainly limited to within the walls of churches, not the halls of Congress.
Jacobsen: What do you think sparked the original formal movement of freethought?
Silverman: The term “freethinker” came into use in the 17th century. It referred to people who inquired into the basis of traditional religious beliefs, and freethinker was most closely linked to secularism, atheism, agnosticism, anti-clericalism, and religious critique. It promoted the free exercise of reason in matters of religious belief, unrestrained by deference to authority.
I like to promote British mathematician and philosopher William Kingdon Clifford from the 19thcentury, who, in his essay The Ethics of Belief said, “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” The essay became a rallying cry for freethinkers, and has been described as a point when freethinkers grabbed the moral high ground. Clifford organized freethought gatherings and was the driving force behind the Congress of Liberal Thinkers. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/04/02
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Legacies don’t come from one person, usually. They come from a collective mass of unknowns and the forgotten, where one person or representation gets the collective credit.But the vast majority of our benefit comes from the dead even before them. I can understand the ancestor worship, the praying for the dead, and the making divine of ordinary human beings who persisted and had some talents. I can see this as a source of reverence. Those we never knew gave us a bit of a better shot, bit by bit, then died. What do you owe to freethought pioneers?
Dr. Herb Silverman: Isaac Newton in 1675 said, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Newton produced a mathematical understanding of motion, making the workings of the cosmos intelligible without any reference to supernatural belief. Yet he misguidedly said, “This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” Religious or not, scientists like Newton and Galileo contributed an enormous amount to the freethought movement before the Enlightenment. As Galileo learned, scientists often diverge from scripture at their peril. Scientific contributions have spread disbelief throughout the world because scientific arguments are settled through experimentation and evidence, not through authority or unproved claims of miracles found in so-called holy books. Scientists may not directly attack religious creeds, but they have undermined religious foundations. Nobody anymore believes that the earth is the center of the universe or that a deity made stars as an afterthought after creating the sun and the moon.
I’ll even give a freethought shout-out to the anonymous biblical writer of Ecclesiastes who said that we all die, humans and animals alike, and that is it. From dust we came, and to dust we shall return. Pete Seeger included words from Ecclesiastes in his song, “Turn! Turn! Turn!”
Another shout-out goes to Socrates, who posed the Euthyphro Dilemma in 399 BCE, “Is something good because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is good?” This question still puzzles many theists today. Socrates was sentenced to death and forced to drink poison hemlock for corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and for not believing in the gods of the state. Socrates’s willingness to stand up against religious tradition turned him into an early freethought martyr.
Hypatia became a freethought martyr in the fifth century, one of the first women to study and teach mathematics, astronomy, and philosophy. Hypatia said, “All formal dogmatic religions are fallacious and must never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final,” and “To teach superstitions as truth is a most terrible thing.” A mob of Christian zealots in Alexandria, Egypt dragged Hypatia into a church where they stripped her and beat her to death. They then tore her body apart and burned it. There wasn’t much religious tolerance shown to Hypatia.
Moving to more modern times, who can omit Charles Darwin as a freethought pioneer? When he began his scientific research, he was a church member. Shortly before he died, Darwin acknowledged having become an atheist. He was not inclined to engage in controversy. He wrote down what he had learned, and left it to others to accept or reject. Darwin’s theory of Evolution was shown by others that it was not “just” a theory, but an established fact, which led thinking people to understand that the whole biblical story of creation is a myth.
Robert Ingersoll was a great orator who advocated for freethought and humanism. He was active in politics and served as Illinois Attorney General in 1867. Illinois Republicans tried to persuade him to become a candidate for governor on the condition that he conceal his agnosticism during the campaign. Ingersoll refused, saying he would not let anyone limit his freedom of speech. He was also considered a radical for supporting woman’s suffrage.
Freethinker Thomas Paine is my favorite American founder. In his pamphlet, Common Sense, Paine provided convincing moral and political arguments for independence from Great Britain. Nonetheless, Paine hasn’t received the credit he deserves, primarily because of his irreverent book The Age of Reason. In it he says, “I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church.” And furthermore, “Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity.” Many contemporary politicians sympathized with the views of Paine, but didn’t openly support him for fear of the Religious Right of their day.
Finally, I’ll bring in a pioneer freethinker who was alive in my lifetime–Bertrand Russell. When I was 16, I found at my local library his book, Why I am Not a Christian, the first book I ever saw about being an atheist. Russell transformed the lives of many in my generation. It was gratifying to see articulate arguments that confirmed and gave voice to our doubts about the existence of any deities. I think Bertrand Russell also influenced me to become a mathematician.
Jacobsen: What newer generations owe to more recent freethought pioneers?
Silverman: There are lots of recent freethought role models, many with outstanding books. They include Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Susan Jacoby, Annie Laurie Gaynor, Dan Barker, Steven Pinker, Rebecca Goldstein, Rob Boston, Andrew Seidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Greta Christina, A. C. Grayling, Wendy Kaminer, Greg Epstein, Salman Rushdie, Julia Sweeney, George Carlin, Bill Maher, and many more. And I’m sure that you, the reader, can come up with additional freethought pioneers. There was a time when it wasn’t safe or comfortable to reveal that you are a freethinker. Our pioneers have made it easier to do so today.
Jacobsen: Is this effort at immortalization in memories of the living all that important at the end of the day? Or is simply doing good and maintaining what good has been built more important at the end of the day?
Silverman: It’s worth knowing about freethought pioneers, who can serve as role models, but I don’t think it is necessary to immortalize them. After all, they are not immortal. We should learn from them and try to make their good works remain influential in our lives.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/03/30
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In life, our wills, characters, and true stances will be tested. This seems like an inevitability. I’ve had several myself. Many cost me, dearly. Some, I’m still paying the costs in different ways. Nonetheless, I don’t regret them, taking the stands. I doubt I ever will. You need to take a stand. It may cost you. No one does anything alone, though. However, you can make a change and an influence as an example for others. So, instead of avoidance of the issue, we best deal with them headfirst. What are the meanings of trials and tests in life, in hindsight?
Dr. Herb Silverman: Regarding trials and tests in life, here’s a paragraph from the preface of my book, Candidate Without A Prayer: An Autobiography of a Jewish Atheist in the Bible Belt: “When I was a graduate student in the 1960s, I occasionally took breaks from mathematics to write what I thought were clever stories. Then my roommate showed me a quote from Henry David Thoreau, ‘How vain it is to sit down to write when you have not stood up to live.’ So, prodded by Thoreau, I stopped my creative writing and focused on completing my PhD in mathematics. Now more than forty years later, I’ve written about a few of the times I stood up to live, about the times I couldn’t or wouldn’t, and about the times I stood up and should have remained seated.” Life consists of trials and tests, and we need to learn from them. Before committing to an action, we should think about whether it will make a difference and to whom. For most of my life, I was a mathematics professor. I think I made a positive difference with some students, and though my research was respectable, it was not significant enough to make much difference to the mathematical community, nor did it have an impact on people outside the world of mathematics.
Circumstances of my adult life in the Bible Belt turned me from apathetic atheist (as most atheists are) to passionate atheist. It became my “calling,” because I saw how I might make a significant difference in our culture. I became an accidental atheist activist when I discovered in 1990 that our South Carolina state constitution prohibited atheists from holding public office, and I challenged that provision by running for governor as “the candidate without a prayer.” In 1997 I won a unanimous decision in the South Carolina Supreme Court, striking down the unconstitutional provision and giving atheists the right to hold public office in South Carolina.
This victory gave me a reputation as an atheist activist and I worked to increase the visibility and respectability of atheist viewpoints and to separate religion from government. I’m more interested in “converting” people from apathy to activism than from theism to atheism. I never regretted taking such unpopular stands in a state with so many religious people. As a tenured math professor, my job was secure. I also made many new friends, and I enjoy controversy if it comes from adopting positions on causes that I think are important.
I don’t think that gaining respectability for atheists is the world’s most important issue. It’s not even the most noteworthy civil rights struggle. If I had a magic wand, and believed in its efficacy, probably I’d first wave it to end world hunger. But there’s not much I can do about that, so my activity on this doesn’t go much beyond working on small community projects and contributing to worthwhile organizations.
Jacobsen: What were examples from life for you?
Silverman: I became chair of the College of Charleston Faculty Research Committee in 1978. After spending many hours deciding how best to award funds set aside for summer research grants, I received a call from the president of the college. He told me he was cutting our research budget in half and wanted me not to tell grant applicants. As chair of the committee, I felt it my duty to be honest with the applicants and faculty, and I explained to them why some deserving recipients would not be receiving grants.
The faculty appreciated what I said, but President Stern definitely did not. I didn’t have to wait long to find out the extent of his displeasure. When a committee recommended me for the Distinguished Research Award, President Stern reluctantly presented me with the award at the spring graduation ceremony, along with the $500 that went with it (meaningful in 1978, when my annual salary was under $20,000).
As it turned out, I was fortunate that the amount in 1978 was only $500, instead of the $1,000 it became a couple of years later. President Stern also cut my recommended salary raise that year by $500 because of my research award, something he had never done with past recipients. My $500 research award was a one-time occurrence, but I lost that additional $500 per year for the next 30 years, along with percentage raises based on it. So, my award cost me over $25,000.
Was it worth taking such a stand? My conscience says, absolutely! Fortunately for me, President Stern retired the year before I came up for tenure, which I received through the new president.
Another example of my activism at the College of Charleston, a public institution, occurred at its Counseling Center, where one counselor’s “specialty” was Christian counseling. When a non-Christian student informed me that the counselor advised the student to overcome his difficulties by giving his life to Jesus, I spoke to the counselor. She did not deny the accusation. In fact, she named two students and asked if it was one of them who lodged the complaint. It wasn’t! Her response was so inappropriate at so many levels that I went directly to her boss and told him about our exchange. The counselor was quietly let go and the Counseling Center never again hired someone with that specialty.
Jacobsen: If a youth ‘fails’ a test, inasmuch as one can fail at trials and tribulations of life testing endurance, what should be the main points of reflection for them?
Silverman: I would say that failure is not the opposite of success; it’s part of success. We can expect many failures along the path to finally succeeding. When attempting something new, don’t be afraid of appearing to be different from others if you think you are doing the right thing. If unable to accomplish a task, instead of saying “I can’t do it,” think about adding “yet.” And slow progress is better than no progress. Finally, remember the words of American president Theodore Roosevelt, “Knowing what’s right doesn’t mean much unless you do what’s right.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/03/26
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We talked some sessions ago about the death of Paul Krassner. A cultural elephant in the countercultural room, or, more properly, the plural alternative cultures room. Friends come from many different areas. What makes a friendship?
Dr. Herb Silverman: There are all kinds of friends. I recently met someone I had never seen before, and she informed me that she was a friend of mine—a Facebook friend. When I first got on Facebook I agreed to be friends with anyone who requested it, and now I think I have too many such “friends.” I’m also friends with some charities I support, as in “Friends of the Library.” I am not a Quaker (the Society of Friends), though among religions I think it is one of the best because of its emphasis on peace, social justice, and finding the light within. Surprisingly, there is also a group called Nontheistic Quakers (nontheistic Friends). A more traditional notion of friends would be people not related to you whom you know well, and whose company you enjoy. This might include professional colleagues, fellow supporters in a cause, or someone you are intimate with. Friends are the family you choose. No matter how down you are, good friends should be able to make you laugh. I think the best kind of friend is someone you love and who loves you, someone you respect and who respects you, someone you trust and who trusts you, someone with whom you can be honest and who is honest with you, and someone you are loyal to and who is loyal to you. (We are fortunate in life if we have two such friends.) My wife, Sharon, is my best friend.
Jacobsen: What makes a friendship last?
Silverman: A friendship lasts as long as you continue to enjoy one another’s company. You should be able to be yourself, give support when needed, empathize, express your feelings, forgive, and make mistakes without fear of judgment.
Sometimes friends drift apart (becoming former friends) because their interests change. Last year I attended my 55thhigh school reunion. Some of my former friends might become friends again if we stayed in touch, but our lives and interests have moved on, so there are no such plans. On the other hand, I continue to communicate with a former colleague who left the College of Charleston 40 years ago and moved to another state. We remain good friends with many similar interests and activities, and go out of our way occasionally to get together. To make a friendship endure often requires hard work. If you value the friendship, you should learn about your friend’s new interests and see if you can turn them into interests of yours as well. It likely will include the friend’s spouse and children.
Jacobsen: Why are long-term friends important to maintain for emotional health and a sense of connection with other human beings, and to think about others besides oneself, i.e., to have social responsibility and consideration?
Silverman: Life is a continuous journey. It helps to have long-term friends who know a lot about your past, so you don’t have to explain it to them. As we age, family responsibilities and occupational pressures lessen, and so friendships become more important. Friendship in adulthood provides companionship and affection, as well as emotional support, and contributes positively to mental well-being and improved physical health.
Among the elderly, friendships are especially important. Should close relatives die, friends can provide links to the larger community, mitigate depression and loneliness, and compensate for potential losses in social support previously given by family members. Older people also feel more useful when they can do something for the community. Research has shown that older adults report the highest level of happiness and general well-being when they have close ties to friends. This satisfaction is associated with an increased ability to accomplish activities of daily living.
The number of friends in old age usually declines, often because of their death. I’ve gotten used to checking the daily obituary section in my local paper. Sometimes I learn that friends younger than I am (77) have died. This makes me more appreciative of my friends who remain.
Friends are important at any age, but especially for the elderly who might not be able to get out as often. Interaction with friends provides a continued social life. So, if you are young, think about staying in touch with elderly people you know. They will appreciate your attention more than you might have realized.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/03/23
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Conservatives take the family as the fundamental unit of societies, the building block. It becomes a divine mandate in many theologies and religious social commentaries. The United Nations is fundamentally allied with this vision in its foundational and associated documents with the description of the family as the fundamental group unit in the society. An almost unacknowledged unifying vision between a nationalist and a globalist vision view of the world. So, why is family fundamental? They both seem right from different view of the world.
Dr. Herb Silverman: A family is usually viewed as people connected by blood, adoption, or marriage. The question then becomes how we should treat family members. Surprisingly, I like what Jesus said about blood relatives, though with some objections and a different perspective. This is from Mark 3:32-35: A crowd was sitting around Jesus and said to him, “Your mother and your brothers and sisters are outside, asking for you.” And Jesus replied, “Who are my mother and brothers?” And looking at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and my mother.” Of course, I disagree with defining family in terms of faith. On the other hand, there is something to be said about counting friends we choose after we are born as more important than people we are related to through no personal decisions. I would say that family is fundamental if we include those we are close to, whether or not we are related to them.
Nevertheless, even if we are not close to blood relatives, I think we owe them respect and help when they are in need. I have no siblings and wasn’t particularly close to my parents, but I know they made many sacrifices for me and I appreciate that they tried to raise me as best they could. I also tried to make things comfortable for them when they became too old and sick to care for themselves.
Jesus challenges our notions of family loyalty when he says, according to Luke 14:26, “Whoever does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” Perhaps this is why when Jesus’ family heard what he was doing, they said, “He is out of his mind.” (Mark 3:21). In John 7:5, we learn that even Jesus’ brothers didn’t believe him.
Christians continually bemoan the breakdown of “family values” in our culture. Do they only count as family members those who worship Jesus the same way that they do?
I don’t think Christians can take much solace in the Hebrew Bible, where many men had more than one wife. In fact, according to 1 Kings 11:3, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Perhaps Solomon’s brain was not his most noteworthy organ.
When it comes to nationalist and globalist views of family, I include extended families, who go beyond the nuclear family of father, mother, and their children. It can include aunts, uncles, grandparents, and cousins, all living in the same household. In a lot of cultures, the extended family is the basic family unit.
Many families move in with one another for financial and emotional support, especially when children are involved. Demographic and cultural shifts, such as the increasing number of immigrants and the rising average age of young-adult marriages, along with difficulties in finding jobs paying a living wage, have also created a need for extended families. Approximately 49 million Americans live in homes containing three or more generations.
Jacobsen: Most people want a family. Most will create. What are some good principles for getting from point A to point Z?
Silverman: You can create family by first establishing close and fulfilling relationships. Sometimes these relationships are formed when you get involved with activities you enjoy. This is a good way to meet people with whom you have things in common. When it comes to coupling (as in dating), it’s important to make sure the other half of your couple is a friend (and contraceptives have been considered). You should be honest, not just about your feelings for the person, but also about your perceived weaknesses and fears.
When the relationship grows closer, you might consider living together. By now you should have discussed boundaries, what you feel is permitted and what is not. Is it an exclusive sexual relationship? If it appears that this loving relationship might become permanent, you may want to consider marriage. But first discuss what you both want out of marriage. Financial arrangements? Kids? If so, how many and how should they be raised? Such plans might change, but it’s still a good idea to discuss such things in advance.
Though couples usually marry with the best of intentions, about half of marriages end in divorce. I recommend couples-counseling before considering divorce, especially if kids are involved. I definitely don’t recommend following Mark 10:9, “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” This means, according to the Catholic Church, that a woman should stay in her marriage even if her husband abuses her. There is a Catholic out, known as annulment, in which the Church can declare that the marriage was never really valid. It can be expensive to get such an annulment.
My wife is an adulterer in the eyes of the Catholic Church. She is married to a second man (me), even though she received a civil divorce from the first many years ago. The Catholic Church does not recognize or permit a second marriage like hers when the first took place in a Catholic Church. I enthusiastically endorse my wife’s two divorces: one legally from her first husband, and one metaphorically from the Catholic Church.
Jacobsen: How do you keep a family life, or simply a family without children, fresh, vibrant, and stimulating rather than dull, a deteriorator, and stultifying?
Silverman: You sometimes hear that in a marriage, two become one. I disagree. I think it’s important for two to remain two. While each has his or her interests, it’s good for couples to also have lots in common, things that they enjoy doing together. Often one of the partners develops an interest that the other partner has. It’s also nice to share new adventures.
If you don’t get along with a family member, perhaps a relative, that’s fine as long as you don’t resent it and hold a grudge. Such feelings not only make the relationship worse, but they can also hurt your body and your mind.
To keep a marriage from stultifying, it helps to have a sense of humor. Most mornings my wife says to me, “It’s so nice to wake up next to you.” She laughs when I respond, “I’m sorry I can’t experience that pleasure.” Despite the cliché, I don’t know what it means to be “beside myself.”a
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/03/19
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Virtue seems mostly like a habit. Then we call long trends in behaviour in someone a character trait. It seems like this to me. So, virtue starts with the habituation of ethical conduct. There are consequences to a certain behaviour. Good results become consequentially good, tautologically. Bad results become consequentially bad, but come from antecedent behaviour, inescapably. The possible good and bad have a range of known and unknown consequences. So, I am noting some virtue ethics and consequentialism mixed together here, where limits get placed on personal responsibility based on cognitive-predictive limits. What virtues should be encouraged/vices should be discouraged every day?
Dr. Herb Silverman: Let’s first describe what we mean by “virtue.” To me, virtue is behavior that shows high moral standards, which means good behavior. Humans have evolved to be social animals with patterns of behavior to live harmoniously and productively together. Without cooperative behavior, humans would not have survived. Ideas of right and wrong that we call morality arise from human nature. We all have the ability to think in moral terms, except perhaps for psychopaths. Of course, being moral or good means different thing to different folks. Some religious people would say that to act morally is to act in obedience to God’s commandments. Many Christians view virtue as having faith, hope, and charity, described in 1 Corinthians 13:13. Islamic virtue requires submission to Allah. Muhammad said, “Virtue is good manner, and sin is that which creates doubt.” As a secular humanist, I certainly don’t tie any virtues to god beliefs. I think that ethical values are derived from human needs and interests, tested and refined by experience. Morality should be based on how our actions affect others. Our deeds are more important than our creeds, and dogmas should never override compassion for others.
So how do we make moral decisions? One criterion is to look at what works well and has withstood the test of time. Just about all religions and philosophies have grounded morality in some version of the Golden Rule. But that’s a guideline open to interpretation, not an absolute. Even if we believe in absolutes, we’re forced to make human judgments on how to interpret them. For instance, we agree that murder is wrong. But what do we do about euthanasia, suicide, abortion, war, capital punishment, stem-cell research? Different religions, and even people within the same religion, often disagree.
So how do we decide? In tough decisions, I believe we should be guided by the consequences of our actions to individuals, our families, our community, and our world. Morality may arise from human nature, but it is shaped by our experiences and culture. Morality helps humans construct a livable society with human rights for all. It requires flexibility because the circumstances under which we live continue to change and we discover what works better.
I would say virtue includes searching for truth and obtaining knowledge through rational thought. Belief should be proportional to the evidence. As William Clifford, a nineteenth century mathematician and philosopher said, “It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”
Morality should also include creating happiness and fulfillment. As Robert Ingersoll, the Great Agnostic, said, “Reason, Observation and Experience, the Holy Trinity of Science, have taught us that happiness is the only good; that the time to be happy is now, and the way to be happy is to make others so.” And Bertrand Russell said, “A good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.”
Jacobsen: Why is youth important for the inculcation of virtue?
Silverman: To quote Aristotle, “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.” The Jesuits have slightly modified Aristotle’s statement, “Give us a child till he’s seven and we’ll have him for life.” Unfortunately, this is often true. Fortunately, many people (myself included) cast away their childhood (and childish) religious beliefs. Nevertheless, people are influenced a lot by their upbringing, so it’s important to instill, teach, and inspire virtue in youth.
Jacobsen: Is it just easier to get virtue inculcated earlier than not? Or is it never too late?
Silverman: Virtue and vice are not an either/or for humans. Throughout our lives, we sometimes act with virtue and sometimes we fall short. We should always learn from our mistakes and observations, and try to improve. For instance, in these uncertain times of the coronavirus pandemic, we all need to step up to the challenge. Are we thinking only about our own families, or are we also concerned about others? Some people look for ways to profit in the crisis. Others are stocking up on enough toilet paper and other household goods to last until Christmas. The virtuous thing for us to do, at any age, is to reach out to others and see how we can help them.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/03/16
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Of all possible mathematical knowledge, what do we really know? You were a distinguished professor in the past. We have written a text on this.
Herb Silverman: Here is what we know about mathematics. Mathematicians start with axioms (assumptions) and see what conclusion may logically be deduced (proved) from these axioms. The nineteenth century mathematician Leopold Kronecker once said, “God created the integers, all else is the work of man.” I interpret this statement to be more about the axiomatic approach than about theology. Mathematicians often begin with axioms that seem “self-evident,” because they are more likely to lead to real-world truths, including scientific discoveries and accurate predictions of physical phenomena. But if at least one axiom is false, then the conclusion may not be scientifically applicable. Unlike with applied mathematicians, theoretical mathematicians are not so concerned with whether their axioms are true. Axioms in some branches are contradictory to axioms in others. In non-Euclidean geometry, we replace Euclid’s parallel axiom with a different axiom. The axioms in Euclidean geometry have led to discoveries on planet Earth; results from the axioms in non-Euclidean geometry were applied many years later by Einstein for his general theory of relativity, when he showed we live in a non-Euclidean four-dimensional universe, consisting of three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time.
There is a lot we don’t know, and never will know. Just about any problem solved in mathematics seems to raise additional questions that we would like to solve. So I expect there are infinitely many questions that we would like answers to, which won’t be found in a finite amount of time. There might even be infinitely many possible theories, not all of which humans can ponder. With or without machines, even now the majority of scientific discoveries are barely comprehensible (or incomprehensible) to most human beings.
Speaking of infinity, which is a theoretical construct created by humans, the number “infinity” does not exist in reality (as a real number). My math students sometimes falsely treated infinity as a real number, and such misuse often got them into trouble.
The concept of infinity is useful to help solve many math problems involving limits in calculus. For instance, we know there are infinitely many positive integers because the integer n+1 is larger than n for any integer n. What happens to the sequence {1/n}, n = 1, 2, 3, …? The sequence gets arbitrarily close to 0, and we say that the limit of the sequence is 0.
Here’s a limit example for an infinite series: 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + … = 1.
Also, we can’t draw a “perfect” circle, we can just imagine one. Imagine a polygon with an ever-increasing number of equal sides. As the number of sides approaches infinity, the polygon will become a circle as the limit of an infinite number of infinitesimally small sides. No matter how accurate a computer’s rendering of a circle might be, it will only be an imperfect approximation.
Mathematics has played a major role in bringing about innovations. Many mathematical theories and models of real-world problems have helped scientists and engineers grapple with seemingly impossible tasks. The eighteenth century mathematician Gauss said, “Mathematics is the queen of sciences.” He said this because mathematics is essential in the study of all scientific fields. Galileo referred to mathematics as the language in which the natural physical world is written. When scientific statements are translated into mathematical statements, including about the structure of the universe, we apply mathematics to solve scientific problems.
Jacobsen: How much do we not know? Even with this, what can we say for certain about particular categories of things, as simply falsehoods?
Silverman: We often get into trouble when we apply mathematical concepts to God. Most religious people believe in an infinite God with infinite power who has lived for an infinite time. Just as finite humans created infinity, so finite humans created God and gave him infinite attributes. God had to be presumed infinite, because a finite god would be limited. However, we can show mathematically that there can’t be a largest infinity. The German mathematician Georg Cantor showed that every subset of an infinite set has a higher cardinality (more elements). In other words, there are infinitely many infinities. So, any infinite god could theoretically be replaced by a more powerful infinite god.
Infinity, like gods, is not sensible (known through the senses). Just as infinity does not exist in reality, it does help solve some math problems. Lots of humans believe in a (nonexistent) god who helps them solve human problems.
Mathematicians, unlike most theologians, recognize that their axioms are just made up. So, a perfectly valid and logical proof may have nothing to do with reality if the axioms are not true. Most ancient religions are also loosely based on axioms. Their most common axiom is “God exists,” which is not as self-evident as it appeared to be in a pre-scientific world. A “God axiom” might give comfort to some, but it lacks predictive value.
Besides their practical uses, numbers have cultural significance throughout the world. For example, in Western society, the number 13 is regarded as unlucky. Some people also believe in numerology, which attributes a divine or mystical significance to numbers. One such example, espoused by many Christian fundamentalists, is fear of the number 666, which they refer to as the Mark of the Beast. Numerology is also associated with the paranormal and astrology. Of course, numerology is a pseudoscience, a superstition that uses numbers to give their subject a veneer of scientific authority.
Jacobsen: Where does this bring humility into the equation?
Silverman: Kurt Gödel, a mathematician/logician, made a rather disturbing groundbreaking discovery in mathematics. Gödel showed that with just about any set of axioms there must be at least one true but unproveable statement. In other words, not all true statements in mathematics have formal proofs. Furthermore, we have no way of knowing in advance whether a statement is really hard to prove (or disprove), or whether it is impossible. For instance, mathematician Andrew Wiles proved Fermat’s Last Theorem 358 years after Fermat proposed it in 1637. The proof was difficult but provable. We don’t know if questions about the beginning of our universe and multiverses are really hard to answer completely or are logically unanswerable. Or maybe the human mind is not bright enough to figure it out.
Gödel’s incompleteness theorem suggests to many that a Theory of Everything (an all-encompassing, coherent, theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe) is unattainable. In fact, Gödel’s theorem seems to imply that theoretical mathematics is inexhaustible. No matter how many problems we solve, there will always be other problems that can’t be solved within the existing rules.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Silverman.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/03/12
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’ve talked about rationality and such. You’ve commented on personal experience with love, and more. Love is a non-rational part of life, but love happens, nonetheless. A profound, significant, and, sometimes, incomprehensible and inexplicable component of human life. What do you make of making room, in life, for the non-rational? As Chris Hedges clarifies, he does not mean the irrational, but the non-rational forces of life.
Herb Silverman: For most of my professional life as a mathematician I made good use of the irrational. I speak, of course, about irrational numbers (not expressible as the quotient of two integers) like the square root of 2 and pi. Irrational numbers were discovered in Greece in the 5th century BCE, and challenged the Greek belief in a rational universe controlled by mathematical harmonies. Such numbers seemed to these Greeks so illogical and unreasonable that they called them irrational. So, sometimes things may seem irrational because we don’t understand them. Outside the world of mathematics, the main difference between rational thinking and non-rational or irrational thinking is that rational thinking is based on logic and reason, while non-rational and irrational thinking are usually based on neither. In rational decision making, choices are made through reason and facts.
The way I distinguish between non-rational and irrational thinking is that non-rational thinking relies more on intuitive judgments, and can sometimes be thought to make common sense, while irrational thinking goes counter to logic, and relies more on emotions without considering the consequences of decisions. In rational thinking we use our brain, and in irrational thinking we listen to our heart or gut. I prefer to think with my brain, not my gut.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that irrational thinking is always wrong. People have won lotteries by choosing numbers based on a dream, or a birthday. A person who thinks rationally tries to use all the information available to make an informed decision, putting aside emotions. But often there are unknown factors or features that the rational person didn’t account for.
It can be argued that humans did not evolve to become rational creatures. We make good use of the non-rational, like love, beauty, art, poetry, music, and grief. I can give good reasons for why I love my wife, though I can’t show that these reasons are rational. As far as we know, these non-rational decisions have nothing to do with science, and are not empirically measurable. However, it’s possible that brain research might someday show there is no such thing as free will, and that I didn’t really choose to marry Sharon.
Jacobsen: Are there any borderline issues between the non-rational and the irrational?
Silverman: When it comes to religion, atheists usually object to irrational beliefs, not necessarily to non-rational beliefs. But how do we decide which is which?
For instance, there is no empirical evidence for the existence or nonexistence of God, so can we say that that both beliefs are non-rational (as opposed to irrational)? People will answer differently, which shows that non-rational and irrational are not well-defined terms. Depending on the definition of “God,” I might be willing to call the belief non-rational (for instance, a creator of the universe who set natural laws in motion, and then retired, died, or moved on to bigger or better things). I don’t believe this, but I’m willing to consider such a deistic belief non-rational. The same with people who define God as love, or who take statements in so-called holy books metaphorically. On the other hand, I would call irrational any belief in the literal God of the Bible or the Quran, because we can find so much scientific evidence that falsifies claims in these “holy” books. (Young earth creationists would criticize me for having “faith” in science.)
I also consider all claims to miracles, including resurrections, as irrational beliefs, though I can’t disprove them. Then again, I also can’t disprove the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, though everyone would consider such a belief irrational.
Is it fair to call irrational what Christians, Muslims, and UFO abductees believe, because such beliefs are devoid of the kind of evidence we would expect to find for those beliefs? I would say yes, but the majority of the world would disagree with me.
Jacobsen: What can we do to ensure others, who did not have the sanction of the general public, have the same rights and privileges afforded to love and join with whomever they see fit for their lives, especially as societies become freer, opener, and more prosperous?
Silverman: I hope that societies continue to become freer and more open. There was a time in my country and elsewhere when I might not have been allowed to marry because I insisted on a non-religious (humanist) ceremony. Unfortunately, even today, such a marrige is not permissible in some countries. There was also a time that it would have been illegal for Sharon and me to live in sin. I’m pleased to see in my lifetime that gays and lesbians are finally allowed to marry in many countries, and that homosexuality is rarely against the law, except in Muslim countries.
Such restrictions have usually been religion-based. The less religious societies become, the more freedom, privileges, and prosperity individuals will have.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): buddhist-essentials-and-concepts.blogspot.com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2017
Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka (EMSL) is an organisation devoted to the representation of a minority within a minority – ex-Muslims. This is an educational interview with direct, frank answers on serious questions for a widely unacknowledged persecuted community: the ex-religious, and in this instance the ex-Muslim. I feel personal impetus to research, interview, and present these minority within a minority interviews. So here we are.
Scott Jacobsen: Within the ex-Muslim community, there are so many stories discussing the discrimination, prejudice, hate crimes, physical violence and attacks, and so on, against the ex-Muslim community, usually from the Muslim community at large. What is the state of irreligious freedom in Sri Lanka?
Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka is a non-Muslim country, and being irreligious (even though there are only a very few individuals) is not considered as a serious crime by the majority i.e. the Buddhists and the Hindus. Yet Muslims are concerned, of course, as it is considered the ultimate betrayal of and attack against the community and the religion. As far as our members are concerned, knowing these realities that happen everywhere, most of them have chosen to remain closeted. Very few of them have decided to openly discuss their non-belief with the family and friends. They have to face physical violence, discrimination and isolation, and these have taken a considerable psychological toll on them.
To our surprise, while working towards forming the Ex Muslims of Sri Lanka, we found out that there is not even a single irreligious, atheist organisation for the Ex-Buddhists or Ex-Hindus existed in Sri Lanka, even though the two religions do not prosecute those who desert the faith, unlike Islam. So, we are the first of this kind to be formed as an organisation / group at the national level.
Jacobsen: Maryam Namazie is an articulate, passionate, and insightful voice of ex-Muslims in Britain. Has she been a beacon of hope and inspiration for the Ex-Muslims in Sri Lanka? Also, has she helped the Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka in any way?
Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka: Yes indeed, she has been a considerable motivational strength as far as Sri Lankan ex-Muslims are concerned. When the founder of the EMSL decided to form the group, he contacted many ex-Muslims around the world and she was one of the very few who responded and provided guidance. We are very grateful for being accredited as one of the affiliated bodies of Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB). We were also invited to participate in the International Conference on Freedom of Conscience and Expression in the 21st Century. But unfortunately we were compelled not to submit our visa applications in order to protect our identities from being exposed, considering the British visa applications are handled by a VFS office (third-party entity), not by the British High Commission.
Jacobsen:There is a foundational need for equality and universal rights, including the right to criticise religion, the right to atheism, the right to secularism, the right to freedom for women, to protection of children, and from intimidation tactics by religion. What success stories have there been in relation to each of these fronts for ex-Muslims in Sri Lanka?
Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka: Since none of our members have declared themselves publicly as ex-Muslims (except the few exposed themselves to their intimate family and friends), we are not in a position to provide a definitive answer to this question. But we can recall an incident when a female Muslim writer named Shameela Seyyida was forced to flee the country in the face of violence after expressing her liberal views whilst being interviewed for BBC radio with regard to protecting the rights of the women who are involved in prostitution.
Here in Sri Lanka, Muslims marriages and divorces are governed by a special law that is in accordance with Sharia law, known as the Muslim Personal Marriage Act. The law allows Muslims to marry little girls, girls even lower than the age of 12. There are voices against the law and demanding to amend the law on par with present day civil societies, but the clergies-controlled local Islamic Authority, All Ceylon Jamiyathul Ulam, refuses to accept the necessary changes to the law – including defining a minimum marriage age for Muslims. Many of the educated Muslim women are unhappy with the law, but they are afraid to raise their voices in the fear of being labelled as either women with “loose characters” or “evil and wicked women” or even slut-shamed by local clerics.
Jacobsen: What have been notable murders of ex-Muslims in Sri Lanka for their renouncement of the faith? Does this happen as often with another religion’s faithful becoming faithless? Or does this happen mostly with Islam?
Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka: Even though we have received a substantial amount of death threats online, So far we have been fortunate enough not to have encountered any lynchings, beheadings or torture so far. It is so disheartening to recall that one ex-Muslim from the state of Tamil Nadu, India, named Farook – a 32-year-old father of two – who was brutally murdered a few months back by pious, bearded Muslims for becoming an apostate. We have not heard anyone being punished or murdered in this century for leaving a religion other than the religion of Islam.
As far as we know, Islam is the only religion that commands to kill those who leave the religion. But it is widely witnessed that Muslim apologists (apologists often identified as moderate Muslims) try to twist the matter by bringing up some earlier Qur’anic versus to show the world that Islam has no compulsion. They do their best to bury the fact that Islam has barbaric law against those who leave the religion.
We have to understand something important from the history of Mohamed to understand the whole picture clearly. The apologists ask us not to take Qur’anic verses out of context, but it is they who cherry pick the peaceful verses to mislead people.
At the time, Mohamed claimed he was the prophet of God, he was 40. He spent the first 13 years in his hometown Mecca, gradually inviting people to follow him, but the vast majority rejected him. After 13 years of failure in his home town, he moved to another city named Medina, situated 450 km away from Mecca. In Medina he became a success as he gained more followers and unlimited power. He lived his next 10 years in Medina till his death at the age of 63.
His prophetic career can be divided into two parts. The first one is the 13 years he spent in Mecca with no power plus his first two years in Medina. The second part is his last 8 years in Medina as a powerful leader, ruler and warlord. The first part is 15 years, while the second part is 8 years – a total of 23 years.
During the first part of his prophetic career, he had lived a non-violent and generally peaceful life, and his preaching was primarily about tolerance, non-violence, and peace. He had lived only with two wives during this period. He married his second wife only after the demise of his first wife. He did not even have two wives at the same time during the first phase of his religious career.
The second part of his prophetic career spanned around 8 years until his death. Having gained all the necessary power in Medina, he started to exhibit his true colours during this period. He even had 10 wives at a time, until his death, including a few teenage girls and an underage child. He waged wars against non-Muslim and Jewish tribes. He carried out mass murders, genocides, lootings, sex-slavery, slavery-trading, and other violent and disgusting crimes.
Now let’s come back to the subject of killing apostates. During the first part of his prophetic career, he did not command any such punishments, but the second and the last part of the career he clearly gave orders to assassinate those who leave Islam. According to Islamic principles, when a new rule is introduced which contradicts an earlier one, the earlier one would be invalidated even if it remains in the Qur’an or Hadith. A good example of this principle is the Qur’anic verse about prohibiting alcohol consumption. The earlier Qur’anic versus ordered Muslims not to drink alcohol while praying, but later on the order was overruled by the complete prohibition of consuming alcohol. Both these orders are found in the Qur’an to date and they are recited by Muslims all over the globe, but it is the second rule that is accepted by Muslims.
So we understand that if there is an order or guidance that is contrary to the earlier one in Islam, the latest one would be the valid one. Muslim apologists have successfully misguided the world by using the preaching from Mohamed’s first part of the prophetic career to build up a fake image of Islam that finds expression in that old chestnut “Islam is the religion of peace”. In reality, of course, the religion is not a “religion of peace”.
Jacobsen: How can people be protected from being misguided by using only the preaching of the first phase of Mohamed’s Islamic life?
Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka: People should be either educated or made aware of the two parts of Mohamed’s religious career, at least in brief. We are not certain that every Muslim understands this so seldom-discussed fact. We believe that if they really know this, the real peace-loving Muslims would have to make a strong decision about continuing to follow and view Islam as a “religion of peace”.
Jacobsen: What can improve the state of free speech for ex-Muslims in Sri Lanka? What can build the ties for those ex-Muslims in other countries?
Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka: We feel within the Sri Lankan context, as well as the world in general, we need to promote questioning, challenging, opposing ideas and tolerate and respect opposing ideas. Moreover, we need to cultivate open-mindedness and critical thinking from a young age to accept self-criticism. According to a survey by the Daily Telegraph, as far as Sri Lanka is concerned, it is one of the top 5 countries in the world with a ratio of 99% of people who think that religion is very important. With this background, improving free speech in our society is an uphill task.
Jacobsen: What seems like the best argument for atheism and against Islam to you?
Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka: To be frank, we do not promote atheism as an alternative to Islam. Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka is a platform for those who have left Islam under various circumstances and not following any other faiths. They can be atheists, agnostics or irreligious.
But with regards to Islam, we clearly think Qur’an is a not a divinely revealed book. Instead, we think it’s a man-made one. Likewise, we also think Mohamed is not a perfect role model for humanity. Our best argument against Islam is Mohamed and his life. If you understand the timeline of events about his life, you will see him as the person he really was.
Jacobsen: For those that renounce the faith outright, have family and friends disowned them? What were the most hurtful comments that you’ve heard? How do they cope?
Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka: As we said earlier, many of our members remain closeted. Despite that their obvious irreligiousness itself has caused them emotional distress. The rest who are courageous enough to admit their faithlessness to their close family and friends are forced to endure depression, isolation, and at certain instances even physical abuse.
The common accusation is that we are conspiring against Islam and Muslims for monetary objectives with support of Zionists and the west. Furthermore, we have been labelled devilish and other not-so-favourable names.
Jacobsen: Are these typical responses to leaving Islam?
Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka: Yes indeed, and you find this only among Muslims.
Jacobsen: Why is the reaction so seemingly disproportionate – against even a son, a brother, or a friend?
Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka: Nearly all children born in Muslim families are indoctrinated with religious beliefs from a very tender age. Starting with evening religious schools (Madrasa), regular general preachings, Friday’s Jummah preachings, sponsored programs on state own media – including hours of preaching on national radio etc., all brainwash Muslims, especially children. They are taught to think, act and live in a particular way – approved by Islamic teachings. The local Islamic Authority, All Ceylon Jamiyathul Ulama, and foreign-funded (Specially Arabic countries and Turkey) Islamic movements, make this scenario even worse.
Jacobsen: What is the best way to combat far-Right ideologies such as ethnic nationalism and Islamism?
Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka: Nowadays, here in Sri Lanka, we are experiencing politically motivated Buddhist extremism, but luckily most of the Buddhists did not rally behind such extremism. Providing a secular-based education would be the best way to encourage critical thinking and inquisitiveness. Moreover, teaching children to respect each other’s views and to promote secular humanitarian values would start a better tomorrow.
Jacobsen: What do the most technologically advanced and democratic, and developed, societies take for granted with respect to free-speech?
Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka: In the majority of Western countries, free speech is more or less guaranteed by a constitution and they have learnt their lessons during the Enlightenment era. There was no such thing, even remotely, experienced by people in countries such as Sri Lanka. Though free speech is nominally mentioned in the Sri Lankan constitution in writing, religion, at the same time, has also been given prominent place. Therefore, religious beliefs overpower free speech.
Jacobsen: Waleed Al-Husseini of the Council of Ex-Muslims of France wroteon the conspiratorial perspective of some Muslims. That is, individuals leaving Islam can be seen as an agent of a Western or Jewish State. What seems like the source of this conspiracy view?
Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka: Scott, once again, we have to go for an answer that is similar to the one of Waleed Al-Husseini. The Qur’an and the Hadiths are the main reason for this conspiracy standpoint. There are a lot of Qur’anic versus and Hadiths said by Mohamed during the latter part of his prophetic career that spread hatred towards Jews and Christians.
Muslims are made to believe that every failure they experience and every failure within the religion can be explained by pointing by Jews, Israel or Mossad. Most Muslims can’t even think that a Muslim can leave the religion by his or her own will.
We are often accused of working for Israel, but we are the only ones who understand the struggles in operating the EMSL. For the past three months, we are struggling a lot to find a place to have a meet-up for our members, but we are still unable to locate a place that is convenient and safe for us. Also, a general look at our official website will make anyone aware that it needs a lot of development and updates, but we are not even in a position to do the necessary developments. Muslims are made to think that people of Israel do nothing but sit and spend their whole time thinking of ways to conspire against Islam. Let’s be honest, we had the same mindset during our days as Muslims.
Jacobsen: How was the organisation formed? Why was it formed? What are its current educational initiatives and social activist works?
Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka: It started as one man’s idea. Originally, it was meant to be a meet-up with his old friend who had also become an ex-Muslim a few years ago. Once they realised that both of them were in the same boat, they strongly felt the need to meet each other. But the plan took a different shape when the founder felt a responsibility to bring all other individuals who had left Islam under one umbrella. That was when EMSL was formed, in December 2016.
Following months of online and live discussions, social media campaigns were carried out to create the dream of forming Sri Lanka’s first irreligious organisation at a national level. The funniest situation was when some hardcore Islamists who were well-known by some of our members tried their level best to join us as spies by pretending to be ex-Muslims. We had to give them cold shoulders and ignore them completely.
We have many plans for online activities and we will do them when the time and resources permit us. Currently, we share other’s materials on our official Facebook page.
Jacobsen: There are a series of planned resolutions from the Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka (or, maybe, they have come out, but in any case). What is the state of them? What will be their content and purpose? What is the most important one? How will these improve the livelihoods of ex-Muslims in Sri Lanka, especially with the political activism pointed at the Government of Sri Lanka?
Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka: With regard to the proposal, they are still at the draft stage. Our objective in bringing such a proposal is to ensure equal rights of irreligious people, atheists, secular humanists, freethinkers, and LGBTIQ communities, and also to enlighten the public with regards to the very existence of such people and communities in Sri Lanka.
“The present system of segregating the schools on the basis of race and religion should be abolished. The mind of the children should not be poised with racist and religious fanaticism.”
We think the above one is the most important resolution. If the minds of growing children are not poisoned with racist and religious ideologies or when the idea of either following or not following a religion is made as freedom of choice, children will view the world around them differently. That would improve everyone’s lives, including ex-Muslims – at least in the long run.
Jacobsen: What are the upcoming and ongoing initiatives for the Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka? You can be reached through the website, Facebook, and email.
Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka: We have made steps to prepare video testimonies of some of our members. We have also prepared a message to Sri Lankan Muslims. We hope that message would have reached the media by the time this interview is published.
Jacobsen: Any feelings or thoughts in conclusion based on the discussion today?
Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka: We are grateful to Conatus News for giving us this great opportunity. Scott, we appreciate your time and efforts in making this interview a success. We hope that this interview would make awareness about Ex-Muslims among local Muslims.
Finally, we would like to take this opportunity to invite Sri Lankan ex-Muslims who have not yet joined us. We know there are a few players in Facebook & Twitter with their own identities as well as concealed identities. We are hopeful that they also join us.
Thank you very much.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Katsioulis.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2015/01/01
1. How did you find developing from childhood through adolescence into young adulthood with extraordinary giftedness? Did you know from an early age? What events provided others, and you, awareness of your high-level of ability?
Thank you for your question. Well, I didn’t have any forehead mark indicating that I have any special abilities, so my childhood was mainly full of activities that I enjoyed, such as reading literature, solving math, logical problems and puzzles, getting involved in discussions with adults and having rather many questions. I can recall an instance that I was a little boy and I made a reasonable for me at that point assumption that given that the white sheep produce white milk, the black ones should produce cocoa milk. I should emphasize that I enjoyed more spending my time on my own instead of socializing, which lasted till my adolescence. Teachers’ feedback was positive and promising at all stages of my education. At this point, I should mention that I am very grateful to my parents, both teachers of the Greek language, who provided me a variety of mental stimuli and a proper hosting setting for my interests. During my adolescence, I had a distinction in the national Math exams in 1990 and in the national Physics Final exams in 1993 among some thousands of participants. I was successful to enter the School of Medicine on my first participation in the entrance exams in 1993 and I was one of only six successful candidates who sat for the exams for the first time.
2. You scored some of the highest intelligence test scores on record, nationally and internationally. In many cases, you scored the highest. For some of your scores on these tests, I recommend readers to your website: katsioulis.com.
You competed in the Physics National Final Exams(Greece, 1993), Cerebrals NVCP-R international contest (2003), and the Cerebrals international contest (2009). You earned the best performance in all three. In light of this, when did you find your first sense of community among fellow ultra-high ability individuals?
Thank you for the impressive introduction to your readers. My ranking on the Physics National Final Exams is mainly the result of hard work and personal interest in Physics. Having scored quite well in some IQ tests and contests, I joined many High IQ Societies since 2001. I noticed that there were some difficulties in their proper functioning minimizing interactivity and subsidizing creativity. Therefore, I took the initiative in 2001 to form a pioneer organization focused on promoting communication and enhancing productivity for the individuals with high cognitive abilities. This organization is the World Intelligence Network, (http://IQsociety.org), standing as an international collective entity dedicated to foster and support High IQ Societies. Currently, 48 High IQ Societies are affiliated with WIN. Furthermore, I formed 5 core High IQ Societies covering cognitive performances from the 1st to the 5th standard deviations above the mean (IQ 115 to IQ 175, sd 15), (QIQ, http://Q.IQsociety.org), (GRIQ, http://GR.IQsociety.org), (CIVIQ, http://CIV.IQsociety.org), (HELLIQ, http://HELL.IQsociety.org), (OLYMPIQ, http://OLYMP.IQsociety.org), one High IQ Society only for children and adolescents (IQID, http://Child.IQsociety.org) and one only for the Greek people (http://IQsociety.gr). Last but not least, I started a Greek NGO about abilities, giftedness and high intelligence named Anadeixi (http://aaaa.gr).
>3. If you could, how would you change the educational systems of the world? In particular, how would you develop an educational system to provide for the needs of the gifted population?
The development of a more personal, more accurate and proper educational system is one of the target goals of Anadeixi. I strongly believe that not even 2 different persons can have the exact same profiles, characteristics, needs, personalities, interests, abilities, backgrounds and goals. Imagine the diversity and variety of the students’ profiles if you expand this hypothesis including all the students of any educational system. Any person is different from any other and should be treated as such. It is rather an unfair, conforming generalization all of the students to participate in the exact same educational program. There should be an introductory level of the basic sciences offered to anyone and on top of this an additional specialized education program based on the personal needs and potencies of any of the participants. Anyone should know how to read and write, to make simple math calculations and to have some basic awareness of history, geography and the rest main fields of knowledge. However, some of the students have specific preferences and interests and the educational system should take these into consideration and respond accordingly. Regarding the structure of such an educational system, there could be a 2-dimensional. The horizontal axis may include all the special fields of science, knowledge and interests and the vertical axis may demonstrate the various levels of performance and awareness. Thus, any participant can be allocated to the proper horizontal and vertical places based only on his interests, preferences, goals and current expertise and awareness. In such an educational system structure, there is no place for any age or other restrictions or limitations.
4. What global problems do you consider most important at the moment? How would you solve them?
Identity crisis is the main global problem. People lost their identity, their orientation, their life quality standards. They don’t care about who they are, they develop personalities based on the mainstream trends, they play roles and they waste their lives in their attempts to adjust to what some few others expect from them and their lives. People have neither time nor any intention to realize what life is about. They are born and live to become consistent and excellent workers, minor pieces of a giant puzzle for some few strong people’s entertainment purposes and benefits. Therefore, they don’t care about the quality of their lives, about other lives, about relationships and the society in general, about our children’s future. It is indeed a pity, however it is a fact. Education could be helpful towards self-realization, awareness, knowledge, mental maturity, overcoming any external restrictions and limitations. As I usually say to my psychotherapy clients, the solution to any problem is to make a stop and one step back.
5. Generally, many interacting systems operate in societies: political, economic, religious, corporate, educational, and so on. If you could build and run a society, how would you do it?
I would say no more than what a great ancestor said 25 centuries ago. Plato suggested an ideal society based on the special abilities of the citizens. The most capable ones should be leading the society functions, the strongest ones should help with their physical powers, a meritocracy should be in place. We should all contribute to the society well-functioning, if we intend to live in the society and benefit out of it. The definition of one’s prosperity should be defined only in the context of the society prosperity. If we act against our nest, how should this nest be beneficial, protective and supportive for us. We often see people who have no other than marketing skills or powerful backgrounds to guide societies, decide about millions of people, control people’s future, when many capable and talented others live in the shadow. The most important element in any society is the citizen and people should realize their power. There is no society without citizens, there are no rules without people to follow them. People can claim their right to live their ideal society.
6. If you do consider a general moral, intellectual, spiritual, and emotional progression or development, how do you view development from the basic to most advanced levels at the individual and collective level?
[This is covered above]
7. Do you think biology and machines will merge? If so, how might this happen? Furthermore, how far would integration occur?
We do control machines (for now), however we cannot control or overcome biological rules. Machines could substitute some missing, mistaken or dysfunctional biological structures, however we are in no position to support artificial life at least for now. Having in mind the science progress and knowledge advancement within the last century, we may soon manage to understand much more about life and even copy biology principles creating a kind of life. There are no limits in this integration. From your question, I could assume that we both like science fiction movies.
8. What is the ultimate relationship between mind and reality?
Mind is an advanced personal processor, responsible for the perception, reaction and adjustment in reality. We need mind to live our reality. I suppose we all know what is the condition of a body with a non-functioning mind. Reality is an objective and independent set of conditions, events, happenings, incidents, people, principles, facts. Our mind personalizes this objective information to a subjective representation in us. Mind function is influenced by factors, such as perceptual ability, reasoning, previous knowledge and experiences, psychological status and mental state. For instance, we have all been present in an event and our understanding of what happened may significantly defer from what anyone else present states. So, we need mind to live our reality and we need reality to use our mind.
9. You earned the Genius of the Year Award – Europe in 2013 from PSIQ. In your one-page statement on winning the award, you say, “I believe in the power of human mind and my works contribute to the facilitation of mind expressions, promotion of creativity and enhancement of productivity for a better life quality for everyone. Maximizing outcomes based on the appreciation and utilization of people’s potentials for the benefits of any individual and humanity in general.” What motivates this passion for improving the lot of others?
Life is a continuous claim of happiness and satisfaction. There are plenty of distractions and attractions in life which can mislead and redirect people causing disorientation, targeting fake goals and resulting to low life quality. I am passionate with people and communication and that is the main reason I chose to be a Psychotherapist, Psychiatrist and a Founder of some communities and networks. I believe in self-awareness, self-appreciation, self-confidence and self-determination. Offering people an opportunity to look into themselves and grab the chance to evaluate their lives, attitudes and interests, is a challenge for me. I have undertaken this procedure myself and I offer the exact same to anyone interested. I support people and I believe in their abilities, talents and specialties. Psychologically speaking, I may provide what I would appreciate to have been provided.
10. As a final note to your award statement, you state, “Humans are biological beings, life is a mystery, creation is still unknown. We live a miracle and we can only maximize this miracle’s impact in every single moment of our existence.” What do you mean by “miracle”? Can you elaborate on the maximization of every moment of our existence?
Allow me to clearly mention that I do not wish to support any specific religion with my statement. I have the feeling that the advanced and complicated structure and function of life, considering even only a single cell, is itself a miracle. I am using the word ‘miracle’ since mathematicians have proved that it is rather impossible all cell components to accidentally find themselves in the proper position and start functioning as a cell within the total duration of universe existence. So the time elapsed since the creation of universe supports the non-accidental, thus miraculous nature of life. The specific rational for this miracle, a specific power, God, destiny, even the nature itself, has been a fascinating topic for many other specialists throughout all human history.
The maximization of our life moments is a quality term, used to define appreciation of our time, life satisfaction and happiness. Since we know nothing about the reasons of our existence, we may solely take advantage of the fact that we are alive and experience the most out of it. In this context, we need to define what makes us excited and content and we should target and claim satisfaction and happiness.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Death Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/06/12
Faye Girsh is the Founder and the Past President of the Hemlock Society of San Diego. She was the President of the National Hemlock Society (Defunct) and the World Federation of RTD Societies (Extant). Currently, she is on the Advisory Board of the Final Exit Network and the Euthanasia Research and Guidance Organization. Here we talk about her life, work, and views.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What was early life like for you, e.g., geography, culture, language, religion or lack thereof, education, and family structure and dynamics?
Faye Girsh: I grew up, an only child, in a middle class, loving family in Philadelphia. Both parents had large extended families and I lived in a row house with lots of kids on our street.
My dad worked hard in his men’s clothing store, despite his longing to be a surgeon. They retired to Florida after I left Phila to go to graduate school in Boston.
I have since lived around the country and the world. I am widowed with two great children and four grands and live in a wonderful retirement community in San Diego.
Jacobsen: What levels of formal education have been part of life for you? How have you informally self-educated?
Girsh: My MA degree in Psychology is from Boston University but I glimpsed Harvard across the river and went there for a Doctor of Education degree in Human Development.
My vague plans included university teaching and raising a family which is just about how it turned out. The self-education part was big.
While teaching at Morehouse College, I did a research project on death penalty jurors which took me into forensic psychology since the study was used by the US Supreme Court and I was asked to testify in death penalty cases around the country.
I taught myself how to do psychological evaluations used by the courts to determine sentence and to select juries — both of which I continued to do.
I learned about the right to die movement and the passion about the injustice of not being able to make one’s final decision propelled me to learn all about it.
I was in private practice as a clinical and forensic psychologist in San Diego for 18 years before giving it up to run the national Hemlock Society out of Denver in 1996.
Jacobsen: As the Past President of the Hemlock Society of San Diego, what were the more troubling and the more heartwarming stories from the time as the President?
Girsh: I founded the Hemlock Society of San Diego in 1987 and we immediately were asked by the national Hemlock Society to get signatures for a ballot initiative to have physician aid in dying in Calif.
That was an exhausting — and eventually frustrating — pursuit since there was no money to continue the effort in 1988. But we did it again in 2003, collected 28,00 signatures in San Diego, got the initiative on the ballot, had no money left, but still got 47% of the vote.
Of course, we now have a Calif law permitting aid in dying passed by the legislature in 2016.
Jacobsen: Now, with the tenure complete, what is the next step for you?
Girsh: My forte is not in administrative details but in risk-taking and moving the issue ahead. I did that with the Caring Friends Program, now the thriving Final Exit Network, and with the Hemlock Society of San Diego.
I am not sure how to accomplish this but it is absolutely necessary to expand the Oregon model of aid in dying, now 20+ years old to include non-terminal people.
I would like to see our law look more like the law in Canada which includes voluntary euthanasia, as well as self-administration of medication. And I would like to see doctors more involved and even have non-doctors trained to provide a peaceful death.
Jacobsen: What were the largest successes and honest failures from the time as the President?
Girsh: My two successes were the founding of Final Exit Network, a national organization using a model different from the Oregon law involving trained volunteers providing information and support to people in their homes at no charge.
And the Hemlock Society of San Diego, now in its 32nd year, informing people about their end of life choices at our monthly meetings and on line with these programs available to watch on our web site (hemlocksocietysandiego.org). Failures?
We tried to develop a San Diego, then a national, program for Patient Advocacy but the model we chose was not utilized by our members. It is still needed since so many things happen to patients at the end of life that could be prevented by trained advocates.
The major problem existing all over the world is Dementia in all its forms. Many of us would like to be able to die before or as the disease runs its horrible course.
So far a person must be mentally competent to get help, in most places. This must change so that a person could get help to die even if not competent but lapsing into the moderate or severe stages of this life-shattering illness.
Jacobsen: What is California’s End of Life Option Law (Right to Die Law or Physician Aid in Dying)? Why was this important, and is this salient, for end of life planning and options for Californians?
Girsh: With 40 + million people in California, getting this law passed here was a major accomplishment. The law is more restrictive than most people would like, it is rare to find a doctor to do it, and it is too costly but it has been a godsend.
It enables people to determine their own way to a peaceful death, to have a celebration of life while alive, and to not endure the pain, dependence, and indignity which often accompany the last stages of dying. It works for those people who are eligible, can find a compassionate doctor, and can afford the medication.
Jacobsen: What are some of the terms and phrases floating around: the right to die, euthanasia, dying with dignity, and medical assistance in dying, and so on? What differentiates each of these, aside from, potentially, sociopolitical concerns?
Girsh: The plethora of terms is confusing. In the seven jurisdictions where aid in dying is legal, but medication is self-administered, it is referred to as Medical Aid in Dying, Physician Aid in Dying, and Death with Dignity.
Our opponents like to call it “assisted suicide” even though every statute specifically says it is NOT “suicide” for insurance purposes or on the death certificate. We strongly believe in suicide prevention when the reason for choosing death is not a rational one.
Where a direct injection by a doctor is permitted (Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg) it is called Voluntary Euthanasia, also MAID (Medical Aid in Dying.) The word “euthanasia” must be preceded by “voluntary” to apply to what we want in our Right to Die movement.
The “right to die” is more generic and means that each individual should have the right to choose a peaceful, dignified death consistent with his or her own values, and with assistance.
Jacobsen: Who are some of the luminaries of the movement? What is some essential reading on these subjects pertinent to the mission and mandate of the more than 30-year-old organization?
Girsh: Derek Humphry is the founder of the Hemlock Society, now head of ERGO (Euthanasia Research and Guidance Organization) and about to retire. But still very productive and living in Oregon.
Dr. Michael Irwin, also in his late 80’s, is a leader in Europe and was the founder of SOARS (Society for Old Age Rational Suicide), an important concept that remains pressing today. My hero is Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who openly helped 130 people have a peaceful death.
Dr. Rob Jonquiere, Executive Director of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies is one of those early Dutch doctors who defied the law and now holds the world’s right to die organizations together as Executive Director of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies.
And Dr. Philip Nitschke, the first doctor in the world to legally provide voluntary euthanasia and a vocal advocate for choice, now in Holland. His web site:
https://www.exitinternational.net/about-exit/dr-philip-nitschke/embed/#?secret=Otg6OX4cV3
The Peaceful Pill Handbook (on line and in print) is helpful as is Derek Humphry’s book, Final Exit, now in its 3rd edition and in 13 languages.
Jacobsen: Who tends to be the main opposition to the right to die, and so on? What human rights provide the basis for the personal choice in, arguably, one of the most important decisions individuals make in their lives?
Girsh: The Catholic Church has invested the most money, propaganda, resources into opposition and now includes other groups, including the Mormons and evangelicals.
Also some elements of the disability community, most obvious and vocal is Not Dead Yet. Opposition to choice at the end of life is highly correlated with frequency of church attendance.
The Canadian constitution has wording to protect human rights as does the UN Declaration of Human Rights. I have a concern about the teachings of Islam which seem to be opposed to end of life choice. In Holland, as I understand it, the Islamic community disdains even Advance Directives.
South Africa, where this is a burning issue right now, also has a constitution protecting human dignity. In the US the Supreme Court in 1997 overruled two lower courts stating that there is not a constitutional right to assisted dying, but that it is a matter to be decided by the states. (That year the Oregon law went into effect.)
Jacobsen: Any final feelings or thoughts based on the conversation today?
Girsh: It is comforting to look at the accomplishments of the last 30 years and feel that dying is much better than, say the 1970s, or in other countries without the laws we have.
But it is discouraging to realize how far we have to go before people get the choices they would need to die to retain their dignity and control.
The Catholic Church continues to wield enormous power and are taking over community hospitals where even advance directives are not honored. Hospices are good but resist including aid in dying as an option for their patients.
Dementia is an epidemic and warehousing for those patients is a growing industry. More people are defining life in terms of quality not quantity which is good, while medical science is inventing ways to prolong life, and prolong death, so that we have become an aging society with many in nursing homes.
We have a long way to go to educate the public about choices in dying, about defining “life”, and about making the end less agonizing for patients and their families.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Faye.
Girsh: Thanks for these very thoughtful and provocative questions, Scott.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Maxime Vende
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2017/03
Courtney McCaffrey et deux autres employés d’AT Kearney ont publié un article présentant le débat actuel autour du revenu universel de base.
Résumé
Certaines personnalités politiques, aussi bien en Europe qu’en Amérique du Nord, jouissent d’un élan de popularité depuis qu’elles promettent à la population de lui rendre le contrôle du système économique qui la gouverne.
Mais l’automatisation et les nouvelles technologies sont un écueil majeur. Un rapport de l’université d’Oxford affirme qu’aux États-Unis 47 % des emplois seront menacés par l’automatisation dans les vingt ans à venir. Le revenu de base est alors souvent présenté comme une mesure pouvant accompagner une telle transformation radicale, pour la rendre supportable.
Un revenu de base est à la fois universel et inconditionnel. Les expériences passées, telles que Mincome au Canada, les projets de Seattle et Denver aux États-Unis, ou encore ceux de Namibie, ont montré des résultats positifs qui encouragent les politiques remettre le revenu de base sur la table. McCaffrey et ses collègues énumèrent aussi diverses personnalités s’étant récemment déclarées favorables au dispositif, comme Elon Musk, Tim O’Reilly ou bien encore Marc Andreessen.
L’article recommande la lecture de deux ouvrages : Utopia for Realists de Rutger Bregman et Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy de Philippe Van Parijs et Yannick Vanderborght. Des expérimentations actuelles sont également évoquées : en Finlande, en Inde et en Ontario.
Le revenu de base est esquissé à grands traits, positifs comme négatifs. Le texte avance qu’une population bénéficiant d’un revenu de base dédierait davantage de temps à la famille et à l’éducation. Parmi les pistes de financement possibles, les ressources naturelles et l’augmentation de la fiscalité sont évoquées. Les arguments avancés contre le revenu de base relèvent généralement de l’idéologie du camp qui les formule, mais l’inquiétude la plus vive est globalement de savoir si la population continuerait à occuper un emploi si le revenu de base lui permettait de subvenir à ses besoins fondamentaux.
Pour finir, l’article résume les critiques traditionnellement faites au dispositif. À droite, c’est l’argument du coût qui prime. À gauche, il est souvent jugé « anti-progressiste », car il pourrait affaiblir les dispositifs actuels de protection sociale et ne prend pas en compte la variation du coût de la vie suivant les régions.
Lire l’article (en anglais) :
McCaffrey, C.R., Toland, T. & Peterson, E.R., « The Best Things in Life Are Free? », AT Kearney, mars 2017.
Traduction d’un article de Scott Douglas Jacobsen initialement publié sur Basic Income News.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/03/03
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The term soul seems ill-defined. Its original term, psyche, appears more precise. The complete makeup of a human being. Let’s talk about the naturalistic soul, the psyche, what do we know and not know at present if you had recent conversations with or readings by relevant experts in a variety of relevant fields? If not, I’ll take personal opinions too.
Dr. Herb Silverman: I’m uncomfortable using the word “soul” for the same reason I’m uncomfortable praising the Confederate flag. That flag to me is a symbol of white supremacy and slavery. But to many of my fellow South Carolinians the Confederate flag represents heritage, not hate. I think it represents both heritage and hate. And some heritage is hateful or worse, including what the Confederate flag and swastika represent to most of the world. I usually hear the word “soul” when people distinguish between our material mortal body and what they call our immaterial immortal soul. Some who fear death and want to escape its inevitability invent things like a heaven and a soul. These humans try to distinguish themselves from other animals and living things, saying that we are the only ones with souls. There are some real uses of the word “soul” that I like, including soul music, which arose from the black experience in America. I don’t like soul food like chitterlings and ham hocks. Soul food is a genre created by southern black Americans, and I know many people find it tasty. Soul (nephesh) was originally a Hebrew concept and a synonym for a living breathing creature. In this case, when the creature stops breathing, the soul is dead. In the Hebrew Bible, a person does not have a soul, but is a soul. This concept is closer to a naturalistic soul, or psyche. I prefer to use the word “mind” instead of soul or psyche, but I am comfortable with the word psyche. Our minds try to make sense of the natural world in which we live. There is no purpose in nature, but our minds come up with purposes in our own lives. Science has shown that all life is interconnected by small particles and phenomena playing off one another in subtle ways. I think natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of our natural universe, and our continuously changing universe is a product of these laws. To quote Carl Sagan, “The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/02/26
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: My friend and colleague, Paul Krassner, died last year. He published The Realist with luminaries including George Carlin and Lenny Bruce published in it. In honour of his life and work, I will comment on Bruce and then Krassner for individuals who may not know them, as I believe in the renewal of their core legacies for the current crop of the young: Getting caught in what should be, as Lenny Bruce articulated, is a terrible, terrible lie given to the people long ago, there only is what is, and the rest is a fantasy. This seems true to me. How can the false selves and idealized selves of youth lead a young person astray, by their own inability or outright dismissal to take heed of the real and act on it?
Dr. Herb Silverman: I have fond memories of Lenny Bruce, whom I worked with on February 11, 1961, at Town Hall in Philadelphia. I never actually met Lenny, but I sold soft drinks before his performance and during intermissions. I made about six dollars that night, and Lenny made considerably more. I started my selling career in 1958, when I was 16, and continued until I graduated from Temple University in 1963. I mostly worked my way through college by selling refreshments at sporting events, and occasionally at Town Hall. Other performers I “worked” with at Town Hall include Pete Seeger, Ray Charles, Joan Baez, and Peter, Paul & Mary. Lenny Bruce’s performance was special for me. I didn’t even know who he was at the time, but I was pleasantly shocked to hear an adult, let alone a performer, use the word “fuck.” Youth today certainly aren’t surprised to hear the F-word in ordinary conversation, but the 1950s and early 1960s were a different world. Lenny Bruce’s battles against censorship, including jail time, are now mostly won, but he was a pioneer whom I am proud to have “worked” with.
In his performance, Lenny said, “There are no dirty words, only dirty minds.” He also criticized religion, the first time I heard such criticism from a performer. He said, “If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses.”
As you indicate, Lenny Bruce said this about lying, “ Let me tell you the truth: The truth is what is. And what should be is a fantasy, a terrible, terrible lie that someone gave the people long ago.” Along those same lines, Lenny also said, “If you believe there is a God, a God that made your body, and yet you think that you can do anything with that body that’s dirty, then the fault lies with the manufacturer.”
In particular, young people can be led astray by believing lies they are told about God and religion. (Here I use the word “lie” loosely, meaning “untruth,” because people might not actually be lying if they accept as true their fantasies about God.) Of course, there are many ways to be led astray by lies, not just through religion. It’s important to be skeptical of claims, and you should look for evidence to back up those claims. This is especially true of claims made by politicians. It’s essential to learn how to think critically, which should be taught in school starting with kindergarten.
Jacobsen: When I asked Krassner in an interview with him, “What advice do you have for youth?” He replied, “Try not to take yourself as seriously as your causes.” I still miss him. When a young person isn’t tuned into themselves, able to feel, able to label the feelings, able to assert themselves and deal with the real world in a proactive, friendly, and realistic fashion, they’re significantly handicapping their fulfillment in life and trajectory. The getting to where they want to go and the feeling of how they want to feel getting missed. When connected with oneself, you can connect to others fully and authentically – organically. Why is non-seriousness about oneself and seriousness about one’s causes important as a life principle?
Silverman: Scott, you are very fortunate to have been a friend and colleague of Paul Krassner. I never met Krassner, but I have admired him since I was a child and read his pieces in Mad magazine. In Mad, and later in TheRealist, I learned to appreciate political (and religious) satire.
When Paul Krassner advised youth, “Try not to take yourself as seriously as your causes,” I think he was speaking not just about youth, but about everybody—including himself. Krassner coined the term “Yippies,” a politically-active countercultural youth group of hippies. It was an offshoot of the free speech and anti-war movements in the late 1960s. The Yippies were known for street theater and politically-themed pranks, and had been called “Groucho Marxists.”
After Larry Flint announced in 1978 that he was resigning as publisher of Hustler, the porn magazine, because he had become a born-again Christian, Flint said that Paul Krassner should replace him. Krassner told People Magazine, “I know it’s bizarre, but if God told him to hire me, I ain’t going to argue about it, even if I’m a born-again agnostic.” Krassner became publisher of Hustler for six months, until Larry Flint came back to his senses as an atheist.
I think Paul Krassner summed up his philosophy nicely when he said, “We know we are all sentenced to death. People cannot become prisoners of guilts and fears. They should cling to each moment and take what enjoyment they can.” For Krassner, joy was not merely hedonistic pleasures, but remaining active in causes dear to him while keeping a sense of humor.
Jacobsen: What advice do you have for youth?
Silverman: It is difficult to come up with advice that doesn’t incorporate the advice above from Lenny Bruce and Paul Krassner. But one way the three of us are different is that I don’t do drugs as they did, though I certainly favor legalizing marijuana and other drugs. Using drugs may be imprudent, but it makes no sense to arrest people for being imprudent, incarcerating them, and then giving us taxpayers the bill to keep them locked up. Unfortunately, Lenny Bruce died from a morphine overdose. One thing that Lenny, Paul, and I do have in common is that we are all Jews who don’t believe in any gods. Perhaps that ties in with the importance of having a sense of humor.
So, my advice for youth is to keep a sense of humor while remaining active in causes you care about. Unless you can have fun when working on a cause, you may quickly tire of it. Yes, you need to work hard. But you need to find ways to enjoy your work, and your life.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Silverman
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/02/20
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Nature appears to have a minimum effort to come to certain paths for life. A lot of compromises come with this. Illness, ‘early’ death, malformations, natural abortions by the female body, cognitive ticks, physical and mental limitations, etc., that’s evolution’s compromise with the world. Coming to terms with the world, the real and natural world, will happen sooner or later, on the promenade of life, people have to step out and dance, eventually. What else is life for, exactly, but to dance – so to speak? Do you see the coming to terms with the world and make compromises with one’s surrounding important for living a fulfilling life?
Dr. Herb Silverman: You certainly express well why it makes no sense to believe in an all- powerful, omnibenevolent god who created a world with the kind of malformations you describe. We are the products of evolution. We were born of risen apes, not fallen angels. Apes often had to kill to survive, and human apes have done a lot of killing and committed many atrocities. Yet the issue for me is not how low humans have sunk, but how high humans have risen. Steven Pinker provides evidence for our rise in his book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. Lately we have seen advances in human rights, in part because many people have rejected or re-interpreted some features of biblically-based morality.
Life itself is a once-in-eternity chance to experience the universe like no other living creature can. We accept that animals do not think they have a reason to exist and yet, just because we have a more advanced brain, we seek purposes or reasons to exist. We are the fortunate result of billions of years of evolution that happened to form what we call life.
But I wouldn’t refer to “evolution’s compromise with the world.” Despite the limitations that are placed on us by evolution (we can’t fly or live forever), we can, as you say, “step out and dance.” So, better to enjoy life no matter what, because it can always get worse. Each of us will dance differently as we strive to lead fulfilling lives. I think compromises with our surroundings consist of what we can do to improve our environment. At our particular moment, we need to find ways to stop or reverse the damage from climate change if we care about what will happen to future generations long after we are dead. It is said that we should think globally and act locally. At the moment, thinking globally about the environment overwhelms me, so I concentrate on acting locally.
J
Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, nature seems like a plural process. Everything going on at once. Same with our lives, hence the random events running around the house and then pooping on our carpets. Some stains never leave, entirely. How can you take on the blips in life in stride rather than saying, “I tried”?
Silverman: You mention random events, but we are here right now by some stroke of evolutionary luck. We’ve evolved to be able to think critically and dismiss Bronze Age ideas from tribesmen who attributed floods, eclipses, and plagues to punishments from a magical higher power. Rather than focusing on the “poop” in our lives, we should focus on what we’ve accomplished so far, and come up with a plan for what we can accomplish in the future. We all need to be lifelong learners.
I saw a disheartening statistic that 42 percent of college graduates never read another book after they graduate. That reminded me of a clever sign in front of a local library in my hometown of Charleston, South Carolina: “Dinosaurs didn’t read books, and now they are extinct.” If you finish your formal education without understanding your deepest strengths and interests, you have some work to do. Become the author of your life before you go extinct.
Jacobsen: In the midst of life, we can see most of us as good enough. We get along with one another and in our daily lives. Others come as dynamic dynamos, truly incredible souls. The rest – the big mass – of us as rather ordinary, stingy and crummy offshoots. The dynamos get, generally speaking, the best of what life offers due to fortune of Mother Nature’s blessings and the rewards of culture in response to the demands of said talents and special abilities. Even though, the rest of us are the good enough, the trend line of evolution. How can we get the most out of the little we’re given? Even if the time is a brief flicker, we get a life. For those dealing much with the end of life, the good stuff of life seems to come up more, ironically.
Silverman: The conditions into which people are born are due to simple dumb luck. I’m fortunate to have started life without any “blueprint errors,” so I wasn’t encumbered with any special physical or mental limitations. I know that life can be terrible for lots of people with major disabilities. Some families learn how to deal with it well, and others not so well. Attitude is almost everything along with good medical help, and a strong support system is often essential. Though I didn’t have a “silver spoon” growing up, I had a comfortable upbringing. I was also privileged to have been born in a country where I can live safely and comfortably, unlike many people in other countries who risk their lives to escape because of extreme poverty or grave danger to their lives.
In my retirement years, I’m beginning to reflect on how unnatural an act retirement is. It doesn’t exist anywhere else in nature. Have you ever heard of a retired coyote or a retired lion? A hundred years ago, humans didn’t even have a concept of retirement. Some of us are fortunate enough to be able to enjoy retirement, while continuing to try to make a positive difference in our community and on the causes we care deeply about.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Silverman.
Silverman: Thank you for the opportunity to spout off.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/09/09
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Herb, you made American history for the secular communities. This remains the fact of the matter. In the secular world, you exist as an icon and, in fact, a beloved one, as a mild-mannered liberal Jewish Yankee mathematician atheist who found his way, ironically, into the world of politics of Republican owned South Carolina. What is the feeling in the latter half of life in reflection of these facts, these achievements? When did American secularism start? What founding philosophy set this forth? Before America existed as a bounded geography, what Native American traditions seem to reflect secular idealsThank you so much for your kind words. I don’t think of myself as an icon, just someone who stumbled into an unusual situation. When I learned in 1990 that our South Carolina Constitution prohibited atheists from holding public office, I spoke to a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union to see how this unconstitutional provision could be changed. He told me that an atheist would need to mount a legal challenge by running for governor, and he said that the very best candidate would be me. There was no competition, so after giving it some thought, I agreed to be the Candidate Without a Prayer. Finally, in 1997 the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled unanimously in my favor, nullifying the anti-atheist clause in the South Carolina Constitution. All the credit for my Supreme Court victory belongs to my lawyers. I was just having fun giving talks and writing about my experiences. I also learned about and became engaged with the secular movement, leading me to help organize what became the Secular Coalition for America.
I’m optimistic about the future. The secular movement is growing, both formally through secular organizations and informally through “nones.” The “nones,” those who don’t subscribe to any faith, are the fastest growing “religion” in the United States, especially among young people. Some of the “nones” got fed up with their conservative religion that was anti-LGBTQ, anti-women’s rights, and anti-science, with little emphasis on loving their neighbor. Pedophilia has also discouraged people from maintaining their church affiliation. On the other hand, religious fundamentalists continue to flourish during this period of increasing secularization. Influence of religion at the highest levels of government under Donald Trump has never been stronger. It is up to secularists working with all who favor separation of religion and government to counter the influence of religion in government. Religious fundamentalists often claim that America is a Christian nation. It is, in the same way that America is predominantly a white nation. The majority of Americans are both white and Christian. However, we are not now, nor have we ever officially been, a white nation or a Christian nation. Those who believe America was once a Christian nation may be hearkening back to the first Europeans who settled here, before America became a nation. Those Pilgrims and Puritans were religious dissenters from Europe who sought freedom of worship in America for their own religion, but most definitely not for other religions. They had no use for religious liberty. Most of the early colonies made blasphemy a crime, an offense that could be punishable by death. Those colonies were mostly theocracies, where people who believed in the “wrong” religion were excluded from government participation and persecuted. For example, the Puritans, who established Massachusetts Bay colony in 1630, required all Massachusetts citizens to pay a tax to the Puritan Church. This church-state union led to the Salem witch trials of 1692, based on the biblical mandate: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” In the American Revolution that started in 1776, political leaders began to construct a new federal government. The soon-to-be United States of America not only declared independence from England, but also declared something even more radical—that “Governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Americans rejectedkings crowned by bishops, who had been supposedly vested with a God-given authority to rule through “divine right.” The framers of the U.S. Constitution wanted no part of the religious intolerance and bloodshed they saw in Europe. They wisely established the first government in history to separate religion and government. James Madison, affectionately known as the Father of our Constitution, said, “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the endless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” Our founders understood the devastating nature of holy wars. They wisely established a secular nation whose authority rests with “We the People” (the first three words of the U.S. Constitution) and not with “Thou the Deity.” Our founders were products of the Enlightenment. We can consider many of them freethinkers who felt that humans should not be governed by faith in the supernatural, but on reason and evidence from the natural world. Some were deists, believing in Nature’s God who set the laws of nature in motion and then retired as deity emeritus. Before Darwin and what we know of modern science, I, too, might have been a deist at that time. The founders wrote the Constitution as a secular document, not because they were hostile to Christianity or religion but because they did not want the new federal government to have authority over religion or to meddle in it. Government must not favor one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. That’s why there are only two references to religion in the Constitution, and both are exclusionary. One is Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The other is in the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This guarantees American citizens freedom of conscience, the right to practice any religion or no religion. No one’s religious liberty should feel threatened when the wall of separation between government and religion is kept strong and high. There is only one “religious liberty” Americans lack: The freedom to enlist the government to force others to acknowledge or support specific religious ideas. Unlike what many religious fundamentalists think, government neutrality is not government hostility toward religion. Our secular laws are based on the human principle of “justice for all,” and our civil government enforces those laws through a secular criminal justice system. Sinclair Lewis, the first American to win the Nobel Prize in literature, might have foreseen what could happen if the religious right were to triumph in America. In 1939, he made this chilling statement after spending six months observing Hitler’s rise in Germany: “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the American flag carrying a cross.” Beginning with Christopher Columbus, many Native Americans (then called savages) were enslaved and forced to convert to Christianity. They lost their land and were later forcibly put onto reservations, leaving the rich land they had lived on to Christian settlers ready to work for God and Country. The majority of Native American tribes, many of whom were agricultural, hadno concept of dominion over the land. Most Native American religions did not distinguish between the spiritual world and the natural world. Few Native American religions were considered absolutely unchangeable. Traditions varied from group to group, making their spirituality much less rigid than Christianity. What I like about Native American religions is that they don’t try to convert anyone. They accept that people have the religious freedom to believe and practice whatever they want. That’s also true of some religions today, but the most troublesome religious denominations are those that feel they deserve special rights and that they are obligated by God to convince everyone else of their one and only “truth.”License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/03/15
If you reflect on the Silverman v. Campbell of 1996/1997 through the South Carolina Supreme Court case, and other notable and similar cases – especially those that lost, what is the silver lining in this and other cases? Other positives around even some of the negative issues that may emerge from this, e.g., the reinvigoration of religious fundamentalists to push harder than before.
Winning is good, but sometimes losing is better—especially when a loss leads to much bigger wins. I’ll illustrate with a personal example. In 1989, a colleague at the College of Charleston pointed out that our South Carolina Constitution prohibited atheists from becoming governor. While I’m no constitutional scholar, I knew this violated Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits religious tests as qualification for any public office. I went to the American Civil Liberties Union office to ask an attorney there how this obviously unconstitutional provision could be removed. The lawyer said, “The best way is for an open atheist to become a candidate.” He added, smiling, “In fact, the very best candidate would be you—in a 1990 race for governor of South Carolina.” After giving this surprising suggestion much thought, I agreed to run as the candidate without a prayer. I assumed, in my political naïveté, that the state attorney general would then simply consent to bring South Carolina into compliance with federal law, and that would end the matter. My lawyer knew better. When a reporter asked South Carolina Governor Carroll Campbell what he thought of my candidacy and constitutional challenge, Campbell said, “The South Carolina Constitution is fine just as it is because this country was founded on Godly principles.”
My day in court came about a month before the gubernatorial election. Presiding judge David Norton had recently been appointed to the U.S. District Court on recommendation by U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond, a famously conservative senator. My attorney argued against the state’s three lawyers and was not optimistic of victory, even though privately the state’s lawyers acknowledged we were legally correct. It was discouraging to hear that the law isn’t always the primary criterion in deciding cases. A few days before the election, Judge Norton dismissed my case on the grounds that it was not ripe, meaning he would only rule on its merits if I won the election. To the surprise of no one, I lost.
But I’m an optimistic kind of guy, and I always look for positives in a situation. The best for me personally was that I met Sharon Fratepietro when I spoke at the Unitarian Church during my campaign. She volunteered to help, became my one and only groupie, and we’ve been together ever since.
I then learned in 1991 that South Carolina’s Constitution prohibited atheists from serving in any public office, and notary public would be the easiest one to challenge. The U.S. Supreme Court in Torcaso v. Watkins had struck down an identical provision in the Maryland state Constitution in 1961. If South Carolina were to grant me a notary public license, it would be an admission by the state that religious tests could no longer be a qualification for public office.
My attorney expected this notary campaign to be successful and shorter than my gubernatorial campaign. Shorter, it was not! Governor Campbell rejected my notary application. When we asked why, he said it would be too burdensome to explain all notary public rejections. But in 1994 we learned that there had been 33,471 notary public applications approved in that time period, and that mine was the only one rejected. As far as I know, I’m the only one in the history of South Carolina to be rejected as a notary public. I then won my case in several lower courts, but the state kept filing appeals.
My lawyer took an 86-page deposition from Governor Campbell in 1995. Among Campbell’s many convoluted responses, here is what he said about why it might be permissible to deny office based on religious beliefs: “Would it be right to have somebody running for public office that was avowed to overthrow and destroy the United States of America, and they didn’t believe in a supreme being but they believed in a foreign government, and they call that a religion?”
Finally, in 1997 the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled unanimously in my favor, nullifying the anti-atheist clause in the state Constitution.
Although the Religious Right was ultimately unsuccessful, my case indicated the influence they can exert over politicians. None of the political leaders in South Carolina, and certainly not the lawyers advising them, believed they could prevail legally if I continued to pursue my case. Yet those same politicians demonstrated they would prefer to waste time and taxpayer money (close to $100,000 on court fees) on a lost cause rather than risk the wrath and lose the votes of a well-organized Religious Right.
Mine was a case where the law was unambiguously on our side. Atheists and humanists are somewhat divided on how much effort to put into legal challenges for which there may not be legal precedent, and which could create bad law. Such challenges might also stereotype us as unpatriotic Americans who are trying to destroy all forms of religious expression. Examples include removing “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, changing the “In God We Trust” motto, and removing government erections of exclusively Christian monuments on public property. For the record, win or lose, I usually support such challenges.
I think we need to make our voice heard and to educate the public. Most don’t know that “under God” was only added to the Pledge during the shameful McCarthy era, turning a secular, inclusive pledge into a divisive, religious one. Or that the de facto motto established by our founders had been E Pluribus Unum, which is Latin for “out of many, one.” Again, this was changed during the McCarthy era, a substitution that excludes an increasing number of Americans who trust and believe in no gods. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on February 27in a case brought by the American Humanist Association onthe constitutionality of a 40-foot-tall Christian cross towering over an intersection in Bladensburg, Maryland.
There are some well-meaning Christian in the United States who think we are all Christian, or at least that we are all religious. We must do a better job in educating our populace about the importance of separation of religion and government (with lawsuits as a last, but sometimes necessary, resort). We need to proudly promote our founding as a secular country that does not favor one religion over another, or religion over nonreligion, and that the “nones,” those with no religious affiliation, are the country’s fastest growing demographic.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen (for Takudzwa Mazwienduna)
Publication (Outlet/Website): Book Foreword
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/09/01
Freethought in Africa, as the spark has been struck, will become a hallmark of sub-cultures throughout the African continent and diaspora in the coming decades. For the hierarchs of the religious institutions and the politically corrupt in bed with the theocratic, the demographic wave will continue as a means by which to secularize Africa as a continuation of the de-colonial eras, and the re-imagining of parts of pre-European and pre-Arab contact with Africa inclusive of a humanist vision, e.g., in the philosophy of Ubuntu or Unhu.
The idea inherent in Humanism comes inchoate in the form of Ubuntu or Unhu in which an individual’s identity exists alone and in community, in which the collective exists in intimate connection with the individual for one cannot survive in a challenging world without the other. Thus, we come to the humanist notion or the truly African notion – once one strips the supernaturalism and superstition away – of interdependency or social responsibility. Secularism merely truncates this notion from the supernatural in rejection of European Christian colonizers’ visions of a Christ almighty, Arab Muslim colonizers’ impositions of universal submission to the extranatural forces, or pre-colonial supernaturalisms in the form of African supernaturalisms and superstitions.
That is to state, a social responsibility bound to the idea of the natural. The freethought framework, in general, incorporates secularism, Humanism, and naturalism, in which Unhu and Ubuntu overlap with significant conceptual sections of Humanism in its emphasis on the individual, the collective, and social responsibility. These three points of contact pertain to some, not the entirely, of the fundamentals seen within a diverse weave of freethought around the world. However, these seem to produce networks, organizations, and personalities now. Takudzwa Mazwienduna is one such personality alongside some African organizations.
My first contact with Takudzwa occurred years ago as a writer through Cornelius Press as a progressive publication based on South Africa with Gayleen Cornelius and Takudzwa Mazwienduna at the helm. I wrote a number of articles for them, wherein South Africa’s problems in secular progress pertain to the same trends in other countries and other African states’ issues. The themes remain common, as I continue to interview several freethinkers in Africa and in the African diaspora. Their concerns and problems appear the same with different emphases per nation-state, while more extreme in some cases compared to other more secular states. Of course, nations and empires who did the colonizing had a head start on this progress. As well, African states remain poorer, more entrenched in fundamentalist religion, and behind on equal rights for women, in a post-colonial context. As these countries’ people become better educated, more secular, and permit equal rights, including economic access and educational opportunity for women, the more development and positive progress in wellbeing and wealth the societies will witness for themselves. Others remain nuanced concerns in familial and social environs in Africa.
A Vehicle for Progress by Takudzwa covers some of the needed ground around abuse of children in an African context. Certainly, this can be considered a worldwide problem. In Africa, from outside, perhaps, one issue comes in antipodes of an extreme in one dimension of analysis. One extreme pole in the view of Africans as an amorphous continent of people who cannot be understood, as if uncivilized peoples without the capacity for reason and science. Another extreme pole in the perception of Africans in dire need of critical care from various wealthy countries, NGOs, INGOs, or CSOs, indefinitely, as if Africans do not have individuality and the capacity for self-ownership, governance of themselves, and retain the right to determine the course of their lives, their countries, and their continent. In either case, autonomy and the fundamental act of choice for Africans seems missed while viewing Africans as a bloc. One contribution from Takudzwa in A Vehicle for Progress is telling an African story, an intimate one. More contributions of this form can help de-mystify the identities, cultures, and lives of Africans, thus humanizing Africans. In turn, and by definition, this becomes a humanistic effort and, therefore, bound to the principles of Humanism.
Herein, Takudzwa produces something necessary to the intellectual emancipation of Africans by Africans. In trying to catalogue and give platform, voice, and motion to some of the already moving freethought communities in Africa, as I have done, I remain chary or cautiously aware as to the importance, as a non-African (though African in the long-term descent of humanity), of this self-emancipation rather than assumed ‘delivery’ by the foreigner, the outsider, who may not comprehend the intricacies, sub-cultures, or needed points of contact in the African diaspora. Being a non-African doesn’t seem to imply inability to understand or make accurate commentary on the situation, however, a longer term emancipatory movement comes from inside the cultures and not outside of them through self-empowerment and development of critical thinking skills via self-critical questions.
In this shared effort, and in this individual representation of the shared effort by Takudzwa, I wish you happy reading.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
September 1, 2020
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2023/01/24
Gehenna: Shinking leftfrightfootword I sance heta boots to head, thraught in tens en two sans deux assortie; bas onder feu.
See “Ifreann”.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Cognitive Thrift
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/06/15
[Beginning of recorded material]
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does compactification work and make the brain more efficient?
Rick Rosner: Let’s look at it this way, a phenomenon occurs in the world for early humans in Africa or somewhere. Maybe, it’s I don’t know lightning, somebody just gets hit by lightning and killed, or maybe two people get killed in the period of a couple months, and Lucy and the rest of her tribe don’t know beans about anything. They know the natural world, but they don’t think in terms of explanations, particularly. Maybe, they do in terms of hunting, if they gang up on some animal if they flank it they can drive it back into other people with spears or whatever. I don’t know.
Generally, they live in a world that is without a whole lot of explanation, especially explanation that is correct. What they’re left with is association, they can’t not just go outside unless somebody gets hit by lightning, but what they could do is compactify what they know about lightning, which is what we know about lightning. It is associated with rain. It is associated with thunder. It is associated with all of the things that is associated in the brain – rain, sky, dropping barometric pressure if they’re able to sense that, rainy season of the year, and things that stick out taller than other things.
So, if you’re on a golf course, you don’t stand under a tree if it starts to rain. So, by associating lightning with all of these other things, they’ve made the job of avoiding lightning a lot easier. Out of all of the possible causes of lightning, and they don’t understand the cause of lightning and it won’t be understood for another couple million years, they still have compactifying the information about lightning in an informational context. They still made it much easier to think about lightning to deal with it effectively. If they hear thunder, then maybe they should go someplace where they are less likely to be hit by lightning, or a low-lying valley that don’t have a lot of trees or something.
You’ve got compactification of information where the lightning is strongly associated with certain other things. It means they don’t have to be confused when they see lightning. I mean they – it just, once lightning is put in context, associated with other things, they can more quickly and efficiently, effectively think about what to do about lightning. Other stuff in their environment. Say there is a particular type of snake or bug, and that they’ve run into a few times, a couple people might have been bitten.
Three, four, five people and nobody experienced any ill-effects from a snake bite. So, that snake could be compactified or put into the group of associated things that are fairly harmless. So, when somebody sees one of those snakes, they can pretty quickly – they don’t have to waste much thought on it if they have to waste any thought on it at all. That snake is the majority snake in their environment. If most snakes are this fairly harmless snake, they may be able to just ignore snakes in general and just walk by them without particularly, if all snakes in their environment are harmless, they are likely to not have to spend too much thought on snakes. So, compactification frees up resources for things that require thought. It allows you to address issues rapidly, and it can help reduce error by putting thing based on experience into the right class of things.
As humans, we live in the age – looking towards the future and at our past – live in the age of and embody the age of productive thinking, where animals that are less good at thinking are not going to experience the fruits of thinking. The game theoretic payoff for trying to figure something out for a possum is that the payoff box for trying something new is going to be a for a possum is a lot lower than for a person. We developed the cognitive capacity to look at novel situations and to have a decent chance of having a positive outcome to trying something new in situations.
Unfortunately for individual less-than-fit-people, nerds say versus jocks, there are 7.3 billion people right now. So, it’s hard to come up with something new and so awesome that it leads to a change in status for you. There’s only one Mark Zuckerberg, and even he was ripping off the Winklevoss twins.
A part of compactification and thought is breaking down a complicated external world into symbols that we can hold in our heads. Hawking, as he became increasingly debilitated had to develop a compact language that represented super-complex physics so he could hold it all in his head to keep doing physics.
[End of recorded material]
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2021/03/01
Activism, by its nature – real active involvement in community civic and political life, requires sacrifices. How should secular activists gauge their ability to participate in the variety of activist efforts available to them, not only in terms of opportunity costs between different activist efforts but also the costs to aspects of their lives and liabilities to personal safety?
Perhaps the most important and effective thing for secular activists to do is to come out of the closet. Attitudes toward gays changed rapidly when people learned that their friends, neighbors, and even family members were gay. Attitudes about atheists are slowly changing as atheists are slowly coming out, especially among millennials.
You’ve probably heard there has never been an atheist president, but the truth is that there has never been an open atheist president. I expect there have been several closeted atheist presidents. Barney Frank, the first openly gay member of Congress, only acknowledged that he was an atheist after he retired from Congress. I also doubt that presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is the only Jewish socialist in the country who believes in God. A recent Harris survey showed that 52% of Jews (myself included) do not believe in God. https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsdontbelieve/
The bad news about coming out of the closet is that you might lose some friends, though I would question what kind of friendship it is if you can’t be honest about who you are. Of course, caution may well be necessary when dealing with religious family members or employers. The good news is that you will gain friends. I’ve heard from people who guardedly mentioned their secularism to friends and coworkers and were pleasantly surprised by a “Me, too” response. Better to be comfortable in your own skin than to hide who you are in order to please those you might not respect.
I think it’s counterproductive to come out as arrogant atheists. We should not gratuitously bash religion or become atheist evangelists, promoting atheism to those who have shown no interest in discussing religion. We can answer questions about our naturalistic worldview without trying to convince others to adopt it. If questioners are open-minded enough to consider our views thoughtfully, some may convince themselves that atheism makes sense, as many of us did.
We mostly want our worldview to be respected in a culture where many distrust us because we don’t believe in a judging God who will reward or punish us in an afterlife. When I hear such concerns, I ask how their behavior would change if they stopped believing in God. If it wouldn’t, then it doesn’t make sense for them to think we are less moral. If behavior would change because of God belief, what kind of morality is that? I like to emphasize behavior over belief, that we are good for goodness’ sake. Religious or not, silent evangelism might be the most effective approach for all of us. People are likely to respect our worldview more for what we do, than for what we preach.
Here are some things to do in our community, while respectfully (as appropriate) describing our worldview. Write letters to the editor, especially countering those that promote ridiculous or unfair religious ideas.Write letters tomembers of Congress and local politicians, even visiting them in their offices. Support candidates (including financially) who share your values. Those who want to commit more of their time and energy could consider running for public office. There are important offices that might not be too competitive—perhaps local school board positions in some communities.
Atheists need to reach out to and work with progressive religionists who support separation of religion and government, and who judge people more on their deeds than on their creeds. That includes organizations like The Interfaith Alliance, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, Catholics for Free Choice, and other allies in liberal churches.When we meet people face to face, we are more likely to become friends and break stereotypes. Working with diverse groups provides an additional benefit of gaining more visibility and respect for our perspective. Improving the public perception of secular Americans may be as important to some of us as pursuing a particular political agenda.
My bottom line advice for atheists is to do what you enjoy doing, according to your comfort level. I understand why many atheists, especially in the Bible Belt, are quiet about their religious views so they won’t appear impolite or offend others. However, being polite by avoiding conflicts has never been a guiding light for me.
I think a top priority for most of us should be to fight (nonviolently) against those who try to force their religious beliefs on people who don’t share such beliefs. Especially politicians. Government must not favor one religion over another or religion over non-religion. Religious liberty must include the right for taxpayers to choose whether to support religion and which to support. Forcing taxpayers to privilege and subsidize religions they don’t believe in is akin to forcing them to put money in the collection plates of churches, synagogues, or mosques.
Some secular activists may be disappointed because they haven’t seen change fast enough. But we are evolutionists, not creationists. Evolution takes a long time. Whenever you feel discouraged by slow progress, keep this in mind: If we do nothing, nothing will change. You don’t have to do it all, but I hope you will all do something. I hope we will one day see an America that respects secular viewpoints and an America where the influence of conservative religion is mainly limited to within the walls of churches, not the halls of Congress.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/02/22
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the pragmatics or the first practical considerations of secular activism?
Herb Silverman: What to do, when to do it, and how to frame it? Those are the questions. Since open secularists are still a minority, we must pick and choose our battles. We do not ask for special rights, as many religions do. But we deserve and should demand equal rights in a country with a secular (and godless) Constitution, which does not favor one religion over another or religion over non-religion. We can focus on win-win situations, where we either gain equality or get sympathy for being discriminated against.
As a personal example, the Charleston City Council in South Carolina started its meetings with an invocation, usually a Christian one. Our local Secular Humanist group persuaded one council member to offer more diversity, and he invited me to give an invocation. But as the mayor introduced me, half the council members walked out because they knew I was an atheist. They didn’t return until it was time for the Pledge of Allegiance, and they turned toward me as they bellowed the words “under God.” Those who heard my invocation, including the mayor, thought it was fine.
I didn’t expect such defiance, but it was an opportunity for the “Law of Unintended Consequences.” A reporter from our local newspaper wrote about the incident, along with comments from those who walked out. One councilman quoted Psalm 14: “The fool says in his heart there is no God. They are corrupt, their deeds are vile, there is not one who does good.” He then told me that the walkout was not personal. In other words, his religious beliefs compelled him to demonize an entire class of people he was elected to represent. Frankly, I would rather it had been personal. Another councilman said, “He can worship a chicken if he wants to, but I’m not going to be around when he does it.” I responded, “Perhaps the councilman doesn’t realize that many of us who stand politely for religious invocations believe that praying to a god makes no more sense than praying to a chicken.” (At least you can see a chicken.)
Several days later, six favorable letters appeared in the paper criticizing the improper behavior of council members. I can’t tell you how unusual and satisfying it is for Christians in South Carolina to side with atheists against other Christians. Movements are most successful when they appeal to folks outside the group.
It helps to establish a relationship with a religion reporter, who often looks for different kinds of stories. For example, a reporter once asked if atheists in our local group celebrate Thanksgiving, a holiday when Americans thank God for their blessings. Here is the answer from one of our secularists that appeared in the paper: “We gather with friends and family, just like most Americans, and know whom to thank for our Thanksgiving meal. We thank the farmers who cared for the plants and the migrant workers who harvested them. We thank the workers at the processing plant and the truck drivers who brought the food to the grocery store. And finally, we thank our friends for helping prepare the meal and for being present to share in the festivities.”
The newspaper got some angry letters about our members not thanking God, but several secular humanists heard about us for the first time and joined our group. That became a pattern. Whenever we received media attention, we’d hear from people who disliked us and also from people who wanted to join us. It was easily worth the trade-off. Almost all publicity is good.
One of the difficulties in getting independent-minded secularists to cooperate revolves around labels. An atheist is simply someone without a belief in any gods, while a secular humanist focuses on being good without gods. These are two sides of the same coin. Many secularists are uncomfortable with the word “atheist” because it describes what we don’t believe, rather than what we do believe. After all, we don’t go around calling ourselves A-Easter Bunnyists or A-Tooth Fairyists. “Atheist” gets more media attention and “humanist” gets more respect from the general public. Other labels include freethinker, skeptic, agnostic, ignostic, rationalist, naturalist, materialist, apatheist, and more. If you don’t know what each word means, don’t worry. Even those who identify with such labels often disagree on their meanings. Parsing words might be a characteristic of folks engaged in the secular movement.
Certainly word choices can be important, but our special designations are sometimes nothing more than a matter of taste or comfort level rather than deep theological or philosophical differences. We are more effective when we let each person use the word with which they are most comfortable, rather than try to “convert” secularists to their favorite word.
Here’s an interesting distinction between Christians and secularists: Christians have the same unifying word, but fight over theology; secularists have the same unifying theology, but fight over words. At least our wars are only verbal.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Herb.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): HerbSilverman.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/02/15
Herb Silverman is the Founder of the Secular Coalition for America. Here we talk about his life, work, and views.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What was early life like for you, e.g., geography, culture, language, religion or lack thereof, education, and family structure and dynamics?
Herb Silverman: I was born in Philadelphia, where I lived for 21 years until I ran away from home to graduate school. My family consisted largely of Orthodox Jews, though my parents were more cultural Jews motivated by anti-Antisemitism. Having had relatives who died in the Holocaust, they did not trust any Goyim (Gentiles), and had as little contact with them as possible. We lived in a Jewish neighborhood and after public school I would go to an Orthodox Hebrew school. My mother was an authoritarian, who made all the family decisions. My father worked in a warehouse his entire life, packing Hershey bars that were shipped to underground subway stands. In another era, my mother would have had a job (other than cleaning house and “taking care” of me), which would have made both of us happier.
Jacobsen: What levels of formal education have been part of life for you? How have you informally self-educated?
Silverman: My formal education consisted of a Bachelor’s degree from Temple University in 1963 and a Masters (1965) and Ph.D. (1968) in mathematics from Syracuse University. My informal education consisted of learning to think for myself and figuring out when to go along with conventional wisdom and when to step to the beat of a different drummer.
Jacobsen: You have a number of illustrious merits to the personal record. One is the founding of the Secular Coalition for America. Another is the founding of the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry. A third is the founding of the Atheist/Humanist Alliance student group at the College of Charleston. This leads to some obvious questions. Why found each one of them?
Silverman: Regarding the formation of the Secular Coalition for America, I learned in the 1990s about national organizations that identified as atheists, agnostics, humanists, secular humanists, freethinkers, secularists, and more. They all promoted causes I supported, like church-state separation and increasing respect for nontheists. However, each organization was doing its own thing without recognizing or cooperating with worthwhile efforts of like-minded groups. I thought this was a shortcoming that needed to be addressed if we were to make a difference in our culture. So, I contacted all the organizations I could, and some agreed to meet at the Godless Americans March in Washington in 2002, where we decided to form a new coalition.
Regarding the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry in Charleston, South Carolina, whenever I received media attention I would get calls from people thanking me and saying they thought they were the only atheist in South Carolina. I took their names and we formed the SHL in 1994.
Regarding the Atheist/Humanist Alliance, a student came to my office in 1998 and asked about starting a student group at the College of Charleston similar to the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry. I was thrilled and agreed to be its faculty advisor. Despite an attempt by a few Christian students in the Student Council to oppose giving official club status to the group, we prevailed.
Jacobsen: How have these initiatives, founded by you, grown over time?
Silverman: The Secular Coalition for America started with 4 organizations and no budget, and we have grown to 20 national organizations with a dedicated board and staff. We were the first organization to lobby Congress, in Washington DC, for the rights of nontheists. Initially, I hoped just to have our organizations cooperate on the 95% we had in common instead of arguing about the 5% that set us apart, like which label to use.
We succeeded far beyond my expectations, since we’ve become a respected and productive lobbying organization in our nation’s capital.
The Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry has grown from a few people who met informally into a vibrant organization that meets regularly for lectures, book discussions, social and charitable events.
When the Atheist/Humanist Alliance first met, several students talked about friends or roommates who shunned them because of their nonbelief. These atheist students came to meetings because they needed a supportive community. Gradually attitudes at the College of Charleston have changed and now students worry far less about becoming unpopular because of openly being atheists. I’ve even heard students say they joined the club because atheist students are pretty cool. They are, but they were also cool in 1998. I’m encouraged by the younger generation’s wider acceptance of diversity.
Jacobsen: As a Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at the College of Charleston, how has acquired knowledge, developed skills, and recognized and nurtured talent in mathematics provided a foundation for secular humanist philosophy? In that, I assume this produced a way of thinking apart from revelation, magical thinking, and assertions of a there-before or a here-after.
Silverman: My secular humanist philosophy started long before I became a math professor. As a teenager, I decided to take from my Orthodox Jewish background only what made sense. The good works (secular humanism) remained, but not the irrelevant rituals and beliefs. Pretty soon, I realized that the God I once accepted made no sense.
When I read Bertrand Russell’s Why I am Not a Christian, I realized that there were others who thought like me. In fact, Russell might have inspired me to become a mathematician.
Jacobsen: Why did you run for Governor of South Carolina in 1990? What was the outcome? What are the lessons for others to learn from this experience?
Silverman: I had been a quiet atheist until a colleague at the College of Charleston pointed out that our South Carolina Constitution prohibits atheists from becoming governor. I knew the US Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office. So, I went to the American Civil Liberties Union, and its lawyer told me that an atheist would need to mount a legal challenge by running for governor. He said that the very best candidate would be me. I looked around, and didn’t see any competition. After giving it some thought, I agreed to be the ‘Candidate Without a Prayer.’ To the surprise of no one, I lost the gubernatorial election. But after an eight-year legal battle, I won a unanimous decision in the South Carolina Supreme Court, nullifying the anti-atheist clause in our state constitution. One lesson is that any individual can make a difference by going outside his or her comfort zone, especially when you have right on your side.
You also get to meet many interesting people. The best for me personally is that I met Sharon Fratepietro, who volunteered for my campaign, became my campaign manager, and my one and only groupie. We have been happily together for 29 years, and she doesn’t mind being married to someone who never became governor.
Jacobsen: As an author in the secular humanist tradition, what is important, now, in the continual growth of secular humanist literature?If you were a young person reading this, what authors or books would you recommend for them on secular humanism? If you were an advanced graduate student, what would you recommend for them, in terms of reading in the same genre?
Silverman: For young people I would recommend The Magic of Reality by Richard Dawkins, and for even younger people I would also recommend Maybe Yes, Maybe No: A Guide for Young Skeptics by Dan Barker. I wouldn’t distinguish books for advanced graduate students from books for all adults. We have a disproportionate number of people in our movement with advanced academic degrees, and I hope we can significantly broaden our base. A small subset of books I recommend are A Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, god is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, Freethinkers by Susan Jacoby, and the History of God by Karen Armstrong. And to be unabashedly self-promoting, I also recommend my two books Candidate Without a Prayer and An Atheist Stranger in a Strange Religious Land.
Jacobsen: In an examination of the current fiascos of the Trump Administration, what do you see as the more important areas of work for the activists of secularism and humanism?
Silverman: Well, first the good news. Donald Trump has unintentionally become perhaps the best fundraiser for atheist and humanist organizations. Many apatheists now realize the need to get involved politically and to promote our point of view instead of being demonized by the fake news coming from Trump. Just as evangelicals have recently apologized for their support of slavery and segregation, I predict that one day evangelicals will apologize for their support of the “Christian” Donald Trump. In the meantime, join and support organizations that promote our issues and are fighting to keep our secular democracy from turning into a theocracy.
Jacobsen: How can people become involved through the donation of time, the addition of membership, links to professional and personal networks, giving monetarily, exposure in interviews or writing articles, and so on?
Silverman: Start locally, and then think about becoming active nationally. Join a group if one is near you or perhaps start a local group. Check the Internet for national organizations that support forming local groups. Do what feels right for you and what makes you feel good. It could be coming out of the closet as an atheist or humanist, writing letters to the editor, enlighten people who assume we are all Christians living in a Christian country. Also, consider running for public office (not necessarily for governor). For all the faults of the Christian Coalition, they had a good strategy of taking over local offices and school boards. We even chose the name Secular Coalition in opposition to the Christian Coalition. If you can, donate to organizations you admire. There is an expression “Give until it hurts,” which is better modified to “Give until it feels good.” This usually means giving to organizations that do good and where you know your money will make a difference. That’s why I feel good about my largest donation going to the Secular Coalition for America.
Jacobsen: Any final feelings or thoughts based on the conversation today?
Silverman: I’m cautiously optimistic about the future because the largest growing demographic are the “nones,” those who don’t identify with any religion. They are disproportionately large among young people. My goal as an old fart (76) is to help pave the way for younger people to increase the visibility of and respect for nontheists in our culture. To those who are less optimistic that their actions will make a difference, remember that if you do nothing, then nothing will change. Find something to do, and do it!
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
Silverman: And thank you for the opportunity to spout off.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2023/01/24
Wards Gune: Stratata tatattooed hiponthearm rightunfronthisother on a lefthind pithy posh; gatisgordian toots fortreepooun U.
See “Talk”.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): AndrewCopson.Com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/04/03
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I wanted to talk about humanism: the hows and whys, the theoretical and practical, and so on. You are highly qualified to comment on it. So, I asked. You agreed.
So here we are, to begin, what is humanism properly defined in its most general sense?
Andrew Copson: In English since the mid-nineteenth century, when it first appeared as a word, ‘humanism’ has had two main meanings.
One is to refer to the cultural milieu of Renaissance europe (which we now more often call ‘Renaissance humanism’); the second is to refer to a non-religious approach to questions of value, meaning, and truth which emphasises the role of humanity in these areas of life rather than the role of any deity.
This ‘humanism’ is the one which has inspired the setting up of humanist organisations and the development, by humanist thinkers and activists, of the more fully worked out approach to life or worldview that we refer to with the word today.
Jacobsen: As you are based in the U.K., and you have leadership roles within the U.K. for humanism, how do you mobilize British humanists outside of a faith-based framework? My hunch is that the inspiring action in people is different in a system not based on faith.
Copson: I don’t know if it’s that different. Humanists, like anyone else, are motivated to action by their beliefs. Certainly humanist organisations and leaders don’t have the god-backed power to instruct their fellow believers to do this or that, but then that doesn’t work out terribly well for religious leaders either.
I think that leadership in a humanist context is about being clear in public forums about our values and beliefs and the living out and modelling them in practice too. If people agree with your reasoning and warm to your manner, they will consider doing as you suggest.
Jacobsen: Who do you consider the founder of humanistic values – an individual and society?
Copson: Throughout recorded history and around the world there have been humanists and this is not surprising as humanist beliefs and values can be arrived at anywhere by anyone with reason and empathy. There have probably always been such people.
The first people who expressed at least some humanist views that we know about and who left their thoughts for us in writing are people like Mengzi in China 2,300 years ago, followers of the Charvaka school in India 2,500 years ago, and thinkers of the Greek and Roman world of 2,500 to 1800 years ago.
None of the societies in which these views were expressed could be described as humanist – they were diverse societies in which there were many schools of thought – but they were certainly more humanistic than, for example, the Christian states of medieval Europe.
It was in part the rediscovery and reception of these humanistic thinkers that kickstarted the humanistic trends that have transformed the world and made it modern.
Jacobsen: Who do you consider the founder of modern humanism as a fully fledged alternate, explicit life philosophy?
Copson: There is no doubt that the most obvious English speaking framer of humanism in the specific sense of a defined worldview rather than a general social and intellectual trend is one of my predecessors as Chief Executive of Humanists UK – Harold Blackham.
In the early twentieth century he enlisted great thinkers and reformers to give form to this ‘humanism’ both in the UK and internationally as the first Secretary General of the International Humanist and Ethical Union.
He was joined in this internationally by the Dutch thinker and activist Jaap van Praag, who I would also want to name in any humanist hall of founders.
Jacobsen: From the perspective of humanists, what are perennial threats to their free practice of belief and living out humanism?
Copson: The biggest threats to humanists have always been those of culture, tradition, and religion or ideology.
All of these forces, especially when allied to political or state power, restrict the scope for freethinking and the dynamic challenging of authority through our own reason, which is the hallmark of the humanist approach.
Racism, xenophobia, and nationalism, which all attempt to reduce the types of people entitled to our empathy and moral concern, are the second group of perennial threats to our lifestance.
Jacobsen: You represent the young and the old. If there is survey data, empirical information in other words, what are the general concerns of young humanists?
Copson: Survey data don’t seem to suggest that there are significant differences between older and younger humanists.
What they have in common is a preference for liberal and tolerant social policies. Younger people tend to be less reluctant to question and critique the beliefs of religious believers in their own cohort than older people were or are.
I think this is an extension of their greater commitment to tolerance but I also think it is something of a concern, as it is so important for every generation to be critically-minded to face the perennial threats that target human reason and empathy.
Jacobsen: Tied to the previous question, even without firm empirical data, what are, or at least seem to be, the issues for older cohorts of humanists?
Copson: Older humanists in the UK tend to be surprised that there are still issues around religion and politics in UK society. They grew up in a context where religion was fading from the public agenda and now – largely due to immigration – it is back on that agenda.
So older people tend to be very concerned that the liberal social gains that their have seen secured in their lifetime – around liberal education, the human rights of children, the secularisation of social policy – may be reversed and that the lives of their children and grandchildren will be worsened by this.
If I had to pick one policy issue that concerns them, I think it would be assisted dying. Older people have to deal with a very particular situation that few older people in the history of our species have faced.
Modern medicine has preserved their lives and health beyond imagination, but the new problem this raises is how to bring a dignified end to individual human existence when worthwhile life is over.
Older humanists don’t see why their freedom of choice and their human dignity should be compromised in the way that religious lobbies and opponents of choice have successfully kept it as being.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Boa Morte
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/09/16
Philip Nitschke, médico australiano, diretor da Exit International, organização que ele fundou em 1997, é um dos nomes mais conhecidos do movimento internacional pelo direito de morrer.
Em 2015, Philip queimou sua licença médica em resposta ao que considerou condições que violavam seu direito à liberdade de expressão, impostas a ele pelo Conselho Médico da Austrália. Em seguida, Philip se mudou para Amsterdã, na Holanda – onde vive num barco.
Em 2017, Philip criou a Sarco, cápsula que pode ser acionada inclusive por pacientes com síndrome do encarceramento (locked-in syndrome), pessoas que conseguem mexer apenas os olhos. Uma vez acionado, o mecanismo libera gás inerte (nitrogênio) dentro da cápsula. Isso reduz rapidamente os níveis de oxigênio (para 5%, em menos de um minuto), o que evita a agonia causada pela sensação de asfixia. Segundo Philip, “o ocupante se sente tonto, em seguida perde a consciência e morre pacificamente”.
Philip deu uma longa entrevista a Scott Douglas Jacobsen, publicada no site Canadian Atheist em janeiro de 2019, e reproduzida em maio de 2022 na plataforma independente de jornalismo In-Sight Publishing. Você lê essa entrevista abaixo.
Se você refletir sobre o início da vida, como foram as discussões sobre a morte que você presenciou entre os adultos?
Como muitos que cresceram nos anos 50 e 60, eu estava cercado por uma cultura de negação da morte. Não queríamos pensar na morte. Isso raramente era discutido. A fé (muitas vezes mal colocada) influenciou a profissão médica. Nós tínhamos a expectativa de eliminar todas as causas conhecidas de sofrimento e doença.
Vi meu primeiro cadáver na adolescência. Noto agora como nossa sociedade é boa em remover essa experiência de nossas vidas: a idade média da pessoa que vê pela primeira vez o corpo de alguém morto aumenta a cada ano.
Foi só quando comecei a trabalhar em outras culturas que percebi que a estratégia ocidental de negação e remoção das evidências da morte, especialmente do alcance das crianças, era questionável e patológica. Nas sociedades aborígenes, onde trabalhei nos meus 20 anos, os moribundos faziam parte da comunidade, eram envolvidos nas atividades, da melhor forma que podiam, e morriam com as crianças brincando ao seu redor. Fiquei impressionado.
Na faculdade de medicina, aos 30 anos, fui mais uma vez mergulhado na negação ocidental da morte. A palavra eutanásia não era mencionada. Toda morte era considerada um fracasso.
Qual é a definição mais adequada para morte assistida ou eutanásia? Quais são as terminologias mais atualizadas?
A eutanásia voluntária, da forma que eu uso esse termo, significa uma morte pacífica, decidida pela pessoa. Ela também abrange a ocasião em que outra pessoa age para acabar com a vida de um indivíduos, a seu pedido.
Os termos “eutanásia” e “suicídio” se tornaram sensíveis. Então surgiram outras palavras para descrever a morte assistida: morte assistida por médico, suicídio assistido, suicídio assistido por médico e assim por diante.
O termo MAD ou MAiD, significando “morte medicamente assistida” tem substituído o termo PAS, ou “suicídio assistido por médico”, que ocorre quando um médico ajuda um paciente a morrer, prescrevendo-lhe um medicamento letal.
A mudança de MAD ou MAiD para PAS ou PAD surgiu como uma tentativa desajeitada de remover a palavra “suicídio” e diferenciar o suicídio racional, para os doentes e idosos, do suicídio irracional, para o adolescente deprimido.
Na Exit, entendemos que, no fundo, isso é um sofisma: suicídio é quando uma pessoa acaba com a própria vida. Ponto.
Se o ato precisar de esclarecimento, use suicídio racional para mostrar que se trata de uma decisão informada e ponderada, amadurecida, de longa data – e não um ato impulsivo.
O suicídio racional também tira o profissional médico de cena.
Morrer não é um evento médico. É sempre frustrante como esses profissionais colonizaram o território da boa morte, assim como fizeram o parto.
Como a professora Susan Stefan disse em seu livro Rational Suicide, Irrational Laws, de 2016, o problema com os médicos é que, uma vez que você os deixe entrar na experiência da morte, nunca mais os tirará de lá. Como ela está certa.
Qual é o propósito e o escopo da Exit International? Por que a Exit é importante para aqueles que pensam no fim da vida – a sua e a de seus entes queridos – em um contexto secular e não-religioso?
A Exit é uma organização que visa garantir que todas as pessoas com mais de 50 anos, no pleno exercício de suas faculdades mentais, possam ter acesso a informações precisas e confiáveis e também aos meios para que possam alcançar uma morte pacífica no momento de sua escolha, caso haja a necessidade.
A restrição de idade de 50 anos é uma espécie de compromisso. Tentamos restringir o acesso a “adolescentes problemáticos” com pouca experiência de vida, mas não excluímos pessoas com menos de 50 anos que nos procurem com motivos válidos para acessar as informações sobre morte assistida.
A Exit é um pouco como uma companhia de seguros. Oferecemos seguro para o futuro. Você espera nunca precisar disso, mas se sente confortado por saber que tem uma escolha, caso essa necessidade surja.
A idade média dos membros da Exit é de 75 anos. Isso não mudou nos últimos 20 anos.
Embora a Exit tenha pessoas de todos os matizes em nossa comunidade, é correto dizer que temos um número esmagador de não-crentes.
Isso não é surpreendente. Se você é um membro da Exit, é provável que queira escolher quando e como morrer.
Significa que você tem pouco interesse em deixar sua morte a cargo de Deus, ou de qualquer outra figura religiosa ou espiritual.
Significa que você é uma pessoa que quer autonomia e controle, tanto sobre sua vida quanto sobre sua morte.
Temos muitas feministas na Exit. Elas lutaram pelo direito de controlar sua reprodução. Agora, muitas voltam suas atenções para este próximo desafio: ganhar o direito de decidir sobre o momento e os meios de sua morte.
À medida que a idade média das populações chega em 80 e 90 anos, muitos de nós estaremos expostos ao risco de morrer mal, sem poder de escolha.
Esse receio motiva muitas pessoas. E fornece o impulso para que elas coloquem em prática um plano para garantir uma boa morte.
O que é o Manual da Pílula da Paz? De onde vem este termo?
The Peaceful Pill Handbook é o nosso guia prático, agora publicado em cinco idiomas, para explicar como uma pessoa idosa ou alguém que está gravemente doente pode obter os medicamentos ou equipamentos necessários para ter uma morte segura e pacífica no momento de sua escolha.
Se uma pessoa tem acesso às melhores informações, baseadas na ciência, ela fica no controle do processo. Sem necessidade de pedir permissão ou de envolver médicos ou outros especialistas.
E você não precisa de um jaleco branco ao lado da cama. Morrer não é necessariamente um evento médico. Repito: morrer é um evento biológico, social e cultural que todos vamos vivenciar. Não requer nenhuma ação médica ou religiosa.
O livro surgiu depois que a Lei dos Direitos de Doença Terminal da Austrália foi derrubada pelo Parlamento Federal Australiano em 1997 (depois que ajudei quatro pacientes a morrer, em 1996, durante os nove meses em que a lei existiu).
A lei foi revista, mas isso não significa que as pessoas deixaram de querer conhecer melhor suas opções de fim de vida. Na verdade, aconteceu o contrário: cresceu a demanda por workshops em que as pessoas pudessem trocar informações sobre a melhor maneira de finalizar a própria vida, caso surgisse a necessidade.
O material desses encontros e as perguntas do público eram basicamente os mesmos, independentemente da cidade ou país. Então organizar um livro pareceu uma maneira lógica de fornecer essas informações a um público mais amplo de interessados.
O termo “Peaceful Pill” é uma alusão a um método que produza a morte de modo acessível, confiável e fácil de usar, como a ingestão de uma bebida ou de uma pílula.
A inspiração para a “Pílula da Paz” veio do juiz holandês Huib Drion, que cunhou o termo “Pílula Drion”, algo que ele argumentou que deveria ser fornecido gratuitamente a qualquer pessoa idosa que a solicitasse.
O juiz Drion compreendeu que todas as pessoas com mais de 70 anos deveriam ter acesso a essa pílula. E ele achou inapropriado que essa opção ficasse restrita a médicos ou farmacêuticos, apenas em virtude da sua formação técnica.
De fato, a ideia de que todos os indivíudos com mais de 70 anos recebessem uma “pílula da paz” – tendo assim controle sobre sua vida (e sobre sua mortemorte), independentemente de estarem doentes ou não, é um tópico de amplo debate hoje na Holanda.
Por isso eu gosto tanto de viver neste país. A abertura e a franqueza do debate sobre algo tão fundamental quanto morrer. Admiro muito o pragmatismo dos holandeses.
Por que o respeito à escolha individual, ou à autonomia de cada um sobre o que fazer com sua própria vida, é tão importante em sociedades livres?
Na sociedade moderna, as decisões que tomamos ao longo de nossas vidas ajudam muito a definir quem somos, tanto em termos individuais quanto no que se refere à comunidade a que pertencemos.
Nós somos definimos pelo que fazemos no trabalho, em nossa vida privada, se temos filhos e assim por diante.
Dez anos atrás, a Exit fez um comercial de TV chamado “Exit Choices”, que teve como tema a prerrogativa do indivíduo de tomar decisões a partir de uma reflexão pessoal: “esta é a pessoa que eu sou”.
Tinha um cara sentado na cama de pijama dizendo “eu escolhi ir para a universidade, eu escolhi dirigir um Ford”. Mas “não escolhi ter câncer e certamente não quero escolher que minha família me veja sofrer”.
Ele encerrou dizendo: “Fiz minhas escolhas durante toda a minha vida, sobre como sou e como vivo. Por que não posso escolher como morrer?”
Parece uma boa pergunta.
Discordo fortemente do contra-argumento que diz que uma pessoa que escolhe uma hora e um lugar para morrer pode, com isso, prejudicar a comunidade que ela deixa para trás.
No filme Mademoiselle and the Doctor, de 2004, de Janine Hosking, eu falei sobre isso.
Tenho notado muitas vezes que pode haver um grande ressentimento por parte dos que ficam para trás quando alguém opta pelo suicídio. É como se muitos de nós se sentissem profundamente e pessoalmente insultados quando alguém parte mais cedo, como se estivesse dizendo aos que sobraram que ele ou ela não tinha tempo para o jogo que o resto de nós está jogando.
Como a eutanásia voluntária difere do suicídio racional?
A eutanásia voluntária significa um ato realizado por outra pessoa, quando alguém lhe ajuda a encerrar sua vida, a seu pedido. O suicídio não precisa de outra pessoa. E o suicídio racional é quando essa é uma decisão ponderada e informada desse indivíduo.
Acredito firmemente nas palavras de Thomas Szaz, que disse que o suicídio é um direito humano fundamental, e que a sociedade não tem o direito moral de interferir.
Quais são as técnicas disponíveis para cada opção do direito à morte hoje?
A eutanásia voluntária é entendida como uma injeção letal administrada por um médico, que hoje pode ser legalmente realizada na Holanda, na Bélgica e em Luxemburgo, desde que os pré-requisitos legais sejam atendidos.
Na Suíça, uma injeção letal pode ser administrada, mas a própria pessoa deve ativar a droga, pois a eutanásia voluntária é ilegal.
O suicídio racional é legal e possível em qualquer lugar se a pessoa tiver acesso às melhores informações. Esta é a principal razão para a publicação do Manual da Pílula da Paz. Não se trata apenas de drogas. Há vários métodos. Os dois critérios mais importantes são que o meio que leva à morte seja pacífico e confiável.
Quais são os métodos preferidos nos casos de eutanásia voluntária e de suicídio racional?
A maioria das pessoas – a esmagadora maioria dos membros da Exit e os leitores do nosso livro – querem uma pílula que possam tomar e que lhes permita morrer em paz durante o sono.
A melhor “pílula da paz” é o Nembutal, um sonífero barbitúrico criado nos anos 50. O composto químico é o pentobarbital que, quando tomado em overdose por via oral ou injeção, causa a morte por depressão respiratória enquanto a pessoa está em sono profundo. Esta foi a droga usada por Marilyn Monroe, Judy Garland e Jimi Hendrix para acabar com suas vidas.
A droga não é mais prescrita como agente anestésico. Ela foi substituída na década de 1960 pela família de medicamentos benzodiazepam, muito mais segura.
Entre os membros da Exit, alguns viram membros da família morrerem mal. Então querem ter um seguro que lhes garanta uma boa morte. Outros temem a ideia de ter que deixar sua casa na velhice e se mudar para uma instituição. Outros simplesmente dizem que quando não puderem mais cuidar de si mesmos, será hora de ir embora.
Como você vê o futuro da Exit International?
Estamos analisando como usar a tecnologia para falar com um número crescente de pessoas interessadas no direito de morrer em todo o mundo. Isso inclui workshops de transmissão ao vivo, uso de holografia, apresentações virtuais e assim por diante.
Estamos analisando como preparar a organização para o futuro de modo a resistir aos ataques implacáveis daqueles que discordam da nossa filosofia e que argumentam que devemos ser fechados à força. Nosso objetivo é continuar divulgando informações precisas e de fácil compreensão sobre como ter uma morte tranquila e confiável no momento de sua escolha, além de pesquisar e desenvolver opções cada vez melhores para que o indivíduo tenha esse controle na sua mão.
Minha geração, os baby boomers, reescreveu muitas regras sobre a vida. Por que não deveríamos reescrever algumas regras sobre a morte? Este tem sido o trabalho da minha vida. Essa trajetória tem sido e continua sendo emocionante e altamente gratificante.
Devo acrescentar que meu projeto atual é a cápsula de eutanásia Sarco.
Estou trabalhando com um designer industrial holandês nisso. A ideia é criar uma cápsula na qual uma pessoa possa morrer em paz. A cápsula é esteticamente bonita. É impressa em 3D, o que significa que, com o tempo, e com o avanço dessa tecnologia, ela será amplamente acessível, pois a pessoa poderá levar seu código de acesso a uma loja de impressão 3D local e construir sua própria cápsula.
Como a Sarco é alimentada por nitrogênio líquido (causando a morte por hipóxia, baixo oxigênio), ela pode oferecer uma vantagem adicional: uma morte eufórica.
A Sarco visa inverter totalmente a forma como vemos a morte: de um evento sombrio e macabro a um acontecimento de celebração e até de alegria.
Soa distante? Estamos testando os limites, com certeza. Fiquei satisfeito no ano passado ao ver a Sarco sendo referida como o Tesla do movimento de morte assistida.
Eu acredito que há um paralelo aí.
Algum pensamento final, para concluirmos?
A Exit realiza workshops em muitos países nos quais os membros podem participar pessoalmente ou on-line. Também operamos fóruns que fornecem um serviço de perguntas e respostas. E apoiamos ativamente um programa de P&D que incentiva o uso de novas tecnologias para fornecer estratégias de fim de vida cada vez melhores e mais acessíveis.
Você pode encontrar mais informações sobre a Exit, e as atividades sem fins lucrativos em que estamos envolvidos, em nosso site.
Ou sobre nossas atividades de publicação, sediadas em Amsterdã.
Muito obrigado por me considerar para esta entrevista.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Boa Morte
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/09/16
Derek Humphry, presidente da Euthanasia Research and Guidance Organization (ERGO), é um dos pioneiros do movimento mundial pelo direito de morrer. Aos 92 anos, já fez um bocado pela causa da autodeterminação.
Em 1980, fundou a Hemlock Society – em referência à cicuta, planta utilizada por Sócrates em seu suicídio em Atenas, em 399 a.C.
No mesmo ano, ajudou a fundar a World Federation Right do Die Societies (WFRTDS), que presidiu entre 1988 e 1990.
Em 2003, a Hemlock Society mudou seu nome para End-of-Life Choices. Em 2004, a End-of-Life Choices se fundiu com a Compassion in Dying, dando à luz a Compassion and Choices.
Em 2004, Derek fundou a Final Exit Network.
Além disso, Derek é autor de livros influentes, como Jean’s Way: A Love Story e Final Exit: Self-Deliverance and Assisted Dying for the terminally and hopelessly ill.
Derek foi entrevistado por Scott Douglas Jacobsen, pouco antes de complear 90 anos. A entrevista, publicada em fevereiro de 2019 no site Canadian Atheist e em maio de 2022 na plataforma jornalística In-Sight Publishing, você lê abaixo, em versão editada.
A Euthanasia Research & Guidance Organization (ERGO) é um bom recurso sobre o tema. Como ela surgiu?
A ERGO surgiu em decorrência da visibilidade dos meus livros. Principalmente Jean’s Way, de 1978, e Final Exit, de1991. Ambos se tornaram best-sellers e permanecem disponíveis via Kindle.
[ A organização Death With Dignity informa que “em 1991, Humphry publicou Final Exit, livro de instruções sobre autodeterminação diante da morte. Em 18 meses, o livro vende 540 000 cópias e liderou as listas de best-sellers nos Estados Unidos. Está traduzido em doze outras línguas. As vendas totais do livro já ultrapassam um milhão de cópias. Final Exit catalisou uma conversa de âmbito nacional nos Estados Unidos sobre a morte com dignidade como uma opção de fim de vida. ]
Qual a sua função atual, suas tarefas e responsabilidades, na ERGO?
Presido a ERGO e fornecendo literatura de qualidade sobre a decisão de morrer para doentes terminais. Divulgao notícias e opiniões sobre eutanásia, geralmente no ambiente digital. Respondo a perguntas diárias de pessoas em sofrimento, que lidam com a iminência da sua própria morte, ou de um ente querido.
[ Em depoimento publicado no site da Death With Dignity, em outubro de 2019, Derek complementa:
“As pessoas ainda me ligam ou me mandam e-mails com perguntas sobre como morrer. Entram em contato comigo todos os dias da semana. Pessoas de todo o mundo.
Sou um agente de informação. Deixo o resto para as organizações.
E nunca perdi de vista o que realmente queria: alterar a legislação. Quando houver legislação adequada nos Estados Unidos e no resto do mundo, vou parar de publicar Final Exit porque ele não será necessário.” ]
Quais são os principais mitos ou deturpações sobre a eutanásia?
Essa é uma ótima questão. Fundamentalmente, minha abordagem é respeitar as visões opostas sobre morrer que as pessoas possam ter, sem rejeitar a minha própria visão sobre a melhor maneira de agir nessa hora.
[ Ainda no depoimento à Death With Dignity, Derek afirmou que “países como Holanda, Bélgica e Luxemburgo têm o tipo de lei que eu gosto: uma legislação que permite ao paciente solicitar medicamentos ou injeção letal. Acho que é assim que se faz”. ]
Como a ERGO fornece trabalha as informações sobre eutanásia?
Nossas publicações aparecem em vários idiomas e são lidas em todo o mundo.
Que setores da sociedade oferecem mais resistência a ideias como eutanásia, morrer com dignidade, direito de morrer, morte assistida e assim por diante?
A Igreja Católica é contra qualquer forma de morte assistida. As igrejas protestantes estão divididas. Os judeus ortodoxos também são contra, mas não os judeus reformistas. E, claro, os muçulmanos também são contra.
As várias Associações Médicas sempre foram, de modo geral, politicamente, contra meus pontos de vista, mas estão revendo seus pontos, agora que a opinião pública está cada vez mais voltada a nosso favor.
Quais são os esforços ativistas, jurídicos e socioculturais mais importantes em andamento hoje para o avanço dos direitos humanos nesta que é provavelment a decisão mais importante que alguém poderá tomar na vida – o momento e o modo de terminá-la?
Existem 50 grupos de direito à morte no mundo fazendo campanha para que a morte assistida e a eutanásia sejam introduzidas democraticamente em seus países.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Allianz vun Humanisten Atheisten & Agnostiker
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/07/05
Bob Reuter is the President of the Allianz vun Humanisten Atheisten & Agnostiker.
Here we talk about his life, work, and views.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What was early life like for you, e.g., geography, culture, language, religion or lack thereof, education, and family structure and dynamics?
Bob Reuter: I was raised in Luxembourg, a small but rich country in the middle of West Europe that has been traditionally roman catholic, multilingual (Luxembourgish, German, French) and multicultural (nowadays around 50% of inhabitants have an immigration background). My dad worked as an engineer for an US American international company and my mom worked at home as a mother and housewife. I did spend my early life in a rural area with my parents and my younger brother. I was raised in the catholic faith, because that was the default position back in the days, and I did develop some interest in the “big questions” about the meaning of life, the universe and everything.
Jacobsen: What levels of formal education have been part of life for you? How have you informally self-educated?
Reuter: My school career was rather “linear”, after primary school I went to secondary school where I took “natural sciences”. During the first year of secondary school I decided to become a (moral & ethical) vegetarian, which brought me to self-educate myself (with the help of books) about nutrition and cooking. At the age of 16 I started to read a rather large anthology about the history of philosophy, which introduced me to a wide range of philosophical and religious positions and perspectives. Later in secondary school I developed quite an appetite for biology and also for theology (and even considered for a short period to study it after secondary school). At the age of 19, after finishing secondary education, I went to study abroad, to Brussels, Belgium. I studied experimental cognitive psychology and later did a PhD in psychology (in the field of consciousness studies). While I was an undergraduate I read a lot of books from a range of subfields of psychology, but also from connected disciplines, like anthropology, evolutionary biology and computer sciences. These readings allowed me to discover atheist authors like Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett and the likes, allowed me to get rid of my default metaphysical position (the need for a creator god to kickstart the universe, life and consciousness) and allowed to come out (later) as an atheist.
Jacobsen: What is your current position in the Allianz vun Humanisten Atheisten & Agnostiker? What tasks and responsibilities come with the presidency?
Reuter: Since 10th May 2019 I serve as the president of the Luxembourgish Alliance of Humanists, Atheists and Agnostics. Before that I had been a member of the executive board for a few years, serving as the treasurer. My tasks and responsibilities are those of a president of any non-profit association: organize meeting of the executive board; set up a strategy for short- and mid-term actions; design, plan and execute actions (together with the other members of the executive board); motivate members to participate in our actions; write messages to our members; prepare printed annual reports about our activities; represent our association in the (national) media, etc.
Jacobsen: How does the organization provide a space for community of likeminded individuals?
Reuter: In the past, we have organized some events where likeminded individuals could meet and discuss, like parties, movie screenings, general assemblies followed by a shared drink, talks by invited speakers followed by informal discussions and we have a page on Facebook where people discuss their viewpoints. I recently started to organize “Cafés humanistes”, but not so many people showed up… In the future, we would like to develop more such spaces to grow the Humanists in Luxembourg community, ideally by having a physical place where interested people can come in, explore books and meet people.
Jacobsen: Who have been prominent individuals visiting the Allianz vun Humanisten Atheisten & Agnostiker or coming out of it?
Reuter: So far, we have mostly hosted speakers from Germany like Michael Schmidt-Salomon and his daughter Lea Salomon, Carsten Frerk, Hamed Abdel-Samad, Philipp Möller, Ulrike von Chossy & Michael Bauer. We had Edwige Chirouter from France present her ideas about how to do philosophy with (young) kids. But we also have had the honor to have Michael Shermer for a world-premiere talk about his book “Heavens on Earth: The Quest for Immortality and Perfectibility.” Recently, we invited Natalie Grams, a medical doctor and public speaker to talk about Homeopathy as a quasi-religious cult-like practice and community. We also had a movie night with Chris Johnson where we showed and discussed “a better life”.
Jacobsen: Any recommended authors or speakers from Allianz vun Humanisten Atheisten & Agnostiker?
Reuter: Since all of our members of the executive board act as volunteers and work in areas not directly related to humanism, atheism or criticism of religion, and since our association is still relatively young, we have not yet really have had authors or speakers emerging from our community. But I am pretty sure that anyone from our former and current executive board would be able to speak about our past and current experiences in setting up and running a non-profit association of humanists, atheists & agnostics in a country that has long been traditionally catholic but recently shifted towards a more secular society. I would however recommend as speakers the following people: (1) our former president, Laurent Schley because of his professional expertise in zoology; our former vice-president, (2) Taina Bofferding because she is currently serving as Minister for Home Affairs and as Minister of Equality between Women and Men and (3) our former secretary general, Manuel Huss because of his passion for astronomy and the beautiful pictures he has been shooting of a variety of outer-space objects.
Jacobsen: What are the main difficulties for the community there now?
Reuter: Our main challenge now that a large part of our political agenda has been achieved will be to move on to a more positive promotion of humanism as a life stance. We have indeed spent the past 10 years pushing the separation between the State and the Church (please read here: the various recognized religious communities but with a dominant Roman Catholic Church at the forefront), criticizing the Catholic Church as an organization and criticizing religious faith. We will keep being critical of religious believes and institutions and would have loved to push the (financial and cultural) separation between the State and the Church further, but we also will have to move on. We will try to grow a humanist community in Luxembourg where ideas can be shared, discussed and shaped about how to “live a good life” based on humanist values.
Jacobsen: How can other organizations learn from the real successes and honest failures of the Allianz vun Humanisten Atheisten & Agnostiker?
Reuter: That’s a good question. We were actually very lucky in the last years to catalyze a political change that nobody thought would be possible and would happen so quickly in our country. Not even we had dreamt it to be possible that the separation of the State and the Church would happen so quickly and swiftly. This change has been made possible by the convergence of many factors of course, but we can be rather confident to say that our first public campaign helped many secular-minded politicians to dare to take the steps necessary for this big reform. With our first campaign we had invited non-religious people in Luxembourg to dare to stand up for their rights, to be proud of their life stance and to dare to show their lack of faith. This campaign has been very well received by many “closet atheists” (and very badly but the “dominant” catholic community) and made it visible to the general public and politicians that there had been a major shift in religious believes in our country. With the weight of the illusion of a monolithically catholic population lifted, a coalition of mostly secular-minded politicians who came into power in 2013 dare to fight the financially over-privileged position of the Catholic Church. However, I would not dare to give other organizations any recommendations on how to use this stories to bring about similar changes in their own communities and contexts, because there were many factors involved in the development of this major political and cultural change.
Jacobsen: How can people become involved through the donation of time, the addition of membership, links to professional and personal networks, giving monetarily, exposure in interviews or writing articles, and so on?
Reuter: The easiest way to become involved is to visit our website www.aha.lu and to contact us via email. We are also very active on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/ahaletzebuerg/). We have around 800 members who entirely finance our association via their membership fees and donations.
Jacobsen: Any final feelings or thoughts based on the conversation today?
Reuter: Thank you very much for the opportunity to think about our association and for the exposure to your readership. It’s always interesting to shape, rethink and reshape the stories we tell ourselves about who and what we are.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Bob.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/05/11
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Noura Hussein Hammad is a Sudanese woman up for the death penalty at only 19-years-old. Why?
Marieme Helie Lucas: She was given in marriage at age 15 by her wali (matrimonial tutor, as law permits in Sudan) against her expressed will, steadily reiterated during four years.
When she was finally taken to his house for the consummation of the marriage at age 19, she refused to have sex with him; on the 5th day, he called upon his male relatives to held her down and raped her in their presence; the day after when he attempted to rape her again, she stabbed him in self defense.
She willingly went to the police station with her father to explain the circumstances. She is a victim of child marriage, forced marriage, rape and any other violations of her fundamental human rights.
However, yesterday, she has been sentenced to death by hanging and her lawyers have 15 days to appeal of the judgment. It is a very short time to try and save the life of this courageous young victim who never failed in her determination to be respected as a human being and to defend her dignity.
Women’s rights and human rights defenders who are fighting on Noura’s behalf in Sudan believe the case needs to be supported from outside. The Constitution of Sudan, the Human rights treaties Sudan signed should help protect her; but we need to coalesce protests from within and from outside the country.
Appeals have been sent to the President of Sudan. I encourage everyone to sign on the online petitions that are now widely circulated of Aawaz and on Change; to lobby their nearest human rights organizations; to call upon media to provide an accurate picture of the situation and not a biased or racist or ethnocentric one.
Jacobsen: What role do religion and some men’s perception of their ownership of women play into this?
Helie Lucas: Marriage laws in Sudan are based on religious interpretations of Islam. This is the case in many but not all so-called Muslim countries.
Even within the countries which expressly claim their choice of applying religious laws, those vary greatly from one country to another, in some cases granting no rights at all to women within marriage, in other cases granting equal rights and responsibilities to both spouses, with all the shades in between.
Various factors can explain these differences that include different interpretations of religion, of course, but also the incorporation of traditional practices into what is being propagated as religion itself (such as female genital mutilation), or simply the stage of democratic and progressive forces in a specific country.
To give you a graphic example, two neighboring countries such as Algeria and Tunisia, both culturally homogeneous as located in North Africa, and religiously homogeneous as both are following Maliki ritual, had opposite laws regarding polygyny: in Algeria it was legal as per the first part of the verse of the Koran which allows each man four wives and as many concubines he can support; in Tunisia it was banned as per the second part of the same verse ‘provided he can treat them perfectly equally’ — the Tunisian legislators, as early as 1956, immediately after independence, ruled that no human being can possibly treat his wives perfectly equally — he can give them same money, same dress, same jewelry but not same love, hence they concluded this was a deterrent regarding polygamy.
This debate about ‘true’ interpretation of religion is not specific to Islam: you can see something very similar in predominantly Christian countries whose laws, for instance on reproductive rights, vary greatly from one to the other. Similarly, even among Catholics views are different on contraception, whether one listens to the Vatican, to the Opus Dei or to liberation theologians in Latin America.
The fact is that patriarchy always made alliances with the most regressive forces within religions — we see that with Hinduism and even Buddhism which enjoys such a good reputation among westerners these days -, and that women’s human rights are greatly affected in the process.
For the past few decades, the most conservative trends have been steadily growing within Islam; this entails, among other things, a tightening on democratic and progressive forces, on women’s and human rights organizations, changes in laws that are reformulated in order to fit new regressive interpretations of religion, etc…
Jacobsen: What has been the outcry from the general public over this?
Helie Lucas: There is an outcry in Sudan itself, with human rights and women’s rights organizations at the forefront. There is a very courageous website in defense of Noura, run by Sudanese from within Sudan. There are two online petitions on Aawaz and on Change being circulated. They are massively signed.
Opposition to the judgment grows also from within predominantly Muslim countries in Africa, in South Asia, in South East Asia. Now Europe and North America have joined in the worldwide protest. It is very important that efforts be made in support to one another. For this reason, it cannot be based on superiority and accusation of barbarity whether against Africans or against Muslims as such.
Our success in promoting a respectful coverage of the situation — with due credit to the courageous Sudanese fighting for rights from within -, the fact that Sudan’s Constitution should allow for the protection of Noura’s human rights, the fact that Sudan is a signatory to several human rights conventions and treaties, may be crucial in preventing a defensive reaction from the Sudanese authorities, and could greatly affect Noura’s fate.
This judgment is a blatant denial of fundamental human rights, it was a matter of self-defense in a case of marital rape; it should remain a human rights, women’s rights and child rights issue and not be turned into a religious issue.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the Founder of In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal and In-Sight Publishing. Jacobsen supports science and human rights.
Marieme Helie Lucas is an Algerian sociologist, activist, founder of ‘Secularism is a Women’s Issue,’ and founder and former International Coordinator of ‘Women Living Under Muslim Laws.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/05/11
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Cornelius Press is located in South Africa. It is the first progressive publication, as far I as I am told, in South Africa and Southern Africa for that matter.
Noura Hussein Hammad has been given the death penalty for murdering a husband who she was forced to marry and who raped her within the marriage. How common is this story the MENA region? Does this tend to extend within the fundamentalist religious group in general, e.g. those found in Southern Africa too?
Marieme Helie Lucas: First of all, it is not just a marital rape, it is also a gang rape insofar as she was held down by several of the husband’s male relatives on the 5th day of their legal marriage, after steadily refusing first of all to get married to him and then to have sex with him.
She did not sign her marriage contract and was given in marriage by her matrimonial tutor or wali,- in this case, her father. It is only the day after this first rape, when he attempted again to rape her that she stabbed him in self-defense. I think we need to spell out these horrendous circumstances.
Now, marital rape is common the world over and women and rights defenders – always – had to struggle for a long time before having it criminalized. It is neither specific to a region, nor to Islam or to a school of thought in Islam.
However, it is true that bad practices and ultraconservative interpretations of Islam that legitimize patriarchy in all its forms are on the rise everywhere and facilitate the extension of the worst cultural practices: for instance, the concept of wali, which was unheard of in many predominantly Muslim countries, is now being propagated in the name of Islam; so is FGM, an Egyptian practice of sexual mutilation of women that predates Islam (as it originates in Ancient Egypt), which fundamentalist preachers, right now, are trying to expand to South East Asia and the Maghreb in North Africa where is was unknown till recently.
Jacobsen: Hammad has less 15 days to appeal the case. What external pressure can come from other countries in order to change the highly punitive and gender discriminatory legal system found in many Islamic theocracies or Muslim majority countries for that matter?
Helie Lucas: First of all, there is internal pressure, both from within Sudan where women’s rights and human rights defenders are on high alert and from within predominantly Muslim countries where progressives started defending Noura and her lawyers.
It is essential that external pressure come in support to those progressive forces from within, and in alliance with them. Ignoring the high level local protest would be totally counter productive, and will amount to putting such a blatant denial of fundamental human rights – self defense in a case of rape – into a political context of ‘good West’ against ‘bad Islam’.
The so-called Muslim world is very far from being homogeneous, hence marriage laws range from granting no rights at all to women within the marriage to granting equal rights – and responsibilities – to both spouses in more democratic countries.
In all countries, whether predominantly Muslim, Christian, other or secular, democratic forces struggle long and hard in order to defend fundamental human rights – especially but not exclusively for women.
Jacobsen: If Hammad dies, what will this symbolize as with other potential tragedies in loss of life simply fighting for their well-being and dignity?
Helie Lucas: I do not want to believe for one second that we, the progressive forces the world over and especially those within Muslim contexts, will allow for death penalty to be a applied to such a young woman, a victim of child marriage, forced marriage, rape, and many other violations of universal rights.
We should just keep actively fighting for her rights till her life is saved. Appeals for pardon have already been sent to the Sudanese president, petitions have popped out on Aawaz and on Change; they are massively signed. There is a very active and courageous Sudanese website in defense of Noura.
Vocal progressive theologians of Islam started speaking up. Sudan’s Constitution and international human rights treaties that Sudan signed should be called upon to protect Noura’s life.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Marieme.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the Founder of In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2016/10/12
Maryam Namazie is an Iranian-born secularist and human rights activist, commentator and broadcaster. She is spokesperson for Iran Solidarity, One Law for All and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen – How did you get involved in activism?
Maryam Namazie – I became an activist as a result of my own life experiences after an Islamic regime took power in Iran. We fled the country. One of the first ways in which I got politically involved was in doing refugee rights work. My family and so many we knew had become refugees and it was a way of dealing with the trauma of losing everything and starting all over again – somewhere completely new – and at times unwelcoming.
It followed too, that I would be active against theocracy and religious rules, and for people’s rights. The best way you can fight repression is to refuse and resist. I didn’t set out to be an activist; in many ways I was forced into it. I had no choice but to fight back in the best way I knew how. Also when you are faced with such inhumanity – like the Islamic regime of Iran – the best fight back has to be fundamentally human.
Was there support from parents, siblings, or others for you?
My family has always been supportive of me. That’s why it has been easy for me to be an activist. Also, my partner is an activist. I’ve really always had a lot of support.
I can’t imagine people who not only don’t have the support of their families, but are being beaten and abused because of their beliefs. I think it makes it so much more difficult. Doesn’t it? It still astonishes me people like that can still be active and speak out.
I have met a lot of very vocal women. Many of them say they’ve had supportive parents and fathers. I think that’s key when you’re an activist. Obviously, you can be vocal without family support, but it helps a great deal.
Speaking of human rights as well as women rights, which are somewhat separated but definitely overlap, do you note that more of the rights violations are women’s in general?
Obviously, I think rights are violated across the board, but because women are seen to be more vulnerable, they are seen to be the property of the community, the society, the family’s honor, the society’s national honour, it makes it easier to target them. And often the abuse is legitimised in ways that other abuses aren’t.
As a result, violence against women is more acceptable in many ways. In that sense, one of the greatest violations of human rights is in the area of women’s rights.
Some of the more tragic and dramatic examples are violations of women’s bodies through things such as tens of millions of women having female genital mutilation, infibulation, clitoridectomy, and so on, against their will, even as girls. Does that seem, along with others, more religiously motivated or not?
I think there are obviously non-religious motivations for those violations, but very often religion also justifies and legitimises it, and gives it divine sanction in ways that other justifications don’t – which makes it all the more dangerous.
You are working on a new film. What is the content and purpose of that film?
The film is on Islam’s non-believers. It’s been made by Deeyah Khan, who is an award-winning film maker. Her previous films have been about honor killing as well as Jihadis.
And this one is about Islam’s non-believers. It looks at the situation of young people, particularly in Britain, who are facing discrimination and abuse because they’ve decided to be atheists. Often, including from their families and the larger communities that they live in. The film also links to the international situation.
You see the links between Bangladeshi Islamists hacking atheists to death in Bangladesh and also threatening atheists right here in Britain. People who are respected, people who are so-called ‘community leaders’. It shows that Islamism is an international movement that targets apostates.
It also shows the ex-Muslim resistance as an international movement and how it too is an important way of pushing back the Islamists by opening up the space to question and debate, and criticise religion, even to renounce religion. The ability to do it despite the risks involved.
The American Massachusetts Institute of Technology trained and Tufts University based philosopher and cognitive scientist professor, Daniel Dennett, did something similar to that. He looked into pastors, ministers, and preachers who had lost their faith and continued to preach.There’s a decent amount who’ve lost their faith and continued to preach. I haven’t seen the precise results, but this seems like a similar case. A possibly relatively common phenomena of people putting on the ‘face’ such as the engaging in practices and wearing the clothing in public, but not holding the beliefs sincerely or simply not believing. Do you know of the numbers of non-believers in Islam, but are putting on that face – so to speak?
Yea, also, there are 13 countries that execute apostates and atheists. There’s also a huge amount of threats and intimidation. The numbers are much larger than we can imagine because of the many risks involved. Social media and the internet are doing to Islam what the printing press did to Christianity.
So, it is opening the way to challenge it in a way that hasn’t been possible because of the risks that are involved. My opinion is its a tsunami of millions. It really is the case that there are atheists in every family, in every home, in every neighbourhood, in every country.
There are many of them. We can see it now via social media. What we see, though, is still the tip of the iceberg. We have many members living in Britain, which is a relatively safe place to live. There are no apostasy rules, but people continue to wear the veil, go to mosque, and continue to say they’re Muslims when they are atheists.
I think if the pressure of the Islamist movement is removed, if that movement is pushed back in the way political Christianity was pushed back by an Enlightenment, the world will be surprised by the sheer number of non-believers. I think even we will be surprised by it.
On the fringe of that sector of people, that sub-population within the community will be those that simply had over time their fundamentalist beliefs softened and liberalised quite a bit. Do you think that would be a much larger population – that sector would then move into non-believing as well?
Definitely, I think that is the case. I mean, of course, no community or society is homogenous. There are so many differences of opinion. The problem is we live in an era where communities are homogenised.
Very often, those in power are seen to be the representatives of those communities. In the so-called Muslim community, Islamists are seen as the authentic Muslims and representatives. I think many people are forced to keep up appearances, even if they don’t believe.
Time will reveal all, but already we’re seeing the extent of it. If anyone is interested in seeing it, is interested in accepting that there’s diversity and dissent in what is considered a homogenous group, it is very easy to see.
And it is on the increase. A convert was telling me that the Islamists always talk about how many people are converting into Islam, but we never hear about many of those converts who then decide to leave Islam and to become atheists.
We hear it is the fastest growing religion. We never hear about all of those people running for their lives in the opposite direction.
(Laugh)
Things are skewed in the favour of religion because religion is privileged anyway. No matter what society you live in. But when it is imposed, very often by brute force, by the Islamist movement, the numbers can never really be revealed.
But you can get a really good sense of it. When we started #ExMuslimBecause, we were expecting to have a couple of hundred people respond. We even thought, “Let’s do it a few weeks in advance of December 10th, International Human Rights Day, so, we can build up on it and gather a few hundred statements.”
It went viral in 24 hours. There were over 120,000 tweets from 65 different countries. Again, that is still the tip of the iceberg, really.
At this point in time, how do you self-identify in terms of irreligious/religious beliefs as well as socio-political beliefs?
I have a big problem with identity politics. I think it’s regressive as it tries to pigeonhole people into groups of constructed identities. It refuses to acknowledge that people are multifaceted. They have so many different characteristics that define them or they define themselves with.
For me, even the whole ex-Muslim movement is not about identity politics, I know it is for some people, but it is about a political challenge to the Islamist movement, to discrimination and violence against apostates, and it is one way of highlighting that.
It also challenges the view that the “Muslim community” is a homogenous community. If you have ex-Muslims, millions of people who don’t want to be considered Muslim anymore, it challenges multiculturalism as a social policy. I personally have political positions and ideals, which, for me, mark who I stand with irrespective of background or belief.
I am a secularist, for example. I will stand with Muslims and ex-Muslims, and non-Muslims, in support of secularism. I might be an atheist, but I don’t necessarily agree with all atheists on all issues. I am pro-refugee rights and against profiling of Muslims, for example.
I am old-fashioned in the sense that I think we need to build solidarity around political ideals, rather than around ridiculous limiting identities, which narrow the allies we can have and put us amongst those who aren’t necessarily our allies because they fit within a narrow identity.
Unfortunately, this is old-fashioned, but that’s how political organising has always been done. It has been done irrespective of one’s background, beliefs, and identity around specific political ideals.
I think that’s why we’re in the mess we are in today because we are not able to see our allies and our enemies given the bogus identity politics.
I want to shift the conversation to some of the things you mentioned at the beginning about refugees. In the early 21st century, we have a singular tragedy with the Syrian refugee crisis. How do you think countries in Europe are managing and handling refugees as well as the crisis at large?
For me, the refugee issue is a human rights issue – in the same way that I don’t think you should stop people using a hospital because they are undocumented and an EU citizen rather than a British born citizen or exclude people based on age, sex, race, or belief, I don’t think you should stop people from gaining protection.
It doesn’t matter where you fled from and where you seek refuge, you must be granted protection. It’s a basic human right.
People who have never had to worry about getting visas or fleeing for their lives might find it hard to understand the desperation – to have to leave everything you know – the language, the society, your work, your family, your loved ones, sometimes even sending your children on their own (unaccompanied minors) because you have no other hope of saving them. You send them off on this perilous journey and don’t even know if they will make it alive.
From my perspective, we should do everything and anything we can to help people. In the same way, I think everyone who needs healthcare should have it. Everyone who needs housing should have it. I don’t understand why we should have homeless people. I don’t understand why there are children who go to bed hungry in this country. I also don’t understand why refugees shouldn’t be given protection and safety.
I know of course it is because profit is more important than human need, and differences amongst us are more deemed more important than our common humanity but I don’t see why it should be that way.
Also, rights are not contingent on whether you like or agree with those demanding it. Sometimes the refugee issue is muddled up because people want to run an inquisition before deciding whether someone is eligible for this right. My perspective is that even if a person’s views are disgusting and vile, they still have human rights. You can’t stop people from accessing a GP because you don’t like their beliefs, so why do you think you can do it when it comes to those trying to save their lives and fleeing wars and persecution? Also beliefs are not set in stone. They change all the time.
People have a right to an education. They have a right to food. They have a right to healthcare. I would also say they have a right to asylum. I know we’re living in a time when this is unfashionable to say. With Brexit, so many hate anyone who doesn’t look like them. They want everybody out. Even if they’re doctors who are saving your life, they are still not good enough, not white enough, or what have you.
I think this boils down to a very fundamental issue. Rights are for everyone not just your pals. And there is more that hold us together than separate us if only we could see beyond the propaganda.
We are seeing some concerns from many people being raised both in North America, Europe, and elsewhere with, the phrase being used is, “right wing nationalism,” which can sometimes be seen as ethnic nationalism in a way. What do you think is the state of that at this point in time? What are the possible major concerns associated with that?
I think this is what happens when identity politics rules.
Identity politics divides and separates people so that they can no longer see their commonalities across these false borders. It’s not just that minorities love to live in ghettos and be humiliated day-in and day-out. This gettoisation is part and parcel of government policies of multiculturalism and cultural relativism. It means that governments can manage their minorities on the cheap by outsourcing citizens to self-appointed community “leaders” and Sharia courts, Islamic schools and so on.
When identity politics is supreme, it makes it possible for white identity politics to be portrayed as a legitimate option.
It surprises me how many people justify and legitimise what is fundamentally white identity politics, white supremacist politics, because the fascists and bigots happen to be critical of Islam. Look, the Islamists are also critical of US militarism but that doesn’t mean I should be siding with them. You can oppose both. This is a trap, though, the so-called “Regressive Left” fall into. But so do those who use the term “Regressive Left” in every other sentence but consider it a “smear” to call out those feeding into the far-Right narrative. Like the atheists and secularists who fall into the trap of defending Tommy Robinson and Robert Spencer because they have “some legitimate views.” Well, I’m sure if you sit down and have a chat with al-Baghdadi, he will have”some legitimate views.” Assad or Khamenei might too; they might think that roads should be paved.
But that’s not a reason to ally with them or to justify their politics. I think this is a huge problem. You have people saying, “Well, the Far Right is dealing with the Islamists, therefore, let’s deal with them with kid gloves.” I think that’s a mistake. If you look at them (I always get shit for saying this but people don’t understand what I’m saying) fundamentally they are similar to the Islamists. Islamism is a far-Right movement.
Of course, I’m not saying Tommy Robinson decapitates people, but movements can be fundamentally similar yet based on the amount of power or access to power they have, they might not necessarily be able to wreck the same havoc as one that has state power and backing.
Fundamentally, though, their politics is one of hate, placing collective blame, regression. It’s unfortunate that so many people who consider themselves freethinkers would side with them.
You mentioned Sharia courts as well as Islamic schools. I know this is a bit of an issue in the United Kingdom. For instance, private religious schools for youngsters, for kids. Kids are told things that at times are outright wrong, especially even facts and fundamental theories, principles, and laws about the natural world. For instance, creationism over evolutionary theory and so on. What are your own personal concerns with some of these institutions and the way they being implemented within the United Kingdom?
I think “faith schools” is an oxymoron. Schools and faith don’t go together. Unless, you’re talking about indoctrination. I know there are some Church of England schools that are not indoctrinating the way Islamic schools are. They used to do it and still they promote ideas that are antithetical to free thinking and education. I think, in a sense, the educational system is one of the only ways in which we can protect children from their families.
It is meant to be a way in which the playing field is levelled for all kids irrespective of background. You’re rich. You’re poor. Your family beats you. Your family tries to veil you. Schools should be a place where you’re safeguarded.
You get to hear different ideas. You get the protection you might not get at home. You get to be equal to other kids. Faith schools are antithetical to this. If you question, you are punished. If you raise dissent or you don’t agree, or you ask how certain religious edicts could possibly be true, you’re penalised for it.
Education should promote and encourage questioning, inquiry, and free thought. It makes no sense to have religious schools. It’s a prescription for disaster. We’re faced with that disaster today. I can’t understand how it’s ever seen to be good idea.
Historically religion was in charge of education; faith schools are a remnant of the time when religion played a central role in the state and society. And of course even today, religion holds a privileged place in society. The British government, for example, is not a secular state by any means. This is a state in which the Church of England has real power. They’ve got bishops in the House of Lords. The Queen is the head of the church. You’ve got prayers in Parliament.
When speaking about faith schools (even the term seems innocuous, though it’s so sinister), it is not enough to address non-discrimination in admission policies or hiring practices but about why it is bad for our children. Fundamentally, there shouldn’t be any faith schools whatsoever, whether it’s stated funded or private.
What about Sharia courts existing alongside mainstream court systems?
I can’t understand that either. If you look at Sharia courts in Britain, they are dealing only in family matters, e.g. divorce, child custody, domestic violence, and so on and so forth. Family matters are not trivial matters as it’s often portrayed.
They are not matters of the community. They are human rights issues. In many countries, where Sharia rules apply, this is one of the main areas of fight back by women’s rights campaigners because of the huge amounts of discrimination against women.
For it to be sold to us here as a choice and a right is like selling FGM as a choice and right. The courts hold women’s testimony to be half that of a man’s. Women don’t have unilateral right to divorce. Men do.
The rules are discriminatory and legitimise violence against women. For example, you’ve got one Sharia judge saying that there’s no such thing as marital rape because women should expect to have sex within marriage. And that calling it rape is the act of aggression and not the actual rape. Or they have said if only we’ve had one amputation or stoning in Britain, there would be fewer thieves and less adultery, look how great Saudi Arabia is. These are the judges making rulings in these courts and making decisions on women’s lives. They’ve been recorded saying, “You’ve been beaten by your husband. Have you asked why he’s beating you? Is it because of your cooking? Is it because of you going out with your friends?”
It is outrageous. It is a scandal that they should be allowed. I think one of the things we’re seeing is not only are the rules discriminatory, but the process itself is tantamount to abuse. That is the argument women’s rights groups are making. No matter what a woman’s background, a man’s background, or a child’s background, they are citizens first and foremost. They have rights. To relegate minority women to kangaroo courts, that are violating their rights should be considered a human rights scandal.
In international studies done by UN organs, or bodies, one of the major, probably the best, ways of improving the wellbeing and livelihood of an entire society, from economics to child and maternal mortality rates (reduction) in addition to increasing access and achievements in education, is under the guise of the empowerment of women.
When individuals such as others and yourself are campaigning and fighting for women’s rights, and looking for ways, politically and otherwise, to empower women, it is actually improving the lives, on average, of everyone in the region or the society.
What do you think should be or is the best means through which to implement women’s rights in cases that are very difficult? Where women have less of a vote or no vote, they have a lot of pressure not to speak up for their own rights.
I think one of the key ways, of course, is defending secularism. One of the problems is that secularism has become a dirty word. We hear how secular extremists are compared with religious extremists. I’m sorry. No. There’s absolutely no comparison.
The French government saying there should be no conspicuous religious symbols in schools is actually a protection of school children. Why should a child be veiled because their parents are Muslims?
Don’t we agree that children have the right to decide their political leaning and positions when they reach of age, why not also their beliefs? Why is it okay for religion to be imposed?
In that sense, compare that with acid being thrown in your face for going to school, compare that with compulsory veiling from the age of puberty, compare that with gender segregation, there’s absolutely no comparison between what a secular state wants and what a theocracy wants.
We should unashamedly, unconditionally promote secularism. It is one the main preconditions for women’s empowerment and rights. I think particularly when religion has any say in the state or law it is detrimental to women’s rights.
That is one precondition. Equality before the law is key, but equality on a social and economic level are also key. That comes down to a system that puts profit before human need and human welfare. Religion is useful for that system as well.
It helps to keep women down.
Who are some personal heroes for you?
My parents are my personal heroes because the more I actually see how many young people have been abused and destroyed by their parents, it does make me realise how lucky I am to have the father that I have and my mum as well.
Also, the person who most has affected the way I think is the Iranian Marxist Mansoor Hekmat. Unfortunately, he died at 51, but his politics which centred on the human being has influenced my politics and the politics of many from Iran, the region, and Diaspora.
Do you have any recommended novels or more academic writings for people with an interest in or leaning in getting involved in these issues?
There is Mansoor Hekmat’s Collected Works of which there is one translated into English. I would recommend that to anyone who wants to know more about Iranian politics but also about how to address everything from Islam, Islamism, veiling, secularism from a fundamentally human and Left perspective. Anything written by Algerian sociologist Marieme Helie Lucas is a great read. There are two interviews with her on the veil and gender segregation, which are brilliant. I’d recommend reading Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis for a view of the Iranian revolution (which was not Islamic) and its expropriation by the Islamist movement; Mona Eltahawy’s Headscarves and Hymens on the veil as well as Karima Bennoune’s You Fatwa Does Not Apply Here on people’s resistance against Islamism. Elham Manea’s Women and Sharia Law is also a really good book on legal pluralism in the UK.
For getting in contact with you, people can go to your Twitter and website.
I have a really good website now thanks to a really wonderful volunteer. My website was hideous before. It was embarrassing to refer people to it. It is www.maryamnamazie.com. Via the website, people can read things I’ve written, see videos, and media coverage.
Also, there’s a TV program that is broadcast in Iran, which I do weekly with a co-host of mine. It is called Bread and Roses. It is Persian and English. It uses illegal satellite dishes to get into Iran. Many people have satellite dishes in Iran.
It just deals with free thinking, taboo breaking issues. There’s always an interview. We’ve interviewed some of the greats as well as people who should be considered great by all free thinkers, but aren’t as well known, unfortunately.
One of the things the program shows is that there’s so many atheists, secularists, and free thinkers in the so-called Muslim world. I mean, it is important to see them, recognise them, because once we do it breaks this whole idea that dissent and free thought are Western concepts, which is nonsense.
That, in fact, there are lots of people fighting for the very same issues that people fight for here it home in Britain.
Also good organisations to support are the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All.
Any feelings or thoughts in conclusion about the things we’ve discussed?
Sometimes, when we’re having these discussions, people only see homogenous groups; they make decisions based on group identity. But group identity is very often imposed. It fails to recognise that there are so many individuals within those groups who are individuals, courageous and are resisting in many different ways – often at great risk to themselves.
If we can start seeing each other as people and recognising that there is a lot more which brings us together than separates us, I think we would have a real chance of pushing the Islamist and far-Right back.
One of the reasons that the Islamists are so violent is because they see this immense dissent. Unfortunately, it is not recognised in the West because it is either Islamophobic to criticise or you’ve got the Far-Right trying to hijack the criticism in order to scapegoat and vilify Muslims and migrants and push forward their own white identity politics.
It is important for us to go back to basics of universal rights, citizenship, secularism, and join hands together around political ideals and not identities. It is this united solidarity as human beings that has helped us overcome inhumanity in the past and can also help us today.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Narsdoktorausa
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/07/02
Marissa Torres Langseth is the Founder and Chairwoman Emeritus of HAPI – Humanist Alliance Philippines, International.
Here we talk about HAPI, secular women, and more.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What triggered the original formation of PATAS and then HAPI?
Marissa Torres Langseth: I do not need fame nor fortune. I created PATAS and HAPI with the Philippines in my mind. But I had bittersweet memories with PATAS and HAPI, the societies I founded with my own money, blood, and sweat.
Let me start with PATAS, I coined that word which means equality in Tagalog in 2011, but the video of Bill Gates giving away a computer for every child in the Amazon, was the first trigger. I wish to give out a computer every year which I started in 2011, in the name of atheism. I thought it was and still is a lovely way to share my abundance.
Then again, I realized that people in the Philippines, notably my family always go to church to ask for help instead of working, and I wonder, maybe I can do something better in that scenario.
I thought they relied heavily on a god to help them, instead of helping themselves. Growing up poor, I have experienced how it was to be awakened and kicked early morning to go to church on occasions, especially, Sunday mass and “simbang gabi” for Christmas. I saw the “waste of time” in those instances, even worse, I saw how the priests tried to abuse women, including myself.
With PATAS’ creation, I thought we can improve the livelihood and welfare of Filipinos, via education about “believing in oneself, rather than believing in a deity.” My journey in PATAS was not a bed of roses. When I started my activism, I was tormented online by unknown people calling me devil, whore, bride of Satan, and bimbo. These Filipinos believe that atheists are killers, prostitutes, and people of loose morals. There are even Facebook pages made just to bash me online.
However, just like in any fledgling organization, there were power struggles, and arrogance amongst officers and members. “Herding cats is a daunting task,” I said that in 2011 when I founded PATAS. There were a lot of infighting and issues amongst atheists. It was an organization, full of petty quarrels, jealousy and envy amongst these new atheists. I had heartaches and headaches galore at that time.
True enough, I experienced being disrespected, being mocked and jeered, and even disregarded as the founder, despite me bringing most of the funds to keep our society afloat. I even paid for most of the expenses in the very first South East Asian convention held in Manila in 2012. The last straw that broke the camel’s back was when they removed me from the main PATAS group that I initiated way back 2010.
That was in November of 2013. It was the lowest moment in my life, I even contemplated suicide. My husband saved me. He said it was just a waste of my money and time “making a difference in the Phils” and that I am already a US citizen. These PATAS officers are ingrates and disrespectful despite what I have done for them.
My anger and passion kept me awake most nights, until I thought of a better avenue and strategy to make more impact and share my happiness. So HAPI was born, with a little help from outsourcing. HAPI was not without issues either, we also had peaks and valleys, scamming and dishonesty by those who looked at me like a gold mine, until after Sept 30, 2017, most issues were ironed out and I would say, I can travel the world, without fear of my society being stolen. At least 3 people tried to highjack HAPI, but the good always wins. The working class of HAPI won, so, here I am, still alive and kicking, never to let it go, because I learned my lessons well.
Jacobsen: What were the main difficulties in a heavily Roman Catholic Christian country in the foundation of a freethought movement? Were these exacerbated or not as a woman in the Philippines?
Langseth: The Phils is a heavily indoctrinated Christian nation, about 80-95% remain religious, being RCC at more than 86%, patriarchal in nature, so women leaders are not only bullied, but they are mocked as “not equal to a man’s strength.” Misogyny is still evident and prevalent in the Philippines, especially, with President Duterte at the helm. He even publicly laughs at rapes, and is very condescending to women at large.
Frankly, it was like a suicide for me, making non religious movements like PATAS and HAPI. I was tormented online. I made enemies in both camps. The atheists were sometimes worse than the theists. I stayed calm at first, and finally I fired back. I challenged them to see me when I went home in 2017. I even hired 2 bodyguards because I also had some legitimate threats. Of course, no one came to refute their accusations against me. I wonder why? Maybe because I am a woman and misogyny is still common in the Phils and with patriarchal orientation, these men thought that I cannot do anything, but “clean butts in the USA.” (Yes, most of them thought that I am a nursing assistant in the USA, with due respect to the nursing assistants.)
Some of them even made a lot of FB pages about me being a prostitute, photo shopping my face on top of scantily clad women, on bikinis, on top of donkeys, apes and monkeys and including Mao Tse Tung. I became so used to this kind of abuse online. I even said to them. “I will be more enthralled if you guys make a website about me.”
I got used to being bullied everyday, haters send me PM’s almost everyday… that, I missed them now. Funny, I had one stalker who donates just to get my attention. Few of my stalkers want my attention so bad, that they post my personal rant online.
Jacobsen: What do you see as overturned hardships for the secular in the Philippines as a result of the secular movement there?
Langseth: I can say that with the advent of social media and these two movements, I have seen a lot of new, younger nonreligious societies that sprouted online, some are becoming active offline already. I tried to reach out to them and send my congratulations, and without bragging, HAPI has become quite a model for them. (I was told.) Some even copied our activities, however, HAPI is the only society with REGULAR community outreach to far flung areas like Mt. Haduan in Central Luzon, Bicol, barangays in Bacolod and Iligan. We have prospered so much, that we have a volunteer with regular stipend, who moves about in and out of the islands to meet and greet them, to provide more credibility to HAPI. Many thanks to our regular monthly donors who helped materialize this endeavor.
Jacobsen: What are the more modern challenges for the next generations now, as, commonly, each generation comes with the accomplishments and failings of the prior generation and, thus, come with often novel problems – some unforeseen?
Langseth: It will take a generation for us to finally see the “effect of our advocacy” thereby, HAPI is banking on the young people. We do have a lot of youngsters, the youngest active member is 15, mostly in the bracket of 17-25 years old. We have HAPI kids in Manila with very, very young members and HAPI Juniors in Bacolod.
It is still a challenge for us to educate the young HAPI members, because some members come and go due to fear of being disowned by their families. I have seen some members who became theists again due to their parents’ threats and constant nagging. Some LGBT atheists are sent to a rehab program because the parents thought that atheism was the result of taking illegal drugs.
HAPI is a well diverse community with 40% male, 30% LGBT and 30% female. We try to be more inclusive, admitting religious humanists so they can be educated further, and see our “good without god” events. Some have become agnostic already. I am proud to say that we have educated and converted some of them. We even allow those who are “against our society”, so they can see what we do. We cannot preach to the choir all the time.
We have a lot of fresh ideas. We now have a humanist celebrant in HAPI to provide ceremonial services like weddings and funerals. Some people were against this idea as it has some religious connotation. But, we explained that most Filipinos’ psyche is in tuned with “believing in something,” and they should be handled with a velvet glove. More people will come when we employ our strategy of sharing happiness with honey.
With HAPI, we have eliminated the word “atheist” which is stigmatized in the Philippines. And we cannot use sarcasm and metaphors like Satan because most Filipinos take those words literally. With HAPI, we can be secular, religious or spiritual and we can always be ourselves as human beings with inborn human rights.
We still need a lot of work to do, especially, women and LGBTQ empowerment as well as pushing for more equality. The Philippines need to learn a lot from Scandinavia, but the culture of slave mentality and Stockholm syndrome need to be eradicated, so they can have self confidence and better self-esteem, therefore, we include this information in educating the young.
With HAPI in the forefront in the Philippine secularism, we can attract even those theists who bash us when we were still PATAS. Being a humanist has opened the hearts of those theists who once called us demons and devils in disguise. Humanism is such a positive word that those who left HAPI are trying to get in serendipitously.
I can say that being in HAPI made my life more colorful and less boring. If I want to get aggravated that day, I go to FB, although, I do not get as much bashing from theists anymore. The irony is that, those atheists who backstabbed me in PATAS and HAPI are the ones spewing hatred towards HAPI and badmouthing me whenever they can. But mind you, some are coming back to HAPI. We must be doing something great!
Maybe I can do more had my husband supported me from the get go.
But, we just want to have a HAPI ending.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Marissa.
Sources :
Duterte’s rape jokes meant ‘to make people laugh’ – Panelo
Duterte’s rape jokes meant ‘to make people laugh’ – PaneloNeil Arwin MercadoPresident Rodrigo Duterte’s rape jokes during his speech at the PMA Class of 2019 graduation was only intended t…
(https://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/198445-why-misogyny-bad-for-filipinos)
(https://asiasociety.org/education/religion-Philippines)
(https://dirp3.pids.gov.ph/webportal/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidsdps1544_rev.pdf)
In the Philippines, GANDA Filipinas fights the culture of misogyny to let women and LGBTQI people speak out – Access Now
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Roberto.Foa.Name
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/10/05
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s take some of the fundamental research of recent, what are key terms in the analysis of the quality of government?
Roberto Stefan Foa: “Quality” of government – or “good governance” as it is also termed – is fundamentally a normative concept, that gets used to describe what features of our political institutions might be considered desirable. As such, there is no single agreed definition, and it is more of an umbrella term.
That said, absence of corruption, congruity between citizen preferences and policy outcomes, quality of public services, rule of law, or political stability are typically the things authors have in mind. There are obviously differences between these, so it can be thought of as multidimensional, rather than operating along a single spectrum.
Jacobsen: The Centre for the Future of Democracy was founded in January 2020. Its inaugural Global Satisfaction with Democracy 2020 report examined some of the indices of “satisfaction” with democracy writ large. What were some of the most startling findings in the midst of the research? It’s a 60-page report.
Foa: The main finding is that there has been a sustained decline in citizen satisfaction with democracy across the world over the last generation, especially in the United States, Southern Europe, and Latin America. By using a dataset that has been compiled by my colleague Andrew Klassen, which combines over 4 million respondents from over 25 datasets across all major world regions, we were able to get the most comprehensive overview on this issue to date.
The second finding, however, is that some parts of the world have bucked this trend. In much of Asia, for example, people are fairly satisfied with their political institutions, so to some extent, the “crisis” of democratic legitimacy is also simply a crisis of the West. And in sub-Saharan Africa, though satisfaction has fallen since the 1990s, it remains comparatively high relative to other regions of the world. While the headline finding of global democratic dissatisfaction received the most press attention, the report itself sought to highlight these differences, not least of all as until now most empirical research is based on western democracies.
Jacobsen: We have been seen concerns about Brexit, about inept handling of Covid-19, about populism and national reactionaries in much of the West, and the crumbling of infrastructure in several societies. Do these factors emerge in some of the data analyses? For example, we have seen more democracies in the world at any time in the history of the world now. So, I would not necessarily expect a massive drop in the number of democracies. Rather, I would predict a slowing or a declining of the rate of the institutionalization of democratic systems in previous autocratic or theocratic societies with said realities.
Foa: The data in the January report only public examined satisfaction with democracy and not the “health” of democracy in a broader sense. For example, we are not looking at the health of liberal democratic institutions, such as freedom of the courts or of the press. It is not that those things are not important, but rather that they are already covered very well by other projects, such as Freedom House or V-Dem. And there is already a very vigorous debate about whether the world is currently undergoing a democratic recession, and if so, whether that should be seen as a temporary plateau in the adoption and spread of democracy or if it is the start of a more profound reversal. But that’s not the focus of our January report. Academic research is a collective enterprise, so you have to focus on the areas where you are able to make an original contribution.
So instead the contribution of the report was deliberately very narrow – just to examine democratic legitimacy, measured via the indicators for which truly comprehensive comparative data are available. That is less a measure of the health of democratic institutions, and more a measure of how well citizens feel they are performing in delivering the other outputs citizens care about, such as public services, rule of law, and accountability in office.
That’s an important metric, though, because if citizens do not feel that democracies are delivering then it augurs badly for the stability and consolidation of democracy going forwards. While it is possible to have a democracy in which civil liberties are generally respected, but which are losing the faith of citizens, it may not be a sustainable equilibrium in the long term. If you look at countries like Venezuela in the 1990s, there was widespread disillusionment with the political system even though the country had been a liberal democracy for four decades. Then Chávez was elected, and began to chip away at political rights and liberties. More recently we’ve seen the same thing in many western societies, and that has foreshadowed the rise of populism, so we need to see it as a warning indicator of potential instability.
Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, another facet is the decades-long view on the “satisfaction” with the level of democracy or democratic participation in societies, which leads to some questions about the international perspective or the global view on democratic participation and satisfaction. How pleased or satisfied are citizens in each region of the world with democracy as an idea?
Foa: There are huge differences by region, while as I say was one of the key messages from our January work. The “crisis of democratic legitimacy” that we see today is disproportionately concentrated in specific regions, such as Latin America, Southern Europe, and the United States. Of course, those regions contain a significant proportion of the world’s democratic citizenry, so that means there is also a “global” crisis in a very real sense.
Jacobsen: Are there countries in the world in which the citizen population do not like democracy, do not see it as an ideal?
Foa: Back in the 1990s, when global comparative survey research was still in its infancy, scholars noticed that majorities in every country agreed with the statement that “democracy” is the “best way to govern the country”. That was seen as proof that liberal democracy had emerged as the only remaining legitimate form of governance, and fit with the Zeitgeist of the times.
But the problem with that conclusion is the ambiguity inherent the term “democracy” itself. It is what Walter Bryce Gallie had called an “essentially contested concept,” in that is interpreted very differently across different regions and within different ideologies. To give a very simple example, the country which in the 1990s had the lowest public support for democracy as a system of governance was Russia, where “democracy” was associated with the country’s anarchic transition from communism. Today, by contrast, a much higher proportion of Russians say they are “satisfied with democracy”, but they have in mind the system of “managed” or illiberal democracy set in place by Vladimir Putin. So that is hardly evidence of support for liberal democracy, in the western sense of the term, even if it is more pluralistic than the system of Soviet authoritarianism that prevailed in the 1980s.
More recently scholars have become a great deal more attentive to this issue, and there have been some innovations in survey design to attempt to tease out differing understandings of democracy. There is also good research on how those vary across the world, such as the work of Doh Chull Shin at the Center for the Study of Democracy at UC Irvine using the Asian Barometer surveys. But I still think comparative survey research has a long way to go on this issue. For example, comparative survey projects are only now starting to do bring in items examining “populist” conceptions of democracy, for example based on the principle of the “will of the people” or the denigration of political elites. Scholars of populism have examined this for decades, but somehow it never permeated through to the broader comparative survey community.
Finally, though, I think there is a more fundamental problem in making inferences about citizen support for democracy, which goes to the root of the assumptions inherent in survey research as a field. While survey respondents may have well-formulated opinions about their own lives, most people don’t have deep or fixed theories about political concepts. There is a longstanding tendency among political scientists to over-estimate the degree to which citizens are literate and fluent in political ideas. But since the classic work of Philip Converse in the 1960s, we know that isn’t true: people may have intuitions about certain issues, but those can be fairly shallow and labile. Perhaps one of the reasons why political scientists failed to anticipate the rise of populism, was an overly strong inference from responses to survey items, as the example of “support for democracy” above illustrates. Often people have a vague sense of what prevailing norms or socially desirable responses are – but if those are skin deep, then they can alter rapidly when a society undergoes a dramatic change in the climate of ideas.
Jacobsen: Are there nations of the globe where the citizenry love democracy in spite of known or perceived flaws in the system, the leadership, the laws, and the institutions?
Foa: Yes, there are.This is something we generally observe in transitional democracies, where citizens are still fresh with the euphoria of democratic transition and the demise of an autocratic regime that was widely seen to be corrupt, oppressive, and illegitimate. In such cases, citizens are prepared to forgive the flaws and failures of their democratic institutions. So we see that today in Southeast Asia (e.g. Malaysia or Indonesia), as well as sub-Saharan Africa.
Secondly, it is still fundamentally true for many western democracies, insofar as many citizens who are frustrated or dissatisfied with the functioning of democratic institutions in practice still desire such institutions to function better. So for that reason, low levels of citizen satisfaction with democracy do not in and of themselves portend a systemic crisis. But the issue in my mind is how stable it is to have a society in which citizens desire a functioning democracy, but “really-existing” democratic institutions seem to be structurally incapable of reform. Something has to give – and the risk is that sooner or later that feeling turns into something more destructive, a desire to tear down the status quo and upset existing institutions, rather than implement gradualistic improvements.
Jacobsen: Is there dial relationship between populism, as in negative populism such as ethnic nationalism or some such thing, and democracy in which the increase in one, as a principle, tends to lead to declines in the other?
Foa: Actually, I don’t think that is a simple relationship. There are liberal forms of nationalism, such as that which swept across Eastern Europe following the collapse of communism. And not all forms of populism are authoritarian, though there is obviously a relationship between the two.
Just as importantly, however, it is important to remember that many forms of authoritarianism derive their legitimacy from being explicitly anti-populist. This was clearly the case for the dictatorships in Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s, which saw themselves as vanguards against democratic populism, as well as more recent military coups in countries such as Turkey, Pakistan or Thailand. The late political scientist Guillermo O’Donnell referred to these as forms of “bureaucratic” authoritarianism, as in contrast say to fascist or communist regimes which legitimated their rule by claiming to represent “the people”, they did so by claims to technocratic competence and political stability. One avenue historically by which populism leads to authoritarianism is democratic erosion when populists are afraid of losing office, and there is an extensive recent literature on this following the “populist wave” of 2016 to date. But another has been in the reaction to populist excesses by societal elites, and that probably merits greater awareness.
Jacobsen: Do post-colonial politics play a role in satisfaction with democracy, e.g., Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the United States, and Australia?
Foa: Well, most of the countries you list there are former British colonies, which either inherited their democratic institutions directly from colonial governors, in the case of Australasia or Canada, or developed democratic institutions based on the inspiration of English radicals, in the case of the United States. These are also countries in which democratic institutions and national identity have been fairly closely intertwined, and historically that provided a baseline legitimacy to democratic institutions, so in those cases there are limits to how far a politician can go in making explicitly authoritarian appeals.
Jacobsen: Men leading countries in the rule rather than the exception. A type of male leader has been seen more and called strongman or strongmen leadership. What characterizes it? Who represent it? Why are these threats to democratic ideals?
Foa: I don’t think a “strongman” leader necessarily has to be male – there are plenty of examples of strong female leaders, from Margaret Thatcher to Indira Gandhi – though I suppose the attributes of “strength” or “decisiveness” are probably more strongly associated with a certain understanding of masculinity.
But at any rate, I think the reason why such “strongman” leadership has been appealing in many developing democracies is linked to the lack of strength – the weakness – of the state itself. It is sometimes said in politics that institutions should be strong, so that individuals do not have to be. The flipside of that, is that when institutions are weak, people look for “strong” leaders to take their place.
I think that is a very important and neglected explanation for the rise of authoritarian populism in developing democracies today, and I am working on a new article on this currently. If we look at many new democracies in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, or the former communist bloc, the period of democratic transition has been accompanied by a steady erosion of the state’s basic prerogative to provide rule of law, accountability, and fair access to services. In Brazil, the homicide rate has soared by six times since the 1980s, reaching a peak in the year before Bolsonaro was elected president. In Russia in the 1990s, crime and corruption became rampant, while public salaries stopped being paid. In India, the political system was mired in corruption scandals in the years before Narendra Modi was elected prime minister. So it is not surprising that when citizens see signs of dysfunction around them, they will be attracted by outsider “strongman” politicians who say they will drain the swamp, take back control, and restore order. In many developing democracies, this appeal to restore order is at least as important as appeals to identarian politics.
Jacobsen: Do you believe this is the end of the democratic century or not? This would oppose certain visions of the world of some inevitable march towards progress. What are the indicators of this?
Foa: For context, that is a reference to an article Yascha and I wrote in 2018 in Foreign Affairs; for which the final assigned title was The End of the Democratic Century. In the end I quite liked the heading, in that there’s an oblique reference there to Hobsbawn’s “short” twentieth century, from 1914–1989 – a period that saw both the “second wave” of democratisation after World War II and the “third wave” in Southern Europe, Latin America, and eventually Eastern Europe – and of course Fukuyama’s End of History thesis.
But when we talk about the “end of the democratic century” we are not saying that the world is about to descend into autocracy, as some people might misinterpret it. Rather the core idea there is about what we can know based on the past and whether it still allows us to make inferences going forward. In many ways, the twentieth century has an exceptional period, in which western democracies were economically and culturally dominant and played a key role in spreading democratic institutions throughout the world. So now as we enter a new century in which this is no longer the case, we need to re-examine the question of whether the established relationships between economic prosperity and democratisation will continue to hold. Now, it might well be that those theories will be vindicated. But already there are other signs that the relationship is changing: compare the fates of democracy movements in Venezuela, Hong Kong or Iran to those of Chile, Korea, or Turkey in the 1970s to 1990s, which could rely upon extensive international linkage and support.
So this is really an epistemological issue more than anything else. Almost all of the theories – and most of the data – we have in comparative politics about democratisation are based on this short period of time, going back to the early twentieth century. That’s an important scope condition. We simply don’t yet know how well predictions based on data from this period will hold up in a world in which western powers are no longer dominant, and liberal democracy is not the only form of governance among the most economically developed powers. Of course, they might do. The point is, we don’t really know.
On a similar note, the same holds for an earlier piece we wrote in the Journal of Democracy, in which we introduced the notion of “democratic deconsolidation”. I think there was a widespread misconception that somehow we were conjecturing that democracies across the world were about to collapse, not least of all as the piece got caught up in the wave of debate over U.S. democratic stability that followed Donald J. Trump’s election in 2016. But what we actually wrote was something far more nuanced – namely that the conditions for consolidation, or certainty about the future of democratic stability, might be eroding, such that in the future we wouldn’t be able to assert with confidence that currently democratic countries will remain so indefinitely. Ultimately, that is a claim about what we don’t know: we tended to assume that countries that have been democratic for a certain duration of time, one generation say, had almost no chance of backsliding away from democracy. So this is an argument about the end of the “consolidation paradigm” as a way of thinking about democratisation.
Jacobsen: What is secularization? How does this play a role in some of the analyses of democracy, autocracy, authoritarianism, and the like?
Foa: It depends on your definition. Secularisation in its broadest sense, as Weber’s “disenchantment” of the world, does not necessarily produce democratic outcomes – after all, there are secular authoritarian regimes, just as there are longstanding democracies in religiously devout societies. Once you take away divine legitimation as a justication to exercise authoritarian rule, there still remain secular alternatives such as the nation state, historical progress, or claims to technocratic competence.
On the other hand if we think of secularisation in a narrower sense, as the distantiation of the secular and the religious realms, with the notion that religion should be confined to the private sphere while the public sphere, then there is both a conceptual and an historical link to democratisation.
Historically that was a very important moment in the emergence of western democracy, because you had a period after the sectarian conflicts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries following which religiously-divided countries such as England or the Netherlands had to find new means to govern. And conceptually, once you “desacralise” political authority, you take its legitimacy out of the divine realm, and in to the realm of humanity. In England that meant parliamentary sovereignty, and in the Netherlands it meant confederation and constitutional protection of religious freedom.
Such historical comparisons might not seem relevant to understanding the position of democracy today, but arguably there are some post-colonial states, such as India, Lebanon, or even Nigeria where religious pluralism has pushed societies on the road to more democratic and decentralised models of governance. But the key point here is that it is not about secularisation in the sense of a society becoming less religious, but rather, in terms of how you manage ideological diversity. And unfortunately, it is still a lesson we are learning today in many parts of the world, where deepening political polarisation and divides between secular and non-secular ideologies continues to strain the governance of the public realm. Ironically, secularisation in the former sense can actually exacerbate that, and that is part of what we have seen since the 1990s in countries like the United States, where progressive secularism has reopened a conflict about the ideological neutrality of the state, that in a formerly more pluralistic society had been relatively more settled.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2023/01/23
Divelsatonshhecrets: Norwhere aretheir appartmant pryfouleye eglise atwhare witall ondefairm; Godassdeed Fall and all.
See “Heedheads”.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Publisher: In-Sight Publishing
Publisher Founding: January 1, 2014
Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com
Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Journal: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Journal Founding: August 2, 2012
Frequency: Three (3) Times Per Year
Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed
Access: Electronic/Digital & Open Access
Fees: None (Free)
Volume Numbering: 11
Issue Numbering: 2
Section: E
Theme Type: Idea
Theme Premise: “Outliers and Outsiders”
Theme Part: 27
Formal Sub-Theme: “Non-Religious Community”
Individual Publication Date: January 22, 2023
Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2023
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewer(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee(s): Austin Edwards
Word Count: 1,728
Image Credits: Austin Edwards
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the interview.*
Abstract
Austin Edwards is an engineer with an interest in physics, inventing, and crafting. He is an avid reader of politics, classics, and YA books. His personal motto is “stay curious”. Edwards discusses: Humanism; Sunday Assembly Detroit; find out about, and become a part of, Sunday Assembly Detroit; Star Trek and similar sci-fi genre; Covid; Sunday Assembly weekly program; the speakers; Sunday Assembly spread; and Sunday Assembly evolved.
Keywords: Chicago, Christianity, Ethical Societies, Humanism, Humanism of Rush, Humanist values, Neil Peart, Oasis Network, SA Detroit, secular world, Star Trek, Sunday Assembly.
Non-Religious Community 1: Austin Edwards on Sunday Assembly Detroit
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How did you find Humanism?
Austin Edwards: I first became atheist, and by becoming a part of the secular world I heard about Humanism. At first, I was in my “angry atheist” phase and was keener on questioning, confronting, and exposing religion and the people who believed in it (mainly Christianity as that’s what I’m more surrounded by) and so I didn’t give much thought to Humanism though I knew that on the surface level I agreed with what little I had read of it. Only after a few years of arguing did I get bored/tired of fighting, and I wanted to know what came after. I wanted to know how I could build and not just fight. I wanted to stop trying to change people’s minds and just start living the way I wanted to in order to build the world I wanted to live in. So, I sought out organizations that better aligned with those values. Sunday Assembly (SA) and the local Detroit chapter specifically were exactly what I was looking for. SA is not explicitly Humanist to my knowledge, but we certainly embody Humanist values, and SA Detroit has now explicitly added Humanism to our chapter’s Charter. There wasn’t ever a ‘coming to Humanism’ moment (like I hear there are ‘coming to Jesus’ moments) for me, rather it has been a very gradual discovery. I’m still learning more about Humanism, it’s history and what it means to embody it daily. But I guess to answer your question a little more directly, I heard most about it during my years in college (17-21 y.o.) when I really got involved in secular activism.
Jacobsen: When was Sunday Assembly Detroit founded?
Edwards: I was still in college when SA Detroit was founded, and the leadership handoff has been less than spectacular so unfortunately some of our history has been lost. I do know that that we were founded in 2014 and I was able to attend the first meeting ever held. Beyond that I cannot elaborate much.
Jacobsen: When did you find out about, and become a part of, Sunday Assembly Detroit?
Edwards: I had found out about the SA movement a year or two prior to going to the SA Detroit Chapter (so about 2012 – 2013). It seemed like an awesome organization (when I was little, I dreamed of making an atheist church that would have science Sundays instead of Sunday school, for example) so I was immediately drawn to it. A friend of mine lived in Chicago at the time and he and I went to visit the Chicago chapter. There was a first wave of SA chapters that start in the US earlier than 2012 and Chicago was one of the cities chosen for a chapter. Then there was a second big wave in 2014 which is when Detroit got their chapter. I heard about this somehow (probably I had signed up for email notifications or something) and so I went to visit the very first assembly that SA Detroit put on.
It was only after I graduated college (in 2017) that I sought out and had the time to become a part of SA Detroit. It only took me <1 year to become a part of leadership and soon enough the president of the org.
Jacobsen: Star Trek and similar sci-fi genre are seen as humanistic in presentation because of the diversity of representation, the scientific outlook, and the exploratory nature of culture and life. How are these and other educational items built into the Sunday Assembly presentations?
Edwards: We’ve actually had a whole presentation on the Humanism of Star Trek. Unfortunately, we didn’t end up recording that one, but it was spectacular. We’ve also incorporated Humanistic lessons from other places such as local non-profits, local professors’ research topics, and lessons from bands (we had an assembly on the Humanism of Rush when Neil Peart died, for example). You can find about 25 recorded assemblies on our YouTube channel here.
Jacobsen: How did Covid impact gatherings for Sunday Assembly Detroit?
Edwards: It was a huge upset to the way that we worked. As an organization, meeting together in person is our lifeblood and not being able to do that was nearly a death knell for us. We managed to cope by meeting online for the majority of the pandemic or by meeting only in outdoor venues like parks and maintaining strict social distancing, masking, and vaccination requirements. Thankfully for secular people this was not a difficult ask as everyone here believes and well understands the science and importance of all of those restrictions / actions. As the pandemic abated, we have loosened / removed most of the restrictions and we’re back to meeting in person and indoors. We’re also slowly getting people to come back who we didn’t see for the last couple years while the chaos of the pandemic ensued.
Jacobsen: How does the Sunday Assembly weekly program seem to differ from traditional religious weekly services?
Edwards: Well, first, we don’t meet weekly. That would take a level of resources and coordination that we simply don’t have yet. Perhaps one day we’ll grow to a point where such a task is feasible though. It’s harder for us to do our assemblies weekly for the simple fact that we don’t have clergy, let alone someone who is solely dedicated to making a lecture each week. We don’t have any paid staff and our organization runs on a relatively skeleton crew – though I gather we have more people helping out than some other assembly chapters. Even if we did designate one person to design a weekly lecture, it would be somewhat against our very being to entrust just one person to have all the knowledge we could want to know. We don’t believe in divine revelation or in someone who is in contact with a God. We are free-thinking people and so we want our sources to be qualified and varied. This is why in the past we’ve stuck to bringing in professors, non-profit professionals, and accredited people to talk on topics. Finding those people takes a lot of work and so the most frequently we can manage to hold an assembly is monthly. During the pandemic we stopped having assemblies in the form we were used to and just dropped to having the lecture, essentially. Now that we’re coming back out of the pandemic, we’re looking to reinvent the assembly entirely to move it even further away from the Anglican model upon which it was based. Over the next year we’re going to explore ways that secularists and Humanists can more comfortably relate to one another, and we’re excited to see what kinds of new rituals and activities we come up with!
To answer your question more directly, the typical historical assembly (and one practiced by virtually every other chapter) is nearly copy/paste from the Anglican church (SA was started in the UK). So, the model is: song, welcome, song, life happens (people share something that’s happened in the last month), song, lecture & Questions, song, announcements and emcee address, closing song. The biggest difference is that God is never mentioned – not even to be derogatory. We simply have other/better things to think about and do.
As far as how it’s different, well that depends on the “traditional religious weekly service” you’re referring to. Which Christian sect? Which Muslim or Hindu Sect? Which any other religion and it’s sect? The further you get from the Anglican Church model, the more different our ‘services’ are.
Jacobsen: What is encouraged, discouraged, allowed, and disallowed, for the speakers?
Edwards: The obvious stuff is that it must be more or less family friendly (we generally avoid swearing and sexually explicit content). We don’t allow soliciting. We also try to stay away from political parties and candidates since we’re a non-profit org. We also aren’t interested in talking about God/gods/religion except for Humanism.
Outside of that, which isn’t an exhaustive list, anything goes. We try to talk about stuff that’s interesting to our membership. The goal is that the message should be uplifting and encouraging. It should make people want to be better or feel better. Our new assemblies will also try to impart some knowledge about Humanism, seeing the world and its happenings though a Humanist lens, and how to better embody and live out Humanism.
Jacobsen: How far has Sunday Assembly spread now?
Edwards: We’re in many of the major cities, and in a few of the western European countries. We have seen a substantial decline in SA chapters only a few years after they all sprung up (we’re at about 40 chapters or less now which is about half the chapters we had at our peak). It turns out that starting something is a very different exercise than maintaining and growing something. A lot of chapters were started only for the leadership to not change out and so get burnt out. As an example, I’ve been running SA Detroit for 5 years now and only this year (2023) was I able to successfully transfer leadership (presidency) on to someone else. As we go forward, we’re looking to find best practices for leadership succession and keeping a focus on our membership and developing the members to be able to step into a leadership role when one becomes vacant. We’re also looking for ways to reduce the workload overall (which is one reason we’re going away from the traditional model) and on any one person. All of the chapters are in constant contact and we’re always sharing ways that we can improve and do better. We’re also developing people at the national level to help struggling chapters and help found new ones. We’re also joining forces with Oasis Network and the Ethical Societies (two orgs that are very similar to SA) to share resources and build a stronger network. With all of these things in the works, I think we’ll see a comeback for SA over the next few years.
Jacobsen: How has Sunday Assembly evolved over the last few years?
Edwards: I think you’ve gotten a sense for the answer to this question by reading the others. We’re constantly evolving, and the confederated chapter-style approach allows each chapter to be agile while still holding to a central theme, way of being, and marketing strategy.
Bibliography
None
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Non-Religious Community 1: Austin Edwards on Sunday Assembly Detroit. January 2023; 11(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/edwards
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2023, January 22). Non-Religious Community 1: Austin Edwards on Sunday Assembly Detroit. In-Sight Publishing. 11(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/edwards.
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. D. Non-Religious Community 1: Austin Edwards on Sunday Assembly Detroit. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 11, n. 2, 2023.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2023. “Non-Religious Community 1: Austin Edwards on Sunday Assembly Detroit.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 11, no. 2 (Spring). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/edwards.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “Non-Religious Community 1: Austin Edwards on Sunday Assembly Detroit.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 11, no. 2 (January 2023). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/edwards.
Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2023) ‘Non-Religious Community 1: Austin Edwards on Sunday Assembly Detroit’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 11(2). <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/edwards>.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2023, ‘Non-Religious Community 1: Austin Edwards on Sunday Assembly Detroit’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/edwards>.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Non-Religious Community 1: Austin Edwards on Sunday Assembly Detroit.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.11, no. 2, 2023, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/edwards.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Non-Religious Community 1: Austin Edwards on Sunday Assembly Detroit [Internet]. 2023 Jan; 11(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/edwards
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, or the author(s), and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors copyright their material, as well, and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Publisher: In-Sight Publishing
Publisher Founding: January 1, 2014
Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com
Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Journal: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Journal Founding: August 2, 2012
Frequency: Three (3) Times Per Year
Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed
Access: Electronic/Digital & Open Access
Fees: None (Free)
Volume Numbering: 11
Issue Numbering: 2
Section: B
Theme Type: Idea
Theme Premise: “Outliers and Outsiders”
Theme Part: 27
Formal Sub-Theme: None.
Individual Publication Date: January 22, 2023
Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2023
Author(s): Richard May/May-Tzu
Author(s) Bio: Richard May (“May-Tzu”/“MayTzu”/“Mayzi”) is a Member of the Mega Society based on a qualifying score on the Mega Test (before 1995) prior to the compromise of the Mega Test and Co-Editor of Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society. In self-description, May states: “Not even forgotten in the cosmic microwave background (CMB), I’m an Amish yuppie, born near the rarified regions of Laputa, then and often, above suburban Boston. I’ve done occasional consulting and frequent Sisyphean shlepping. Kafka and Munch have been my therapists and allies. Occasionally I’ve strived to descend from the mists to attain the mythic orientation known as having one’s feet upon the Earth. An ailurophile and a cerebrotonic ectomorph, I write for beings which do not, and never will, exist — writings for no one. I’ve been awarded an M.A. degree, mirabile dictu, in the humanities/philosophy, and U.S. patent for a board game of possible interest to extraterrestrials. I’m a member of the Mega Society, the Omega Society and formerly of Mensa. I’m the founder of the Exa Society, the transfinite Aleph-3 Society and of the renowned Laputans Manqué. I’m a biographee in Who’s Who in the Brane World. My interests include the realization of the idea of humans as incomplete beings with the capacity to complete their own evolution by effecting a change in their being and consciousness. In a moment of presence to myself in inner silence, when I see Richard May’s non-being, ‘I’ am. You can meet me if you go to an empty room.” Some other resources include Stains Upon the Silence: something for no one, McGinnis Genealogy of Crown Point, New York: Hiram Porter McGinnis, Swines List, Solipsist Soliloquies, Board Game, Lulu blog, Memoir of a Non-Irish Non-Jew, and May-Tzu’s posterous.
Word Count: 50
Image Credit: Richard May.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
A poem by May-Tzu with some Daoist reference and presented in the form of apparent paradoxes without assumed solubility, but a sense behind them.
Keywords: disordered, kittens, May-Tzu, Richard May, Tao, Taoist, thief.
Realpolitik among the Laputan Taoists
The power of the Tao is emptiness.
Its armies lead by following peasants;
attack silently and weaponless by surrendering.
The police of the Tao were trained by kittens.
How does an adversary decapitate the headless?
Can a dust cloud become disordered?
Open the door to let in the thief!
May-Tzu
Bibliography
None
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): May R. Realpolitik among the Laputan Taoists. January 2023; 11(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/laputan
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): May, R. (2023, January 22). Realpolitik among the Laputan Taoists. In-Sight Publishing. 11(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/laputan.
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): MAY, R. Realpolitik among the Laputan Taoists. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 11, n. 2, 2023.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): May, Richard. 2023. “Realpolitik among the Laputan Taoists.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 11, no. 2 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/laputan.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): May, R “Realpolitik among the Laputan Taoists.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 11, no. 2 (January 2023). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/laputan.
Harvard: May, R. (2023) ‘Realpolitik among the Laputan Taoists’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 11(1). <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/laputan>.
Harvard (Australian): May, R 2023, ‘Realpolitik among the Laputan Taoists’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/laputan>.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): May, Richard. “Realpolitik among the Laputan Taoists.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.11, no. 2, 2023, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/laputan.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Richard M. Realpolitik among the Laputan Taoists [Internet]. 2023 Jan; 11(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/laputan
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, or the author(s), and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors copyright their material, as well, and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Publisher: In-Sight Publishing
Publisher Founding: January 1, 2014
Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com
Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Journal: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Journal Founding: August 2, 2012
Frequency: Three (3) Times Per Year
Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed
Access: Electronic/Digital & Open Access
Fees: None (Free)
Volume Numbering: 11
Issue Numbering: 2
Section: B
Theme Type: Idea
Theme Premise: “Outliers and Outsiders”
Theme Part: 27
Formal Sub-Theme: None.
Individual Publication Date: January 22, 2023
Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2023
Author(s): Richard May/May-Tzu
Author(s) Bio: Richard May (“May-Tzu”/“MayTzu”/“Mayzi”) is a Member of the Mega Society based on a qualifying score on the Mega Test (before 1995) prior to the compromise of the Mega Test and Co-Editor of Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society. In self-description, May states: “Not even forgotten in the cosmic microwave background (CMB), I’m an Amish yuppie, born near the rarified regions of Laputa, then and often, above suburban Boston. I’ve done occasional consulting and frequent Sisyphean shlepping. Kafka and Munch have been my therapists and allies. Occasionally I’ve strived to descend from the mists to attain the mythic orientation known as having one’s feet upon the Earth. An ailurophile and a cerebrotonic ectomorph, I write for beings which do not, and never will, exist — writings for no one. I’ve been awarded an M.A. degree, mirabile dictu, in the humanities/philosophy, and U.S. patent for a board game of possible interest to extraterrestrials. I’m a member of the Mega Society, the Omega Society and formerly of Mensa. I’m the founder of the Exa Society, the transfinite Aleph-3 Society and of the renowned Laputans Manqué. I’m a biographee in Who’s Who in the Brane World. My interests include the realization of the idea of humans as incomplete beings with the capacity to complete their own evolution by effecting a change in their being and consciousness. In a moment of presence to myself in inner silence, when I see Richard May’s non-being, ‘I’ am. You can meet me if you go to an empty room.” Some other resources include Stains Upon the Silence: something for no one, McGinnis Genealogy of Crown Point, New York: Hiram Porter McGinnis, Swines List, Solipsist Soliloquies, Board Game, Lulu blog, Memoir of a Non-Irish Non-Jew, and May-Tzu’s posterous.
Word Count: 59
Image Credit: Richard May.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
This poem by Richard May emphasizes common themes and elements within the pieces, often, published with Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society. An emphasis on silence, touching on mathematical concepts, bringing in pinches of Eastern philosophical systems and figures, stirring in some cosmology, and echoing echoes in form and rhythm.
Keywords: aleph-null, Bubbling Spring, buddhas, imaginal star, May-Tzu, Richard May, silence, Yang, Yin.
Taoless Tao
Pushing the air with fingertips,
hands trembling,
circles within circles,
yinning and yanging on the Bubbling Spring, drawing in the energy of an imaginal star, breathing into marrow of the bones …
Dancing our vows again for the first time before aleph-null unconceived buddhas.
Hand trembling,
circles within circles,
seeing eyeless … the taste of silence.
Noesis 198, May 2015, page 24
–May-Tzu
Bibliography
None
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): May R. Taoless Tao. January 2023; 11(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/taoless-tao
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): May, R. (2023, January 22). Taoless Tao. In-Sight Publishing. 11(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/taoless-tao.
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): MAY, R. Taoless Tao. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 11, n. 2, 2023.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): May, Richard. 2023. “Taoless Tao.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 11, no. 2 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/taoless-tao.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): May, R “Taoless Tao.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 11, no. 2 (January 2023). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/taoless-tao.
Harvard: May, R. (2023) ‘Taoless Tao’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 11(1). <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/taoless-tao>.
Harvard (Australian): May, R 2023, ‘Taoless Tao’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/taoless-tao>.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): May, Richard. “Taoless Tao.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.11, no. 2, 2023, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/taoless-tao.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Richard M. Taoless Tao [Internet]. 2023 Jan; 11(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/taoless-tao
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, or the author(s), and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors copyright their material, as well, and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2023/01/22
Radscoaltswane: Rougenmoibabe egguinfoaltlinens staledion leftlustindusdecry poniesgonedry timeoutagainin; mareliedon.
See “Anglassocrit”.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): British Columbia Centre on Substance Abuse
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2017/07/22
Note: This interview has been edited for clarity, readability, and concision.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How did you get an interest in Canadian drug policy?
Stephanie Lake: I became interested in Canadian drug policy while I was studying health sciences at the University of Ottawa. I remember writing a paper on supervised injection sites for a sociology of health course, and throughout my literature review, I found myself getting increasingly frustrated at the state of our prohibitive and punitive drug policies which all seemed to be based on ideology rather than evidence. This frustration left me feeling determined to contribute to change in drug policy through health research and advocacy.
Jacobsen: What is your position in the chapter and responsibilities?
Lake: I am currently working with a small group of students to revive CSSDP’s Vancouver chapter. I fell into this role when I came across the CSSDP Vancouver facebook group, and noticed a post from a former CSSDP board member asking if anyone wanted to try and get the chapter going again. I decided to give it a try, and I’m really happy that I did. Right now, since we are a relatively small core group of students (3-4), we all share the responsibility of chairing meetings, organizing events, and growing the chapter. Our chapter is organizing its first event (naloxone training for students and youth in Vancouver). I have also recently joined the national board, where I will be focusing on student outreach and conference planning.
Jacobsen: What is your perspective on the more punitive approaches to drug policy and the harm reduction approaches?
Lake: I think most people know by now that the war on drugs is a failure. Punitive approaches to drug policy just don’t work, and they don’t protect the health and human rights of people who use drugs. Substance use has been around as long as humans have walked the earth, so it is unrealistic to think that we can just abolish such a deeply rooted human behaviour through punitive measures. Instead, we should be supporting the health of people who use drugs through minimizing the potential harms associated with drug use. When we do this, we reduce stigma that is so often linked to drug use, connect people who use drugs to health and social resources, and ultimately protect the health of the entire population.
Jacobsen: What are the consequences on individuals with drug misuse if the punitive issues are employed?
Lake: Since the war on drugs began in the 1970’s the number of individuals in the US who have been incarcerated for drug law violations has gone up more than 10-fold. In other parts of the world, including the Philippines and Vietnam, drug-related offences can even result in the death penalty. These harsh responses to drug use mean that people who use drugs are often pushed underground, where they become disconnected with potentially life-saving health and social supports. Incarceration has been linked to HIV infection (people do use drugs in jails, but they don’t have access to clean needles/pipes because this would require admitting that drugs get into jails), poor HIV treatment access and sub-optimal treatment outcomes, inadequate access to evidence-based addiction treatment (e.g., opioid substitution treatment), etc. Also, once someone goes to jail for drugs, it becomes hard to break the cycle. Many individuals will struggle to find steady employment or decent housing, and risk returning to drug dealing or related illicit activities to support themselves or their families.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/11/02
Abstract
Claus Volko is an Austrian computer and medical scientist who has conducted research on the treatment of cancer and severe mental disorders by conversion of stress hormones into immunity hormones. This research gave birth to a new scientific paradigm which he called “symbiont conversion theory”: methods to convert cells exhibiting parasitic behaviour to cells that act as symbionts. In 2013 Volko, obtained an IQ score of 172 on the Equally Normed Numerical Derivation Test. He is also the founder and president of Prudentia High IQ Society, a society for people with an IQ of 140 or higher, preferably academics. He discusses: high IQ societies; Mensa in Austria; current size of Prudentia; journal publications; the Facebook group; membership size and demographics; Facebook; “only positive aspects” to high-IQ societies; the failures; more realistic purposes; the tests of Ivan Ivec; other societies than Mensa; Henning Ludvigsen; Kostantino Pataridis; hardly anyone drank at the Mensa meetings; logics; the journal; the new society; members from Europe, Asia, and North America; books; television, movies, or music of interest; interesting discoveries in medicine; a paradigm shift; and favourite issue of the society journal.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Why are most “high IQ societies are not much more than websites with member lists”?
Claus Volko, M.D.: Mostly because they are international organizations that have members in a large number of countries but not many members in a single country. So there are no real-life, face-to-face meetings.
Jacobsen: How is Mensa in Austria able to host monthly meetings in Vienna?
Volko: There are about 200 members living in Vienna.
Jacobsen: What is the current size of Prudentia?
Volko: Right now we have 46 members.
Jacobsen: The journal publications seem short in the first analysis. Why short for some of these first issues of the journal?
Volko: I decided to publish a new issue of the journal whenever I had new material to publish instead of keeping collecting material until a certain amount would have been gathered.
Jacobsen: What happens on the Facebook group?
Volko: Not much yet. Mostly introducing new members.
Jacobsen: What is the membership size and demographics now?
Volko: There are members from Europe, Asia and North America.
Jacobsen: Why is Facebook the social medium for the high-IQ individuals?
Volko: Well, most people have a Facebook account. So why should they not use it.
Jacobsen: In regards to “only positive aspects” to high-IQ societies, what are the positive aspects of societies like Prudentia and Mensa International?
Volko: Prudentia has a nice journal with some highly interesting articles, e.g. on Symbiont Conversion Theory and on the Synthesis of Metaphysics and Jungian Personality Theory.
Jacobsen: If, in theory, they could perform such a function apart from the postsecondary institutional environment and the long-term existence of the societies. Why the failures to do it? Also, is this reasonable with the fact that most “high IQ societies are not much more than websites with member lists”?
Volko: High IQ societies need to publish more educational and scientific articles.
Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, why not simply have the more straightforward notion of the evidenced existence of social communities for the highly intelligence alongside academia as a more concrete and realistic contributor to the needs of society? One can point to the failures of academia. However, its benefits would seem to far outweigh its costs and the high-IQ societies appear, as you noted, “not much more than websites with member lists.” As well, what other more realistic purposes could high-IQ societies perform in the early 21st century, even the middle 21st century?
Volko: Basically high IQ societies are a means of getting to know people. It does not matter which society one belongs to, people connect with each other via Facebook and talk.
Jacobsen: Why the tests of Ivan Ivec?
Volko: They are pretty well-made and have decent norms.
Jacobsen: Are there any other societies than Mensa providing real in-person meetings?
Volko: Intertel has annual gatherings, as far as I know.
Jacobsen: What are some examples of the works of Henning Ludvigsen exemplfiying his talent?
Volko: He has made a lot of great drawings, e.g. title pictures of some issues of Hugi Magazine.
Jacobsen: What are some examples of the works of Kostantino Pataridis exemplfiying his talent?
Volko: His best work in my opinion is “Happiness is around the bend”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQngoCBvq3Q.
Jacobsen: Why do you think hardly anyone drank at the Mensa meetings? Did you ever drink akin to fellow high school students in high school?
Volko: I don’t often drink, only when others around me drink too. I think Mensa members are proud of their intelligence and know that alcohol may harm their intellect, so they avoid it.
Jacobsen: Are there logics in which the assigning of values “true” and “false” simply fail?
Volko: There are also multi-valued logics such as fuzzy logic where a probability that the value is true is assigned to it.
Jacobsen: What topics would you hope to explore in the journal as the society membership grows?
Volko: I would like to explore topics related to all of science and philosophy. Prudentia is a high IQ society that is primarily for academics and people with interest in science and philosophy. The journal is supposed to give these people a platform where they can present their own original ideas.
Jacobsen: How big do you hope to grow the new society? That is, what would be your highest hopes?
Volko: More important than the number of members is their activity. I would like to have a group of members who regularly contribute to the journal. If I manage to gather such a group, Prudentia has been a success.
Jacobsen: Of those members from Europe, Asia, and North America, are most from Europe?
Volko: Yes, currently most of our members are from Europe.
Jacobsen: Have you been reading any books as of late?
Volko: Admittedly, no. Due to Corona the bookshops are closed and I haven’t read any of the books I have at home in recent days. But I would like to read the textbooks on introductory math and physics for university students which I purchased some time ago soon.
Jacobsen: Any interesting television, movies, or music of interest to you?
Volko: I regularly watch an Austrian television programme in which the participants tell each other jokes. In addition, I enjoy watching quiz programmes. My favourite movies are the Bourne saga, the Mission Impossible saga, the Divergent trilogy and the Indiana Jones movies.
Jacobsen: What are some interesting discoveries in medicine alongside Symbiont Conversion Theory?
Volko: Recently a new DNA shape has been discovered, and artificial intelligence has been applied to discover 3D protein foldings.
Jacobsen: Do you think philosophy, science, or theology are due for a paradigm shift? If so, why so? If not, why not? This can be outside of the earlier professional propositions by you.
Volko: I am not sure about this and I have no idea whether anybody is able to assess this at all. My view is that every person has a different opinion and that there is not a uniform scientific paradigm.
Jacobsen: What is your favourite issue of the society journal so far?
Volko: I like the second and the third issue very much because of their original scientific contents. Also, “The Synthesis of Metaphysics and Jungian Personality Theory” is a very good article, in my opinion (I know that I am praising myself here, as I am the author, but I would be of the same view if any other person had written the article).
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/11/02
In a prior job at Conatus News in the United Kingdom, I conducted an interview with the prominent and respected author and philosopher of science, Dr. Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, who agreed to the interview and made some thoughtful comments about the idea of the “conatus” or the idea of an “effort or willing of something in order to improve itself.” This came with a context. She understood the intellectual environs and inspiration of the “conatus” coming from deceased philosopher Baruch Spinoza and others. Goldstein has a sentiment towards Spinoza, akin to Bertrand Russell’s when he said, “Spinoza is the noblest and most lovable of the great philosophers. Intellectually, some others have surpassed him, but ethically he is supreme.” As serendipity presents itself, sometimes, one can get the opportunity to interview an individual of similar intellectual calibre within many of the same philosophical traditions and ethical outlooks. Serendipity came through financial and social media assistance on the part of Professor Pinker towards an initiative to combat a particular form of superstition and supernatural belief in Africa. As it so happens, also, Pinker and Goldstein have been married since 2007. Professor Pinker is the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard University. His most recent book is Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. With great pleasure, I present the interview with Professor Pinker from yesterday here, where we discuss current events in the United States in a larger non-pollyannaish context, journalism, cognitive biases, supernatural beliefs, creationism, global democratic movements, the language faculty, sex and gender differences, and Humanism.
*Interview conducted on June 9, 2020.*
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s start from the top with some of the current events in the United States, and some of the things happening in the world as well, if we look at some of the more current events in the United States over the last two weeks, it can given the impression of things being quite negative, in terms of the apparent destruction of property and violence against some citizens and authorities. Your recent work has been based around cataloguing long-term trends happening around the world, including in the United States. One of the caveats that you tend to give is that it is not pollyannaish in its perspective as well. So, what would be a broader perspective, even in the midst of some of the sociopolitical upheaval happening in the United States now?
Professor Steven Pinker: The overall levels of violence, including police shootings of civilians, were worse in the past. It’s unfortunate that this has been a long-simmering problem, particularly in the United States, where police kill far too many civilians. We should be grateful. Finally, this problem is going to be addressed. It is unavoidable. However, our impression of the present moment compared to other times should not be compared to the news of the day because the news is a highly non-random sample of the worse things happening on the planet on any given day. They can give a highly misleading picture of the trajectory of the world. The things that go right tend to be non-newsworthy. The country is not at war. That’s not news.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Pinker: Things that tend to get better creep up a few percentage points per year, which can then compound and transform the planet. However, if they don’t take place on a Thursday in February, then we will never read about them. While not denying terrible things can happen, indeed, an acknowledgement of human progress is not the same as the belief that nothing bad ever happens or things get better by themselves. We’re apt to underestimate progress when our source of information about the world comes through the news.
Jacobsen: Does this make a general statement about journalism and reportage, even in prestigious Western publications such as The New York Times, coming to the phrase, “If it bleeds, it leads”?
Pinker: Indeed, this is not to cast aspersions on the essential role of the mainstream media in our understanding of the world because it is the reporters who have the commitment to disinterested search of information. It is the institutions of fact-checking and editorial responsibility that are the only window to the world. It is not an accusation of any sinister, or even commercial, motive, but, rather, a kind of innumeracy. A kind of failure to appreciate the distortions coming about by sampling. In particular, the sample of the worst things taking place anywhere on the planet. The insensitivity to time scales. Something can go wrong very quickly. Something going right tends to be protracted over time. Also, a part of our psychology is unduly affected by the images, anecdotes, and narratives. Cognitive psychologists call this the Availability Bias/Heuristic. Events available in memory – because of vividness, recency, and concreteness – will tend to distort estimates of risk likelihood and probability.
Jacobsen: Even if we take the research of distinguished professors like Elizabeth Loftus at the University of California, Irvine, there is a robust phenomenon of False Memories and Rich False Memories. If we are taking social activism and political events over the scale of decades, does this further compound the cognitive biases with information recalled and observed and brought to the news?
Pinker: It is an additional source of distortion of our perception of the world. Above and beyond the fact, we are overly influenced by events and narratives. There is the problem: we don’t particularly remember them accurately, as Elizabeth Loftus’s work has shown. We tend to tidy up the details of our memories. So, they fit a coherent narrative. Our memories can be edited retrospectively by the way we think about them, the occasions of recollection. After we recall a memory, the filing back of the memory can be distorting once more. It is an additional source of cognitive impairment. All educated people should be aware of it, including journalists.
Jacobsen: Are there particular types of biases coming forward in more established mainstream institutional news organizations compared to more independent journalism?
Pinker: There can be. Overall, large journalistic institutions can afford editors and fact-checkers, and reporters to be sent out to remote and inhospitable locations. Plus, they have a reputation to defend. So, if they are caught on record with egregious distortions, then that will subtract from the reputation. There are some reasons for the big institutions needing to be more accurate. On the other hand, there are some reasons for reduced accuracy`. If there is a particular worldview, ideology, or mindset, often, it is hard to recognize them in yourself. There’s a quote, which I love, from the economist Joan Robinson, “Ideology is like breath. You never smell your own.”
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Pinker: [Laughing] If an institution, including a journalistic institution, is captured by a political faction, whether on the left or the right, we know from a body of psychological research of a third type of distortion. Namely, the desire to filter evidence, so it reinforces beliefs held already by you. With Confirmation Bias, we tend to subscribe to themes and commentaries affirming beliefs rather than challenging them. We tend to be hardnosed methodological purists when it comes to research contradicting personal beliefs. Whereas, we tend to give an easy pass when it comes to research that confirms them. Indeed, political biases, almost a tribalism where the tribes are not ethnographic units or sports teams, are ideologies on the left or the right. They can be a major source of misunderstanding. Again, there is a biased bias. Where everyone is willing to admit this is true about the other side, their side is seen as completely objective and clear-eyed. There is reason to believe this is not true. In fact, we can find distortions in the factual understanding on both the left and the right.
Jacobsen: In the United States more so than Canada, and the United Kingdom much less so than Canada, there are a lot of supernatural beliefs across the board, whether devils, ghosts, all sorts of things. How do these then creep into some of the perceptions of a lot of the general public, even if they are reading decent, reliable, and validated reportage in the news?
Pinker: Yes, I am not aware of data comparing countries. What you say doesn’t surprise me, in a lot of measures of wellbeing and rationality, the United States punches well below its wealth.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Pinker: It is among the world’s wealthiest countries. It ought to be the healthiest, happiest, and the smartest in the world. It does okay.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Pinker: In many ways, it trails Canada and other affluent democracies. I wouldn’t be surprised if supernatural belief is one. Certainly, religious belief is one. Americans are more religious than any affluent democracy. The United States is an outlier. There are beliefs, which we don’t categorize as religion. They are supernatural or New Age. They are surprisingly prevalent in a lot of countries. Why would this be more the case in the United States assuming the science shows this? The scientific and pseudoscientific beliefs do not come from a first-hand knowledge of the relevant scientific literatures. Frankly, I am not enough of a population geneticist, climate scientist, or neuroscientist to defend all personal beliefs about the brain, the soul, the climate, and evolution. However, I know the way science works. They are the tribe for me. I know the intellectual ecosystem. It is peer review. It is open debate. If someone were to come up with a really good refutation of some dogma, then this would be a good career move because the upstart is often rewarded. I tend to believe: If something is in the scientific mainstream, then it is, typically, a better source of objective understanding than some random thing forwarded from Twitter or email.
On the other hand, there are people without this belief. They treat the scientific consensus, the consensus of institutions such as government and academia and hospitals and mainstream media, as another opinion. No more reliable than something retweeted. Tests of scientific knowledge when it comes to climate show people who accept the scientific consensus are not necessarily more informed than others who do not accept it. For those who accept manmade climate change, they think this has something to do with plastic straws and holes in the ozone. Climate change dealing with a sense of greenness. Their own not-so scientific beliefs happen to align with the scientific consensus because they tend to follow, more or less, the consensus. However, for people alienated from mainstream institutions, they have no reason to take this any more seriously than pronouncements of President Donald Trump. In the United States, assuming a greater degree of belief in the paranormal, pseudoscience, and so on, in addition to the well-documented level of religious belief, it may lead to greater alienation from mainstream institutions, which tend to be more trusted in other wealthy democracies, I assume.
Jacobsen: Skeptical Inquirer published a good article, recently. It had to do with Nobel Prize winners, some, who held not exactly the most robustly validated positions. In other words, it was a comparison between individuals who would very likely score very high on general intelligence while having certain forms of irrational beliefs. It is not directly related, but it is along the same line of thinking of some of the research into people who score very high on intelligence tests, general intelligence tests, having particular kinds of tendencies in irrational thinking. Is general intelligence a factor here when it comes to pseudoscientific beliefs, supernatural beliefs, and various forms of fundamentalist religious beliefs?
Pinker: It is a factor, but it is like anything in psychology or social science. There are correlations. They are significant, but well below 0.10.
Jacobsen: [Laughing] Right.
Pinker: [Laughing] People who score higher on IQ tests. They are more likely to be atheists. Also, they are more likely to get education, less likely to fall prey to fallacies of statistical reasoning. However, there are no shortage of exceptions to the correlations.
Jacobsen: In the United States, there has been a longstanding effort to try to combat the perceived encroachment of an atheist worldview or a secular frame of mind, especially in regard to evolution via natural selection. So, organizations like the Discovery Institute. Philip Johnson died last year in November. He is the legal mind of the orientation. The other two are Michael Behe and William Dembski for the molecular biology and information theoretic foundations of Intelligent Design creationism, respectively. They have been working for decades to try to impose creationist thought in the education system by skipping all manner of regular modern scientific procedure with peer review, debate, experiment, etc. Instead, they attempted to go straight to the high school system in the textbooks. So, when it comes to some, not simply errors in reasoning or correlations between general intelligence and certain forms of supernatural and pseudoscientific beliefs, what about these direct efforts to try to reduce the level of correct scientific and empirical theories, most substantiated theories, of the world seen today?
Pinker: Indeed, though, the Discovery Institute and the smarter creationists have been clever at insinuating what are disguised religious beliefs in the guise of scientific controversy. On two occasions, my hometown paper, the Boston Globe, one of the prestigious papers in the United States, published op-eds by people from the Discovery Institute trying to sew confusion about evolution. I complained in both instances to the editorial page. The editor was tricked by a fairly clever campaign to make this seem as if it was in the realm of ongoing scientific controversy. In that, it was a secular argument for Intelligent Design. Whereas, as the Kitzmiller case in Dover in 2005 established, there’s no question: This is disguised religious propaganda. Knowing the separation of church and state, at least in the United States, they realize the need to work around it. They were given a stunning defeat in 2005, but, certainly, they have not given up.
Jacobsen: Some of the earliest work was on an innate capacity of language. When it comes to a lot of the innate capacities, I, often, think of the cognitive biases, which appear, more or less, hardwired in how human beings evolved. When it comes to some of the attempts to educate along the lines of critical thinking, science, and empiricism, general rationality, even if there was pervasive critical thinking education, science education, logical reasoning education, and so on, from elementary school through to the end of high school, would there be an asymptote at some level in terms of the level of rationality to inculcate in the society, including among the wealthiest?
Pinker: Humans, certainly, are a rational species. In that, we have taken over the planet, even long before the Industrial Revolution and the age of colonization. From a homeland in Africa, humans outsmarted plants and animals in a variety of ecosystems because they could develop mental models about the ways the world worked. They were not so superstitious to not know when it could get cooler, how to track down an animal, and how to detoxify a plant. We have an innate capacity for reason. It seems rooted in the physical world, the concrete world, or the cause-and-effect arrows determining our survival. When it comes to history before we were born, when it comes to parts of the world where we don’t live, when it comes to things too small to see, or places too far away to live, we are susceptible to myths and fairytales. Probably, it’s because most of the history of the species existed before the era of science, statistics, and modern education. It didn’t matter much. On the creation of the cosmos, you could believe anything.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Pinker: A lot of beliefs were not in the realm of truth and falsity. Our modern attitude states, “We ought to apply this to all of our beliefs.” Rather, we look for narrative appeals of the story and the moral utility. That is, is this good for galvanizing people to do the right things? Whether it is true or false, it a secondary concern for a lot of our beliefs. I think this is true of a lot of religious beliefs. It is not even clear, whether religious beliefs for religious people are deep down believed to be true. In that, this is seen as an important belief to hold, or not, in spite of its truthfulness. I believe our cognitive systems have these two different kinds of belief. Modernity has seen the expansion and encroachment of the factual, scientific, logical, and historical, over the mythological, the narrative, the fable, and the morality tales. However, human nature makes the myth, the narrative, and the fable always pushback. We need, in the education system, political discourse, and journalistic discourse, an affirmation of the idea: some things are true; some things are false. We do not know, at any given time, what they are because we are not omniscient. We are not infallible. We have methods, which steer us on a path to greater truth, including the scientific method. We ought to valorize attempts at objectivity, even when they tug at our moral narratives or moral convictions.
Jacobsen: One of the approaches endorsed by you, which, I believe, comes from the late Hans Rosling: “factfulness.” What is factfulness? How does this reorient a lot of the discourses, whether floating in online spaces or some professional circles?
Pinker: Yes, I wish I came up with the word “factfulness.”
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Pinker: It is an excellent addition to the English language suggested by a native speaker of Swedish, the late Hans Rosling, and his son, Ola Rosling, and daughter-in-law, Anna Rosling Rönnlund. Factfulness is the mindset of basing beliefs on the best vetted facts. In their case, and in mine, e.g., the book Enlightenment Now coming out shortly before Factfulness and partly based on Rosling’s data, it is the sense of the arc of history, of the state of the world now, should be driven by the best and most comprehensive data rather than by the headlines. Indeed, Rosling showed, in a number of surveys in The Ignorance Project, most people are out to lunch on knowledge of basic world developments such as people becoming richer or poorer on the whole, the percentage of kids who are vaccinated, the percentage of kids who are educated and literate. The majority of people believe things continue to get worse. People have not escaped poverty. Most people are illiterate. When in most cases, it is the great majorities.
Jacobsen: One of the big metrics, I believe the late Christopher Hitchens noted this in a debate with Tony Blair. The single best metric for the development of society is probably coming under the guise of the phrase: “The empowerment of women.” If women have equal rights on a variety of measures, whether reproductive health rights, economic access, educational access, and so on, the societies tend to be much healthier, and wealthier. What are some other metrics having an overall positive correlation with the health and wealth of a society?
Pinker: Yes, I think that is the essential question. To the frustration of social scientists, when you make comparisons across countries, across American states, across time periods, a lot of things get confounded. So, when you search for a cause and effect story, you need to be a really clever statistician or econometrician because countries with more empowered women are healthier, wealthier, more democratic. The questions: Which one is the cause? Which ones are the beneficial effects? The answer may be each of them reinforces each of the others. In countries with greater wealth, they will be less likely to imprison women in the kitchen and the nursery. Yet, when you have 50% of the population to apply their brainpower to the society’s problems, then this will likely make them richer moving forward. Likewise, richer countries tend to be able to afford schools and keep kids out of the fields and the factories. When you have a generation of kids who are better educated, they tend to be more receptive to the empowerment of women. It is an irrefutable idea [Laughing]. The idea of keeping half of the population in a state of oppression doesn’t make sense, when you observe the outcomes of societies empowering women. Other progressive belief systems such as the value of democracy over tyranny, the value of peace over conflict. These tend to correlate with better, more educated populaces.
I think Hitchens is right. In that, the empowerment of women is one driver. Although, it is hard to say, “It is the first driver.” In that, in any given society, if you simply educated girls, and if there were no other changes in health and infrastructure, then the society would improve. Certainly, it is a contributor. One way to think about this. Francis Fukuyama once said the key problem in human progress or human development, “How do we get to Denmark?” In this sense, Denmark is a lot like many countries. It has poverty. It has crime, but much less. In many ways, you could pick Norway. However, there are many, many better places to live than others. We can see how people vote with their feet. People, literally, want to get to Denmark via immigration there. It gives a benchmark for, at least at present, the highest places to aspire. Ideally, we would get the rest of the world to a state of happiness, health, and education, as Denmark. A lot of things differentiate Denmark from Togo or Bangladesh. Women’s empowerment would be one of them.
Jacobsen: What about the number of democracies in the world now? What about the strengths of the democracies? Is it fewer or more? Even if we take the total count, how robust are these democracies?
Pinker: In the past decade, the world has been more democratic than any other historical period and decade. There has been some backsliding in the past few years. Russia, Turkey, Hungary, and Brazil, for example, have slid back, including the United States and India. However, there is no comparison to the 1970s, when I was in the university system. There were experts predicting democracy would go the way of monarchy. A nice arrangement while it lasted.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Pinker: It is good to remember. Even with the alarming regression in democracy, we are seeing it. It is slight compared to the previous times of the world. Half of Europe was behind the Iron Curtain until 1989, living under totalitarian communistic dictatorships. Most of Latin America was under rightwing or military dictatorships. In East Asia, you had South Korea, Taiwan, and Indonesia under rightwing military dictatorships. All of them more or less democratic today. It is true. You cannot dichotomize the world into democratic and autocratic because a lot of crappy democracies exist. In that, people have the right to vote, but the government manipulates the vote. Either by outright fraud, by penalizing/outlawing opposition parties, by using the government organs as propaganda for the regime in power, by harassing journalists and opposition leaders on trumped up corruption charges, and so on, by dismantling civil society institutions like universities as Hungary did with the Central European University. That’s why a number of organizations give countries a grade. Sometimes, it is from minus 10 to plus 10 on an autocracy to a democracy scale.
Jacobsen: To the earliest work for you, as far as I know, it was language. You built off a lot of the work by Noam Chomsky or highly inspired by the work of Noam Chomsky. What is language, fundamentally, in terms of the modern research?
Pinker: My interests, in fact, were in all of human nature and human behaviour. I worked in visual imagery, auditory perception at McGill University before venturing into language. I did research into behaviour of rats and pigeons while a student as McGill. My first research was on excessive drinking in rats – of water, that is.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Pinker: My interest in language comes from a more general interest in human nature. Language is the most distinctively human trait. Although, it would not have evolved if not for other more distinctively human traits. Zoologically unusual features of homo sapiens including technological knowhow, figuring out how to outsmart plants and animals, how to develop tools and technologies, and social cooperation. We are unusual in the degree of social cooperation with members of the species who we are biologically unrelated. Language, it would not have evolved if we were not on speaking terms. Why share information or knowhow, or say anything to the enemy? The fact of the development of recipes, algorithms, and technologies and tools mean an interest in saying something to one another. We do not talk to merely amuse ourselves. In turn, it makes us valuable to other people as sources of information. It makes us more curious about our relations with other individuals. Language helps negotiate partnerships, spread gossip about partnerships to avoid, and so on. The three abilities – language, knowhow, and sociality – co-evolved. My original interest in language came from an interest in baby’s acquisition of it. This was a question for Chomsky. He did not study children’s language. He set a central theoretical problem in understanding language: How do we develop language in the first place? People need to learn to read, but not to speak.
All human societies have language without the benefit of some central committee with everything planned. The development and acquisition of language is part and parcel of the essence of human nature. For Chomsky, he implied a rich innate structure to language. Obviously, we can’t come into the world knowing anything about English, Japanese, Yiddish, or Swahili, but Chomsky proposed an innate universal grammar. That is, computational machinery optimized for language. Now, it is very hard to pin down what would go into this universal grammar. There is an enormous controversy around it. There is by no means a consensus in the researchers studying language. The challenge of explaining how kids learn language. It led me to being sympathetic to the idea of innate constraints or pre-programming of the possibilities of a language. Kids did not approach language as pure cryptographers trying to decode the probabilistic sequences of one sound after another. They come into the world expecting other people will communicate with them using arbitrary signs arranged by rules. They look for units of sounds. They listen for words. They are sensitive to the ways of combining them. Unless, you have a circuitry programmed to do it. Then kids would flounder around producing sounds approximating language without ever getting the point that a language is a bunch of signals.
Jacobsen: When we look at the various facets of human nature, one of the philosophical assumptions for humanists, like you and I, is human nature is fundamentally good. There are outliers among us. However, in general, human nature is fundamentally a good set up. As a philosophical assertion, how supported is this, empirically?
Pinker: Yes, I wouldn’t put it that way, myself. I stole a phrase from Abraham Lincoln for the title of a book I published, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, in 2011. Of course, putting aside the angels, it is a lovely metaphor. As it captures, human nature is complex. It has parts. I would not say, “Humans are fundamentally good.” I’d say, “There are subsystems in the human brain, which allows us to be good, e.g., empathy, a moral sense, a capacity for self-control, the power of reason.” However, it is not everything in the skull. We can be callous toward others. We can exploit them, whether exploitative labour, in sex, or through property. Some genders more than others have a stronger sense of dominance.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Pinker: We have a thirst for revenge. Sometimes, it is called justice. We can cultivate a sense of sadism. Depending on the social milieu, different parts of human nature can come to the fore. The challenge is setting up the norms, the institutions, the beliefs, and the laws calling out the better angels and suppressing the inner demons.
Jacobsen: What setups, empirically speaking, tend to bring the subsystems producing behaviours and thoughts, moral sentiments, bringing out the “better angels of our nature”?
Pinker: Democracy is one of them. The idea, no one has the right to dominate anyone else. There is a provisional, circumscribed, and temporary power granted to some individuals subject to recall and oversight to protect us against each other or to maximize public goods. That’s one of them. Cosmopolitan mixing of people and ideas. It becomes harder to demonize others if you know the state of the world in their shoes or from their point of view. Ideas such as human flourishing as the ultimate good rather than national glory or the propagation of dogma or adherence to scripture. The cultivation of a sense of fallibility, corrigibility, knowledge of human limits and human nature. So, we set up our institutions, not because any one of us can claim to be angelic or moral, or infallible or omniscient. Precisely the opposite, we set up rules of the game, so we can approach the truth or the morally best way of arranging our affairs. Even though, no one of us is good or wise enough to attain it. We have mechanisms with democratic checks and balances. We do not empower a benevolent despot because the despots are a guy or a gal complete with human infirmities. We do not allow scientific authorities to legislate a dogma. We have peer review. Even a Nobel Prize winner can’t get his or her stuff published without other people anonymously vetting it, it is part of the norm of science. Anyone can raise their hand and point out a flawed argument of anyone else. We don’t always implement them in as effective a form as desirable. However, those are aspirations. The fact of setting up rules allowing better states of knowledge, better forms of cooperation despite our limitations is a way in which we can outdo ourselves.
Jacobsen: You’ve done a debate or several debates on sex and gender differences. What are the differences between men and women, which are significant? What are some caveats to some of those significant differences?
Pinker: Yes, I consider myself a feminist. I celebrate the incomplete advancement of women’s rights and interests in all walks of life. However, I don’t think feminism demands sameness or interchangeability. In fact, I think it’s rather insulting to women.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Pinker: To say, it makes them worthy of rights, so they’re exactly like men. Because men and women have plenty of bugs, shortcomings, and flaws. Among the differences, the differences in sexuality. Men have a greater taste for sex for its own sake without consideration for emotional commitments. Perhaps, the most recent sign of this comes from the growing industry in sex robots.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Pinker: It is exclusively male. There are others. Men are the more violent gender. The homicide rates tend to be more than 10 times greater for male on male compared to female on female. Men tend to be more interested in things. Women are more interested in people. On average, in cognitive abilities, the differences are smaller and measurable. Men tend to be better at 3-dimensional spatial rotation. Women tend to be better at verbal fluency and arithmetic calculation. Men tend to be greater risk-takers, including stupid risks. There are others. Those are some of the major ones. Two major caveats, we are talking about two overlapping bell curves. For any difference in the averages, there are going to be plenty of women who are better than the average male and plenty of males who are better than the average female in spatial ability, in sexuality, in risk-taking, in interest in gadgets, etc. You name it. Also, we shouldn’t confuse the existence of observed differences amongst the averages or the central tendencies with political or moral rights/obligations. Namely, every individual should be treated as an individual and should have the opportunity to do whatever he or she finds is best for them. Florynce Kennedy once said, “There are very few jobs that actually require a penis or vagina. All other jobs should be open to everybody.”
Jacobsen: [Laughing] That’s a good quote. There’s another facet of this as well. It has to do with the factor of variance. If we look at the extreme levels of either end of the curve, the Gaussian normal distribution, the bell curve, let’s say 4 standard deviations on either side of the average, so, the profoundly gifted or the profoundly not, what shows up in the population of the profoundly gifted or not? For instance, the ratio of men to women at those levels. Also, if we look at the various standardized tests measuring at those levels, insofar as they do, what about the subtest scores in terms of the amount of sameness on all the subtests and the variability on all of the subtests too?
Pinker: There are a number of robust sex differences. There is more variability in men than in women. So, when you go out to the tails in either direction, the sex ratio is different. With the caveat, the farther and farther out one looks at the tails of the distribution, then the smaller and smaller are the sample sizes. So, the data get fuzzier. The other caveat is variance never reaches zero. So, no matter how far out one goes or not, you will see specimens of both sexes. However, in general, there are more men proportionately at the high and low end of most continua for which we have data.
Jacobsen: What are some of the socially predicted outcomes of this kind of variability? How does this manifest itself in society?
Pinker: One of them, if in a completely fair system, let’s say one utterly gender blind, you would not expect a 50/50 ratio in any profession. This has been long obvious to me based on the early career in childhood language acquisition. There was a statistical imbalance in favour of women. Both in sheer numbers and most of the intellectual superstars. In other fields, it may go another way, e.g., mechanical engineering, theoretical physics. Again, people tend to confuse the observation of the numbers as “not 50/50” with the claim of “no women.” It is preposterous. Only a madman would think women aren’t in physics or mechanical engineering. It doesn’t mean the numbers will be 50/50. In turn, it means departure from 50/50 is not, itself, a proof of sexism. Although, there may be sexism. Certainly, there is sexism. We can have any target, any aspiration. We can decide: It is an important social goal for 50/50 outcomes in mechanical engineering. I think this is a dubious goal. It means that we would not achieve the goal merely by a completely fair system. We would have to tilt this in the other direction with affirmative action policies in favour of women. Maybe, this is a social goal. Certainly, it must be a social goal. There should be no discrimination or harassment. Even in a utopian world in which discrimination and harassment fell to zero, we would not automatically end up with 50/50 ratios.
Jacobsen: If we look at a humanist philosophy, by the very nature of it, it is not merely atheism or agnosticism. In that, atheism is, as we know, simply a rejection of the supernatural in the form of gods. Agnosticism is a form of “I don’t know” about it. Humanism takes an ethical approach. At the same time, it incorporates science into its philosophical meanderings. So, it is open to revision. I think this is probably the reason for a moderately amusing thing among humanists, which is to make a lot of declarations (or manifestos) since 1933 forward.
Pinker: [Laughing].
Jacobsen: [Laughing] I wrote an article for a column for the Humanist Association of Toronto. I counted probably about 12.
Pinker: [Laughing].
Jacobsen: [Laughing] There’s, at least, that many. Some saying the same things. Others saying not the same things. You see variations between “ethical humanism” or “humanism.” You see an alternate religious philosophy and then non-dogmatic philosophy without incorporating religious terminology. When I frame this to myself, I look at Humanism as an empirical moral philosophy. By that nature, it will continually evolve as our best scientific understandings of the world evolve through the standard procedures of science mentioned before. If we take into account an ethical philosophy that evolves and will be ever, hopefully, improving based on improvements in our scientific understandings of the world, what do you think will be some of the next steps based on the richer understanding of science and very deep scientific sensibilities for Humanism as an ethical philosophy? What will be a reasonable next step?
Pinker: Yes, I think you’re right in differentiating and linking atheism per se. That is, atheism as the rejection of supernatural beliefs and Humanism has human flourishing as the ultimate moral good, and the scientific worldview states that we ought to base our beliefs on empirical verification and explanatory depth. They reinforce one another. Even though, they are not identical. Next steps, good question, I think some are a deeper understanding of human nature, of the sources of belief, sources of morality, and the conditions in which we are, more or less, rational. Why smart people can believe stupid things or, at least, irrational things? What are the social conditions allowing both humanistic and rational beliefs to bubble up, to become second nature? We have seen some this, particularly since WWII, where institutions are more secular and humanistic on average. However, we have seen the rise of authoritarian nationalism and populism. There are forces pushing against the Enlightenment cosmopolitan humanist worldview. What are the components of human nature allowing us to eke out a more humanistic worldview? What are the parts dragging this nature back down? What are the circumstances allowing human beings to flourish, as another line of inquiry? How come with all the improvements in objective human wellbeing, many countries do not have a commensurate rise in happiness? The United States is, by all measures, better off than 70 years ago. It is not much happier, if at all. Many countries are happier than the United States. Why is there so much grievance and anger despite the measurable improvements in people’s objective wellbeing? These are all fascinating empirical questions, which would reflect back on our moral worldview as well.
Jacobsen: Last question tied to a comment, so, Dr. Leo Igwe and I have been working through Advocacy for Alleged Witches (AfAW) to combat a big issue in the African continent around allegations of witchcraft and disbelief in witchcraft. You’ve made a donation and helped with social media on some coverage of this. So, thank you. There’s still a wide range of rationality and irrationality throughout the regions of the world. There will be wide disparities in the regions of the world based on the education systems, the wealth of the society, the rights implemented and not just stipulated. What do you believe or think needs the most pressure now, in the next few years, to move the dial towards Enlightenment Humanism and scientific rationality more than not?
Pinker: One is a rise in education. We know societies with more education are less vulnerable, though not immune, to supernatural beliefs, not least with witchcraft. An extraordinarily dangerous belief and prevalent across societies being more of a rule than an exception.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Pinker: It has to be singled out as a source of evil. Reminding people of the history, the accusers used to be the accused. Also, there is a need to promote a humanistic enlightened view as an alternative source of values and morality. You alluded to this before in tallying up the number of humanistic declarations. There is a need for them. Not, maybe, the declarations, but, certainly, the moral energy, it is not enough to debunk toxic beliefs. There has to be the promotion of moral values, which we can defend and strive towards. Humanism, for lack of a better word, is that belief system. It is one needing promotion in different guises. That is, it is not a question of appealing to superstitions and supernatural beliefs to be moral. In that, there is a coherent value system; namely, making people wealthier, happier, and healthier, more stimulated and safer, these are good things, moral things, and noble things. We haven’t found the right marketing, the right packaging, in order to promote them as a positive alternative to the toxic beliefs that we’re vulnerable to.
Jacobsen: Professor Pinker, thank you for your time, it was lovely.
Pinker: Thanks so much, Scott, it was good to talk to you.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2023/01/21
Writhuming OopskankdeWaal: Primeats phallusiousce worginal nakude pattnernships winsea zenraptured; onwool inbend, endagain.
See “Dom”.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2023/01/20
Syncompratioence Incyrcluitous: rhymthumbum Sunwhirled wootwait, wingnewt outstrait waightarewhat; babesboob lifenew mumknewt.
See “Sinc”.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/02/22
The Rt. Hon. Paul Martin is a Former Minister of Finance (1993–2002) and a Former Prime Minister of Canada (2003–2006) for the Government of Canada. Also, Martin is the Founder of the Martin Family Initiative (MFI). He discusses: the inspiration for starting the MFI; the wider determinants of individual Indigenous wellbeing; better student outcomes and better community outcomes; building and maintaining relationships with Indigenous communities through MFI; the impact of the MFI pilot programs; and interventions from the MFI and Indigenous communities to close health and educational gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The Martin Family Initiative focuses on ways to better support and provide for the educational needs of the Indigenous population in Canada. What inspired you to start the MFI?
Rt. Hon. Paul Martin: When I was about 19, I worked as a deckhand on the tug barges on the Mackenzie River. All of the young men that I worked with were either Inuit, Métis or First Nations. We formed great friendships living and working together 24/7. However, these hardworking and intelligent guys had a certain melancholy about them, which I didn’t understand until I learned about residential schools. This experience has stuck with me ever since.
That is one of the reasons why, when I became prime minister, I incorporated a smudging ceremony into my swearing-in process. It was also why I brought the First Nations, Métis and the Inuit together with the territories and provinces to discuss what became the Kelowna Accord and why we booked $5 billion in new funding for healthcare, housing and education. I believe that if the government that followed mine had carried through with the Kelowna framework we would be 10 years ahead of where we are now in terms of the vast range of social programs for Indigenous people.
It is also why when I stepped down from government I focused on the area that could give Indigenous people the biggest step ahead, which is education.
Jacobsen: MFI engages with the wider determinants of an individual Indigenous learner’s life, such health and wellbeing. Can you talk about these factors?
Martin: The wider determinants of education are health and early childhood wellbeing, which is the focus of our newest program. Canadian society does better than many countries in a number of areas because of our strengths in these areas.
Fundamentally, to deny Indigenous people the same benefits that have allowed others to progress in Canada is morally wrong and economically backward.
Jacobsen: How do better student outcomes make better community outcomes?
Martin: If you look at the history of the world, education — that is to say learning from previous generations, asking what the world is all about, where it has been and where it is going — is the foundation of a person life.
At the root of all progress is the education of the young, who benefit from the learning of those who came before them and who in turn develop new learning from which their children benefit.
Jacobsen: Why is building and maintaining relationships with Indigenous communities an important part of MFI’s approach?
Martin: The essence of reconciliation is trust and the foundation on which our future relationships will be based is partnership. We must learn to understand each other more and more.
Jacobsen: What impact have MFI’s pilot programs had? What are your long-term goals for the next 2, 5 and 25 years?
Martin: I will give you an example from one of our programs. Research shows that if you cannot read and write by the end of Grade 3, your chances of graduating from high school are greatly diminished. Faced with the fact that due to a lack of proper funding the literacy numbers in many reserve schools are lower than they are in public schools, we started a 5-year literacy program in two schools in southwestern Ontario. By the end of the fifth year, 81% of the kids could read and write (up from 13% before the program and higher than the provincial average of 78%).
We also have an entrepreneurship course for Grade 11 and Grade 12 students, which teaches hands-on business principles to Indigenous students within the context of their communities, traditions and culture. It has been a huge success. We are now in 42 schools across the country and over 3,500 students have taken the courses.
The fact of the matter is that the consequences of the residential schools and the underfunding of Indigenous education in the last 50 years have caused enormous harm. We are trying to turn that around in partnership with the First Nations, Métis and the Inuit. It is showing real results. The more Canadians work on partnerships with Indigenous people then the better off we are all going to be.
In the next 2, 5 and 25 years our work will continue with the same approach. We develop programs with Indigenous partners as communities identify their needs. In the long term, we want to work ourselves out of a job. Only when Indigenous children and youth across Canada have the same opportunities as other Canadians will we have succeeded.
Jacobsen: With these kinds of interventions from MFI and Indigenous communities, how long will it take to close the gaps in health and educational outcomes?
Martin: Decent healthcare is an essential determinant of a good education, just as a decent education is an essential determinant of good healthcare.
We have to go beyond education in its strict definition. One of our newest initiatives targets the point directly. It is an early childhood program. Essentially, its purpose is to ensure that expectant and new mothers and their children are supported in their health, wellbeing and early childhood development.
In the Early Years program, primary caregivers — mothers, fathers and other family members — gain a better understanding of their children’s important developmental progress. The program supports them in their roles as their children’s first teachers. They are also supported in social service navigation, so that they might fully avail of services available to families.
The initial pilot program will function as a proof of principle that we hope will be eventually be taken to scale across the country.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Mr. Martin.
Martin: You’re welcome.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/02/22
Svein Olav Glesaaen Nyberg is a Member of the World Genius Directory. He discusses: growing up; an extended self; the family background; experience with peers and schoolmates; the purpose of intelligence tests; high intelligence; the geniuses of the past; the greatest geniuses in history; a genius from a profoundly intelligent person; some work experiences and educational certifications; the more important aspects of the idea of the gifted and geniuses; some social and political views; the God concept or gods idea; science; some of the tests taken and scores earned (with standard deviations); and ethical philosophy.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you were growing up, what were some of the prominent family stories being told over time?
Svein Olav Glesaaen Nyberg: The storyteller in my family was my maternal grandfather. He came from a humble background, the son of a country tailor. He couldn’t afford an education, but one of the rich farmers in the area had faith in him and extended him a loan. I think it was 500 Norwegian kroner per year. He trusted him to do well and pay him back, which he did. One of his often told stories was that he travelled to agricultural college by bike, roughly 300km on dirt roads. One of hos often told stories was about how he had once lost his wallet with 500 kroner in Oslo, and an honest soul had found it and returned it to him. A story about how honesty matters to someone. He did of course complete his degree, and with the second best grades ever given there. After that, he had a very successful career as a forester, and managed to extend the area he controlled 10-fold during his reign. From humble beginnings to the mightiest man in the area. But I never got the impression that the power went to his head, though he really appreciated the recognition of what he had achieved. His other very often told story was when he was once in the woods with the lumberjacks. They had made coffee, and one of them poured him a cup, and some sugar. Lacking a spoon, the lumberjack promptly put his thumb in and started stirring. (Rough and tough crowd!) But as he stirred, he grew thoughtful, so my grandfather said it was probably well stirred by now. The lumberjack was quick-witted and replied that “Oh no, I am just trying to enlarge the cup for the forester!” What I read into this story is both how he despite his position still viewed himself as “one of the guys”, but yet could not help taking pride in how others recognized him as someone deserving of a bigger cup. A bit of sadness and pride at the same time. That it meant a lot to him, was also shown in that he repeatedly tried to get this story published in the readers’ section of Norwegian Readers’ Digest. Well, granddad, if you are still watching over us, now it’s published!
Jacobsen: Have these stories helped provide a sense of an extended self or a sense of the family legacy?
Nyberg: Both yes and no. There are of course other stories, but growing up, my grandfather was who I was most like. He was amazingly bright, and people often said that we looked very much alike. And yes, of course I took the comparison as a compliment! My paternal grandfather was also a bright guy, and wanted an education. But he had no sponsor, and became a carpenter and farmer. He was the sweetest guy! And then there’s of course my father, who went on his adventures, and actually ended up studying at the same college as my maternal grandfather. So for a while, I really thought it was my destiny after I had finished my degree to start teaching at that college. But what it has shown me in any case, is the value of education. It is free in Norway now, but my grandparents’ example tells me not to take it for granted. And also that the academic snobbishness against “lower” professions that you sometimes see is about as much worth as the fart wind it’s travelling on. I hold people who do their profession well in high regard, and “high” and “low” is just a pissing game.
Jacobsen: What was the family background, e.g., geography, culture, language, and religion or lack thereof?
Nyberg: Norwegians are generally laid back when it comes to religion, and the areas where my parents come from (Hedmark and Trøndelag) perhaps even more so. These areas were also traditionally known for moonshine liquor. My mother is quite spiritually interested, whereas my father’s interests are more practical. He comes from a long line of hunters, though, and is a hunter himself, so he is a kind of “mystic of the forest” without ever calling himself such. The farm he grew up on is called Kvelloa, a name we are told stems from the epic battle of Stiklestad in 1030, where Saint Olaf, the Christener of Norway was slain; Olaf was said to have slept over at the site of that farm, a place with an excellent view of the next day’s battlefield.
Jacobsen: How was the experience with peers and schoolmates as a child and an adolescent?
Nyberg: My family moved around a lot, so I was “the new guy” for most of my childhood. So I was an outsider who didn’t quite fit in. Plus, I was a bit strange, with my sciencey stuff and strange ideas.
Jacobsen: What is the purpose of intelligence tests to you?
Nyberg: The tests themselves? I think they can be of help for people who need validation. A friend of mine was considered less gifted than average, as he had a string speech impediment. His family took him to be tested, and he got a score of 160. He bloomed after that, with much newly gained self-confidence. That gives purpose to such tests!
Jacobsen: When was high intelligence discovered for you?
Nyberg: It was, but wasn’t when I was in 4th grade. There was an assessment given to all of us, and I got 94/100. The next down on the list was 80 points, but one guy got 96. He confided that he had cheated and had his aunt do the test for him so he could get a good score. But the strange thing is that this really didn’t register with me. I thought “oh well, this other guy got a good score too, and none of us got a 100”. But then, whenever there was a challenge, I excelled. Like Rubik’s Cube, which I solved before anyone else I knew. That is, as in understanding the cube well enough to devise an algorithm for solving it. This was in 8th grade, before someone had published “the solution”. Of course, I was a bit of a bastard about it, solving everyone’s cubes for them. After the book came out, many could solve it without understanding it. But that meant some fun … for if you randomly assemble cube pieces, only 1 in 12 cubes are solvable. So I twisted a corner here and there. I know … not very nice! I guess I had a need to prove myself back then. I was the outsider with little self confidence, and I was crafting my niche, and perhaps in not such a nice way in the initial years. But somehow nobody admired me for my arrogance.
Jacobsen: When you think of the ways in which the geniuses of the past have either been mocked, vilified, and condemned if not killed, or praised, flattered, platformed, and revered, what seems like the reason for the extreme reactions to and treatment of geniuses? Many alive today seem camera shy — many, not all.
Nyberg: Good question, and I wish I actually knew. But I notice people are touchy about three things: their intelligence, their singing voice, and their looks. It is tied in with self esteem. The existence of extremes in either of these fields energizes people’s reactions. It is so easy to either try to compete (and lose, and thereby hate), or to try to lean in and try to somehow transfer some of that vitality from the person of the desired characteristic. Well, these are my amateur musings; I am no psychologist.
Jacobsen: Who seem like the greatest geniuses in history to you?
Nyberg: I have always been fascinated by John von Neumann. Most people are satisfied with doing well in a single field. Perhaps some go on to do well in two. A few excel in one field, and the extremes excel in two. Von Neumann didn’t just excel, but founded or was part of founding an entire four different fields. My favourite anecdote about him is when this colleague of his was showing off his bright and promising PhD student, and von Neumann recreates the last two years of said student’s work in his head in a mere 5 minutes.
Jacobsen: What differentiates a genius from a profoundly intelligent person?
Nyberg: Air. I remember reading Antony Flew’s controversial work There is a God, and saw that he had been accused of not authoring the arguments, but leaving it to his co-author, Varese. However, if you actually read the book, and pay attention to Varese’s own sections, you will notice that he is a reasonably bright fellow who would win many arguments online. A decent debater. But he doesn’t fly! His arguments look like something out of Minecraft; square, blocky, inelegant, with no air. Or if he had been playing Go, he’d be the guy obsessed with building long walls all the time. Flew, on the other hand, elegantly places his pieces a good distance apart, not touching. He knows that if it comes to it, he can tighten and ensnare between his pieces, just like a good Go player. Or back to Varese’s architecture, Flew doesn’t build blocky buildings in Minecraft, but elven-like cathedrals with lots of air.
So that is how I see the difference. In aesthetic terms, in terms of how they feel when you listen t them. Those who really stand apart have a lightness and air to their touch that lesser minds don’t. For the mathematically interested, Terence Tao is a great example. The way he explains things, you never would have guessed that he was actually explaining something difficult. From his pen, things flow, with lightness, air, and grace.
Jacobsen: What have been some work experiences and educational certifications for you?
Nyberg: A PhD in math. It was never planned, but just happened. After that, a post-doc at the university of Edinburgh, and then I just went to the dark side for a few years as a software consultant at Computas, the company that sponsored Magnus Carlsen in his childhood years, btw. Now I work at Agder University, a smalltown university at the Norwegian south tip, teaching statistics from my own textbook to engineering students.
Jacobsen: What are some of the more important aspects of the idea of the gifted and geniuses? Those myths that pervade the cultures of the world. What are those myths? What truths dispel them?
Nyberg: The most dangerous myth is that the gifted will always survive. No, they won’t. Gifted people need nurturing just as much as do those who do not. Just because a gifted person often gets by on less, doesn’t mean they thrive on less. Put your prize race horse in closed confines with few challenges or opportunities to move for years, and enter it into a race. A normal horse who has had every opportunity will fare better! Why waste your prize horses like that?
Jacobsen: What are some social and political views for you? Why hold them?
Nyberg: My basic leanings are strongly libertarian. Simply because I believe in responsibility for your own life. But I do also have a strong social democratic core. That is: it seems that many freemarketeers sort of “side” with the employer side in conflicts. And there are conflicts. So I side with the sentiment but perhaps not the strategies of trade unionists. A working-class libertarian, perhaps. But it has all got to do with taking responsibility for you own life and being able to be in charge of it.
From old times, workers might have had the character and inclination to do something with their lives, but scant opportunity. My grandfathers are testament to this. And there is also the story of my great-great grandfather up my male line: he lived on a rented farm, paying part of his produce to the farmer who owned it, as his rent. However, he wanted independence, and worked hard so he could save up. But when he presented the money to buy his leased land off his landlord, this same landlord responded by evicting him with 24 hrs notice. My great-grandfather was prepared for this, however, and had a contingency plan for buying some other land. So he moved his house there overnight. (!) A small house by today’s standards, perhaps, but a damn feat anyway!
But the point is: that kind of precaution should not be necessary. A society in which economic power gives life power over another person is not a good libertarian society. It’s not a society which encourages taking charge of your own life.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the God concept or gods idea and philosophy, theology, and religion?
Nyberg: You could almost make an entire interview just on that topic! I have been all over the place. When I was just a kid, the first book I read on my own was a children’s Bible. So I decided I wanted to be a priest, and wondered about the nature of the soul. (Mine is light green, and resides in my right shoulder, according to 5-year old me, btw.) But then I learned about Hell, and I grew to … well, is hate a string enough word … I grew to hate the entire religious circus. Hell is such an abominable idea! And in my student years, I was the atheistest atheist you could run into. Any belief was a superstition, and even ethics was just spooks’ play to me. I was a big champion of the Hegelian Max Stirner at that time. An anti-ethicist.
However, I have wrestled with my own demons, so to speak, and have concluded that there is most probably some kind of God. I found some resonance in Flew’s book, mentioned above, for my reason for this. He had two basic arguments, one about the statistics of the origin of life (which I don’t buy), and one about the very concept-like, mathematical nature of the universe.
There is a paper, The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences, which could serve as a starting point. Why should mathematics be able to describe reality so well? Why do so many things act alike, and be alike? We like to think that concepts are abstractons we have made from our observed realities, and there is much truth to that. But what then when reality itself behaves so much as if was printed out of concepts like cookie shapes? What does a concept-like understanding of reality entail? To me, it points to a view where the concepts (or “concepts”, since they are not our own created concepts) are in some way primary. A sort of Platonism if you wish. But by calling them concepts, I am also pointing to the kind of entity having concepts, a mind. A universal mind.
Now, is this a “proof of God” I just presented? No. And I believe Immanuel Kant (there is another brilliant mind!) showed quite well that such proofs are impossible. But we can make arguments that God is a likely explanation, and then as with many such things, it is up to each person which arguments sway them.
Jacobsen: How much does science play into the worldview for you?
Nyberg: Things have to be what they are, don’t they? Science studies what things are. So how can science not play a major part. That does, however, not mean subscribing to scientism. But I guess my above reply about God already told you that.
Jacobsen: What have been some of the tests taken and scores earned (with standard deviations) for you?
Nyberg: None. I have never paid anyone to assess me, but I have enjoyed doing a few tests, and have looked at what kind of score I could get. My first massive one was the Titan test, which I did in the 90ies, when it was published in Omni. However, grading and paying for grading was a bitch, so I did nothing with it. However, I came across the answers online about … was it 10 years ago. I still had my answers from back then, and got 23/24 on the math-spatial test, which I already knew. But the answer to the last question (that had stumped me) almost got me hitting my own forehead for not seeing it. Duh! Of course. The linguistic part went less well. 12/24. But not too bad in my own eyes, at least.
Well, I actually have paid someone to assess me, some to think of it. I had just done a test in “The IQ book”, and got a near-perfect score (*), earning me an IQ of 155–160. (Perfect score=160). So I mentioned this to a psychologist I was seeing at the time. Could it really be so that I had an IQ as high as 160? I left his office a bit elated, for he responded “Ha ha, no! 160 is my score. From our talks, I would assess your IQ to be at roughly 180!”
But that’s it. Anecdotal scores. I never seem to score below 155 on any test, and people somehow seem to think I’m in a higher range than that, and that is really why I’m being interviewed here, because others believe I have a reasonably high IQ.
Jacobsen: What ethical philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Nyberg: As I said above, I had my longest period as a Stirnerian anti-ethicist, but though I retain a strong respect and admiration for Stirner, the anti-ethicism has worn off. So what if ethics can’t be built on “reason alone” or on similar crumbly bulwarks? Just be nice to people!
That is, act as if you care about them (and actually do care a little bit about them), and ask what is in their best interests. Make a balance towards your own interests, and that of others too, and act on that. No fixed formula, but the kind of balancing you do between friends. We manage that balance without a formula. A trial and error approach where you check for the results for yourself, for those you care about, and for the entire dynamics of how your kindnesses affect others.
Though … being kind doesn’t mean doing everything for those you love, for that stunts their growth and ability to take charge of their own lives, so by all means, sometimes the kindest gift you can give a friend is a kick in the butt!
Of course, these are all nice words to put up on a wall, so in practice the best thing to do is to look at people who have got their lives and their acts together, and seek their advice. Grandpa ethics, in my case. I have the best grandpas!
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/02/22
Chris Cole is a Member of the Mega Society. He discusses: “How To Prevent Pandemics”; Mathematica; the “profound insights into the physical world” garnered through “Mathematica and the Internet” unseen before; the pandemic; the human organism “operates on several scales at once”; the knowledge of human beings as a system of nested algorithms; and the development of a Mathematica-like system for a human being and in interaction with a virus.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You are a professional mathematician and physicist. This interview is based on an article entitled “How To Prevent Pandemics” in Noesis issue 206 (September 2020). You stated, “As recently as the 1980s, physicists routinely referred to printed journals and textbooks to find the solutions for various mathematical problems. Frequently this was a tedious process — but that was the way physicists had always worked.” Mathematica was introduced on June 23 1988 with the most recent update on June 17 2020. Since the 1980s, and the introduction of Mathematica, what is the degree of efficiency increase from it?
Chris Cole: It’s much more than a degree of efficiency. Many things that were previously impossible are now routine. Ignoring obvious things like solving large problems, it’s worthwhile to focus on sometimes ignored things, for example, the ability to create a computable text. This is a text in which portions are computed in real time. The text becomes a living document as Ted Nelson envisioned when he invented hypertext.
Jacobsen: You reference “Handbook of Mathematical Functions (Abramowitz and Stegun) and Table of Integrals, Series, and Products (Gradshteyn, Ryzhik, et al.).” Were these as widely used among mathematicians in the 1980s as Mathematica today? Or were these widely used, but not nearly as much as ubiquitously as Mathematica?
Cole: Mathematica and its like are as widely used today as these reference texts were used before 1988.
Jacobsen: What are some of the “profound insights into the physical world” garnered through “Mathematica and the Internet” unseen before?
Cole: Through simulations and collaboration many aspects of the physical world have been explored to depths that were not seen before 1988 and this trend is accelerating. Look at the Mathematica Web site ( https://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/ ) for myriad examples, and that is only progress directly based on Mathematica.
Jacobsen: You wrote, “At best, there will be a year or so of suffering before the pandemic is brought under control. At worst, the virus may be with humanity for decades.” What seems like the most probable outcome between the aforementioned “best” and “worst”?
Cole: We have seen mutations of the coronavirus and the approaching herd immunity and mitigation measures such as vaccines will cause mutations to survive. The coronavirus will be with us for a long time.
Jacobsen: As the human organism “operates on several scales at once,” what does this layered sense of networks and scales mean for the simulatability of a human being?
Cole: Physicists have evolved techniques such as effective field theory and matching to deal with multiple scales at once. These techniques can be applied to biology.
Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, if achieved in practice, how would this change the knowledge of human beings as a system of nested algorithms, in a sense?
Cole: If we can deal with the system wholistically we can accurately model and predict the etiology of disease and the outcome of interventions.
Jacobsen: You said, “Just as Mathematica helped to solve certain problems, a biology platform which contains the details of human biology would help to prevent pandemics. Once a particular pathogen emerges from the ecosystem, its methods of operation would be analyzed and ways to prevent its spread could be synthesized.” What are current advancements in this direction know to you — to the development of a Mathematica-like system for a human being and in interaction with a virus?
Cole: Mathematica grew out of a recognition that it was not enough to solve each math problem one at a time. What was needed was a platform so that results could be expressed in a unified way, just as the underlying mathematics is unified. The same applies to biology. Solving one disease at a time is not going to get you there.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/02/22
His Lordship of Roscelines, Graham Powell, earned the “best mark ever given for acting during his” B.A. (Hons.) degree in “Drama and Theatre Studies at Middlesex University in 1990” and the “Best Dissertation Prize” for an M.A. in Human Resource Management from the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England in 1994. Powell is an Honorary Member of STHIQ Society, Former President of sPIqr Society, Vice President of Atlantiq Society, and a member of British Mensa, IHIQS, Ingenium, Mysterium, High Potentials Society, Elateneos, Milenija, Logiq, and Epida. He is the Full-Time Co-Editor of WIN ONE (WIN-ON-line Edition) since 2010 or nearly a decade. He represents World Intelligence Network Italia. He is the Public Relations Co-Supervisor, Fellow of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, and a Member of the European Council for High Ability. He discusses: the pattern for the publication; Elizabeth Anne Scott; Mandela; “The Universe as Automaton”; “A Critique of Modal Ontological Arguments”; “Quantum Computing in 2013”; “The Nine Dots Puzzle Extended to nxnx…xn Points”; “The City Sleeps”; “ATEM (Breath)”; “Photos of the moon”; “Individuality and the Ethical Life in Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”; “Part Two: Individuality and the Ethical Life in Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”; and “The Rectangular Spiral Solution for the n1Xn2X…Xnk Points Problem.”
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: With Issue XI, we have the pattern for the publication with 11/12/13 (11 December 2013). Why?
Graham Powell: As noted previously, the publication date of the magazine traditionally has a numerical sequence, hence 11, 12, 13… a simple sequence this time.
Jacobsen: For the cover page, who is Elizabeth Anne Scott? What was the inspiration for it? Readers can see page 34 for the cover artwork.
Powell: Elizabeth is a member of the WIN. She is from Scotland and likes to paint. I was busy at the time and she volunteered to do something for the magazine, so I gave her the task of designing the front cover. Her pictures arrived near the publication time and were both of a similar theme: Christmas. I didn’t have much time and expanded one picture to cover the whole page, the originals being quite small — as you can see on page 34. Elizabeth had not added any text to indicate the magazine title, as requested, so I had to do it myself. I upset her (and, in retrospect, she was right to be so) because the picture was distorted. I would do things differently now. Sorry again, Elizabeth.
Jacobsen: This issue was one with a particular charm with the ease of submissions. It shows a changing culture and network of professional trust in the conduct of the journal and the submissions to the journal. Paul Edgeworth, Elizabeth Anne Scott, Beatrice Rescazzi, Phil Elauria, Claus Dieter Volko, Therese Waneck, Anja Jaenicke, Marco Ripà, Alan Wing-Lun, and Krystal Volney contributed to Issue XI. Was there change in the sensibility of the development of literary, artistic, and problem-solving community? Why quote Mandela for this issue of WIN ONE?
Powell: Firstly, Mandela. He is a personal favourite and he had just died — as noted in the editorial. I thought he warranted a quotation. Most of the contributors to this edition had become friends by this point, so the ‘feeling’ was, and is, more congenial, you are right. I think my cosmopolitan lifestyle and breadth of interest by 2013 meant that diverse talents were being expressed within the pages. That was satisfying, I must admit. It was also what I had envisaged for the magazine at the outset of my editorship.
Jacobsen: The issue opens with a piece by Claus Dieter Volko entitled “The Universe as Automaton” (2013). Volko deals with the conceptualization of a three dimensionality of space with a fourth dimension of time (Minkowskian space without explicit statement) while in reference to the Einsteinian formulation of a unified space-time as a computer scientist. He further extends into a hypothetical of a five-dimensional object, which he terms, in the formalities of computer science applied here, a “deterministic, finite automaton.” He writes, “If the hypothesis is right that there was initially just one point and the universe expanded with time, this means that the number of states per unit of time is growing with time, as well as the number of transitions.” In short, the hinges between states grow in proportion to the growth of time as the multidimensional “deterministic, finite automaton” progresses through time. He compares this idea to Stephen Wolfram’s (now-more-prominent) “A New Kind of Science” and cellular automata. Any thoughts on this idea? It links disparate fields and concepts in some principled ways and some others not in its loose extrapolations.
Powell: If you will indulge me a moment, Scott, I think firstly of the Ted Talk “The Invisible Woman” by Nicole Johnson. In it, she notes how she is not listened to, and humorously concludes that she must be invisible. That continued until, according to Johnson, her friend gave her a book on cathedrals, fundamentally, because the immense work that goes into building any cathedral includes the creation of things that nobody will ever see. The details and finery continue to be worked on, as Johnson points out, even when the huge task that has been set the workforce is going to take longer than any of the craftsmen’s lifespan, and to reiterate, will not be seen by other people. But why do they dedicate themselves so assuredly? Well, Johnson says it’s because “He sees”.
In the case of the search for answers to the origins, existence and the extent of the universe, this seems to have a similar status, only the concept of ‘proof’ is the ‘God’, or the ergon of scientific investigation, as we may call it. Humankind will pursue the explanation of the universe and seek the TOE, even if it takes longer than each individual’s lifetime, which, for each scientist must seem to be so, or was so — and in this, think of Einstein, since you mention him. As we seek explanations, Claus gives a basic prognostication of a five state universe, an extension of Minkowskian space, and which was extrapolated upon by Minkowski’s PhD student, the aforementioned Albert Einstein. The concept of the ‘multiverse’ underpins string theory and this,, for many appears to be the closest we have got to a TOE in modern physics. We’ll see where it goes… perhaps, so will ‘He’.
As for my own opinion, I felt in my twenties until recently that the universe we inhabit is expanding, yet will eventually cease that expansion, then contract, reforming a singularity which will repeat the cycle. Now, as Penrose and others suppose as Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, they influence my thoughts as we have evidence of Hawking Points (as they are known) whereby, large Black Holes also shrink and cause singularities pertaining to the formation of universes. Hence, regarding Claus Volko’s article, I think you summarise it well at the end of your question.
Jacobsen: Phil Elauria wrote “A Critique of Modal Ontological Arguments.” He delves into the formalisms of St. Anselm of Canterbury, Mr. Onto. A sort of “my God is bigger than your God” argument with the pivot solely on “P4” or Premise 4 with the evaluative judgement of existence in the world and in the mind as “greater” than in the mind alone. Elauria states, “Personally, I find it difficult that such an argument could be taken seriously. I leave the task of explicitly criticizing or supporting points in Anselm’s argument to those who feel compelled to do so. I’m certainly not one of them.” I leave this task of interpretation to readers here. However, he references Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, and Kurt Gödel and spins on adaptations of the foundational structure of the argument. We should note. Craig views Plantinga as the single greatest living theologian or Christian philosopher. Dana Scott, Christoph Benzmüller, and Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo extend the formalization notions from Volko more into Anselm’s modernizations for a proposed ‘proof of the theorem’ as recently as 2013. Looking at the purported or asserted proof, what about an evil or bad god? A god with negative qualities rather than positive qualities. People worship those. Invert the valence of the premises, you ‘prove’ an argument for the existence of an evil god, too — hardly satisfying, let alone reassuring. One could use the logical formulation as a logical and moral refutation of Abrahamic formulations of theology with a ‘proof’ for an evil or bad god and, in a sense, Satan/the Devil/Beelzebub as the good guy, the real god, based on having the real qualities of a god as negative qualities inhered in its being (but then opposite becomes logically consistent and true, too, i.e., one comes to A and not A, where only paraconsistent bandits sneaking in the night can save us from the explosion of a deeper — non-structural — logical contradiction). Elauria admits to the equivocatory nature of the formulation of the MOA god with ‘proof’ of property “possibility” because one can fill in the blanks for a god here, not much substance. This differs from asserted properties of god in pop theology, e.g., omnibenevolence, omnipotence, aseity, etc. One would need connective tissue to make possibility co-extensive with other properties or to derive others. Whence mind-independence for the Mr. Onto disciples? Any thoughts on this argument for the existence of a god or the derivation of a god from abstract notions of proof of property possibility?
Powell: Another deep question, Scott — well done! You’re on a roll!
I suppose this harks back to our previous discussion because: this is the God that Johnson wanted her audience to recognise during her Ted Talk, that is, the best of us do good because the benevolent and appreciative God sees all that we do. We should display ‘good’ Christian values and behaviour at all times, particularly because God is omnipresent.
Whether there is a god (or not) for me is not as important as the moral behaviour that we should follow and display. In my experience, especially since about the time Phil wrote this article, when my life was thrown into disarray for a few years (mainly because I transgressed some Christian social doctrines) I seemed to be punished, and, in this sense, I now follow my wife’s belief that some ‘higher powers’ are mapping out a better future for us, which has definitely reinforced the determination to succeed, though we also share the doctrine of maintaining kindness and civility at all times, which has proven to be helpful and inspirational, not only for us, but for those who interact with us as well. If that can actually be taken as the influence of a god, then fine. If not, that is also fine.
As such, I think that it is in our behaviour (and the mode of interaction that we pursue) which is the major force that binds humanity together. The relationship we have with our bodies and minds (and with other people) plus our notions of our own existence (as purported by Heidegger, for example) have all been shown to influence our emotions and our cognitive responses to them.
So, this is my own philosophy, if you will, and by living this way, affirming the positive as much as possible and maintaining, as best I can, an agreeable relationship with self and others, I think (so, let’ say, ‘believe’) that this is the best way to maintain a happy life. I am certainly happy, and I feel that this will continue, despite the ups and downs that will inevitably come along.
Jacobsen: Krystal Volney talks about “Quantum Computing in 2013.” Her talents of comprehension and clarity of expression shine here. She talked about interviewing an expert named Dr. Vinton “Vint” Cerf. I found the statement of the four primary forms of practical quantum computation — one-way quantum computer, Quantum gate array, adiabatic quantum computer or computer based on Quantum annealing, topological quantum computer — interesting because, almost immediately after listing them, she stated the four competing models do not compete. They equal one another in functional power. The ability to process information through the manipulation of the potentials of states of electrons in a Quantum computer makes them unusual compared to classical computers in ways laid out by Krystal. Any thoughts of the technical presentation of the materials here? What was the original inspiration for Krystal’s submission here?
Powell: I remember that Krystal was studying computing at the time and at quite a high level, so I guess that was the inspiration for presenting this for publication.
Krystal was also interested in journalism and was networking to increase her potential for disseminating her work, hence, to a certain extent, her interview with the expert Dr. Vinton Cerf took place.
Krystal lays out the historical background to computing, much of which I recall because in the early days of my career I was a geophysicist, one who used computers, and hence, computing power, pretty much as she states, though in the late seventies, developments included hexadecimal programming and the utilization of multiple functioning chips, ones which did not cease operating when the first operation being dealt with was paused, a second function being taken on to fulfil ‘the job’ (as we referred to it). An early example was the Vax 11/780 computer, which greatly increased the processing time available, and hence increased our work rate considerably as we searched for potential oil fields.
I know the recent advances in quantum computing are akin to the points outlined by Krystal and the way forward is definitely via the fantastic work that is being done within the relevant university departments around the world. Soon, the knowledge and communication age will be underpinned by almost infinite computing power and our lives will have to adjust ever more quickly and appropriately to address it, preferably via creativity, innovation and the increased interactive means made available to humankind.
Jacobsen: Marco Ripà and Pablo Remirez published “The Nine Dots Puzzle Extended to nxnx…xn Points.” You helped with part of the solution or the presentation of the materials. To shorten this one, what was solved, in plain English?
Powell: The Nine Dots Problem is a famous one in which nine dots, arranged in three rows of three dots, must be joined by a minimal number of lines, the drawing implement used also drawing continuously, so without leaving the page, and it must only touch each dot once. It is the origin of the phrase: ‘To think outside the box.’ The human mind perceives the three rows of dots as ‘a box’ (actually, ‘a square’, so 3 squared), a quirk of the gestalt mindset, which organises to create patterns. Another example would be gazing at the stars at night and seeing patterns, ones we categorize as Astrological Signs. Marco didn’t stop at having nine dots, he increased the number as 4 x 4, 5 x 5, etc. and even produced, at a later stage, a beautiful video whereby the multiples of dots went three-dimensional, so truly expressed ‘Thinking Outside the Box’. I talked to Marco about this problem during the 12th Asia-Pacific Conference in Dubai and we talked again when we met at Rome airport near the time this magazine came out. I still have the original paper on my computer.
Marco worked with Pablo Ramirez on the presentation on YouTube and it is self explanatory there. I recommend people view it. Basically, the team worked on making a formula for the lowest number of connecting lines that would connect any number of dots that formed a square from any number, so, for example, ‘5 squared’ as 25 dots). This became extended to resolve the ‘connection problem’, as stated earlier, in three dimensions.
Jacobsen: Therese Waneck in “The City Sleeps” juxtaposes some of the cynicism and superficiality of the city life and then the expectation of a new generation. On the latter image, the new generations amount to a new spring in some fashion. It is, in its own way, a hopefully cynical presentation of life anew and the world that awaits the new. What do you get from this poem?
Powell: I view her poem as I view my own country of origin, England, even now. There is an innocence in the voice of the poem, the father figure seeking to protect and get his family though hard times, this being expressed a little sardonically on the part of the father, and with a fundamental lie to get them through. Lying about the fundamentals seems to be politically expedient these days, part of the strategy for getting what is wanted, so conscionable to those partaking in it. So, in this, Waneck’s poem expresses some of the zeitgeist of 21st century existence.
Jacobsen: Anja Jaenicke wrote “ATEM (Breath).” Something like an ode to lovers as “stars” while a son, rather than a daughter, brought to life and having its first breath with silent meditation of the story to unfold. I suspect the reference to celestial objects references the cosmic significance in such events. What do you get out of this poem?
Powell: Technically, what strikes me initially is the fact that the first and second lines don’t rhyme, nor half-rhyme. All the others are in rhyming couplets. At that time, I wondered if the first line could end in ‘bridge’, for example, but I don’t like to change poetry and there was no time to liaise with Anja about this point. The line ending in ‘begun’ is also written in a way that should use ‘began’ (past simple) so it would be better to change it to ‘On the day life had begun’, — which would also maintain the rhythm. As for the meaning, it seems to be a case of body parts kept preserved, fallen from the heavens, but for which purpose? Well, that seems to be the point being made: it’s not clear. Perhaps that is why the early structure is unclear too.
Jacobsen: Beatrice Rescazzi published some “Photos of the moon” with some commentary about the context for the visibility of the “tortured” surface of the moon. I really like the upper left quadrant photo with the heavy pock marks on the moon. Was there any commentary behind the submission other than that provided below the four photos?
Powell: The photos were published with Beatrice’s only comments for each photo, so no, there was no other text to be added, and that was what she wanted.
Jacobsen: Paul Edgeworth published “Individuality and the Ethical Life in Hegel’s Philosophy of Right” with a focus on Hegel and Hegel’s emphasis on ethical virtue and ethical conduct bound to individuality and a rational society. That’s a tall order. One may be bound to have a coffee from Starbucks labelled “Karl” in half-legible scrawl for a Mrs. Carla Jakkobsdottir returned with such complicated requirements for the Hegelian caffeinated brew. Edgeworth makes the argument for Hegel and the interplay between individualism and statism for a communal ethic, where the communal ethic is rational. To Hegel’s credit, he accrues a series of concrete examples, freedom and the communal ethic, as the interplay for individuals and states. His individualism as the basis for the communalism rests on an axiom of individual volition bound to an assertion of the “world of spirit” as in a “second nature.” Maybe, something like an active, volitional nature deriving from a second world. Although, even more confusing, Hegel blurs the distinction between the will and thought. To think is to have a rationality, to have a rationality amounts to an ethical conduct in potentia as thought and action (and so ethical acts for ethical conduct based on duties) with possible realization in the world, one assumes in potentia from a “world of spirit.” In Hegel’s system, the individual becomes a singular infinite, as the real “I” is pure thinking or thought. Edgeworth proposes this unlimited thought leads to the “Reign of Terror.” The proper thinking delimits itself into an object for study, so as, presumably, to reduce the possibility of a “Reign of Terror.” A self-determining “I” as a proper will (balanced will). There is an admittance of the fundamental reflective and recursive nature of consciousness in the text, which may belie a particular flaw in the pure thought idea as some pure and otherworldly abstract — and rather a derivation and a special type of derivation that — well — derivates indefinitely due to its recursive nature. (In this sense, it may not be “pure” and could function as a basic undermine of the entire philosophical system.) On objectivity, Hegel works to make objective individual proper will unified with the unity between the proper will of the individual second world comprised of the “whole realm of objective freedom and the whole of objective organization” or the Right. The proper I meets the Right when the subjectivity of proper will and the objectivity of the objective realm and organization come together, where a real world exists external to the mind and the mind can abstract it inside of itself. Hegel assumes a freedom of the will in this formulation. A means to will and own oneself, and a foundation for an “ethical consciousness.” An ethical consciousness as grounds for a common will and social contract, and the objective will as “what ought to be” setting the standard for the proper will (individual will) “as it is.” With a disunity between the objective will and the proper individual will, a wrong exists there. What do you think of this first-half presentation of the philosophy of Hegel with the objective will and the subjective will, ethical consciousness, and pure thought, as the basis for communal or individual-statist ethics?
Powell: In short, I agree with the caveats that you have highlighted in your introduction. Furthermore, I think the disjuncture between individual and statist ethics, as outlined by Hegel, in a great part explains why the British approach to the pandemic has gone so disastrously awry, the ‘common sense’ approach and reliance on retaining a sense of ‘individual freedom’, not being respected by the forces of nature in play. The approaches that have worked are either the common imposition of restrictions, that is, one presented as ‘being for the common good’ (like New Zealand’s government stipulated) or has been a governmental approach from leaders who are not questioned as authority figures (as in the United Arab Emirates). As such, the COVID 19 pandemic has been a great leveller in this argument.
Jacobsen: In “Part Two: Individuality and the Ethical Life in Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,” Edgeworth continues in some of the similar vein. For some reason, he dropped the intellectual scaffolding terms from earlier. There’s a double sense of morality. A moral subject, a subjective proper will with ethical consciousness, must conform itself to the universal will and, in so doing, an act and thought conforms to the Right of the “what ought to be” based on the moral subjects “as it is”-ing. Hegel remains clear: social animals must morally act socially to act morally rightly; pure subjectivism is an evil. Through a process of externalization of the individual will, and in a collective of individual wills in conformity with the universal will, and the construction of institutions in a society in the externalization process, the Right as abstract becomes actual through an intersect of the Right, collections of individuals acting with the rightness of and in conformity with the universal will, and the institutions of the society. The institutions of the society represent this internal-made-external and the construction of a rational state. The in potentia of the universal will represented in the actualization of rightly ordered individual wills in the society via its laws and institutions. Citizens acting in a rational society would act ethically substantively as representatives of the ideals of the society where the ideals and actualities of the society represent the universal will: subjective and objective as substance and, in morality, ethically substantive. Not authoritarianism with a lack of choice, a set of choices constrained in such a manner consistent with a rational society (and so rational life), e.g., choice in career. A choice permitted by a framework creating an individual ethical consciousnesses in accordance with the universal will while within the realm of correct moral choices within the Right. Individual, family, state (institutions and laws), become the three points of tension with a rational society permitting each freedom for construction and constraint for consistency/solidity. The state is “the highest expression of objective spirit,” where the “highest duty of an individual [is] to be a member of the state.” With rationality bound to notions of freedom and freedom of the will, Hegel posits an organicism of the state responsive to some of the changes of its constituents. Edgeworth sums this long formulation as a justification for one form of government: constitutional monarchy. The definitive representative of the individuals, the family, and the state in this constitutional monarchy as the monarch of the state, i.e., a representative of the universal will and collective wills of the people in alignment. An intersect of the subjective and objective discourses as a proposal for a society. Something like the monarch as the “Synthesis” to the subjective and objective “Thesis + Antithesis.” Do you think the constitutional monarchy is tenable? Does this form of thinking about ethics hold water to you?
Powell: To continue the idea of a constitutional monarchy, and with reference (again) to my own country of origin, I believe that the monarchy in place is the best way of representing what is best in society there, with its long sense of tradition and its stability of position, though much of its potential (to vary your phrase a little) has been attenuated, and it is largely a token position at the top, with theoretical powers that are not used, nor desired to be used. The modern era has, I am sorry to say, been identified as being full of falsities and misrepresentations, just to give the appearance of validity, and be falsely representative of the true will of those in power, and many of their followers. In that sense, the state has ceased to be ‘the highest expression of objective spirit’ and the majority of people seem to be accepting it. As such, the arguments presented don’t hold water for the long-term good of the majority because the dichotomy between objective truth and falsity has been blurred.
Jacobsen: Marco Ripà produced a conundrum as a short puzzle and then “The Rectangular Spiral Solution for the n1Xn2X…Xnk Points Problem.” Any thoughts on this one? He has been submitting mathematical pieces to In-Sight Publishing, more recently.
Powell: Yes, Marco presented the spiral solution to the points problem within the workings that we discussed earlier, and this works for all the n values. It is a neat little conundrum.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Graham.
Powell: You’re welcome, Scott, and thank you for the inspiration to review and reflect upon the deep issues presented in the magazine.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/02/22
Jiwhan (Jason) Park is a Member of the CIVIQ Society. He was born on March 24, 1989, in Seoul, Korea. He attended Hongjae Elementary School in Seoul (March, 1996 to February, 2002), TEDA International School in Tianjin, China (January, 2002 to December, 2002), Tianjin International School in Tianjin, China (January, 2003 to June, 2007), Attended Kelley School of Business at Indiana University in Bloomington, USA (August, 2007 to August, 2011), served as an Interpreter Officer at Republic of Korea Army (April, 2012 to May, 2015), earned an MBA at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (August, 2017 to August, 2018), and works as an Investment Manager at Multi Asset Global Investments (December, 2018 to Present). He is a member of ISI-S Society (151-Society) and the Order of Imhotep. He discusses: growing up; a sense of an extended self; the family background; experience with peers and schoolmates; the purpose of intelligence tests; high intelligence; wide-ranging reactions to geniuses; the greatest geniuses; a genius from a profoundly intelligent person; profound intelligence necessary for genius; the gifted and geniuses; God; science; the tests taken and scores earned (with standard deviations); the range of the scores; ethical philosophy; social philosophy; economic philosophy; political philosophy; metaphysics; philosophical system; meaning in life; meaning; an afterlife; the mystery and transience of life; and love.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you were growing up, what were some of the prominent family stories being told over time?
Jiwhan (Jason) Park: None. Besides, the stories may be lies that distort the truth.
Jacobsen: Have these stories helped provide a sense of an extended self or a sense of the family legacy?
Park: Not applicable.
Jacobsen: What was the family background, e.g., geography, culture, language, and religion or lack thereof?
Park: My father was a general manager at LG Chemical, a Fortune Global 500 company headquartered in South Korea. My mother served as a school nurse practitioner. Both are pure Koreans from Seoul dedicated to Presbyterianism.
Jacobsen: How was the experience with peers and schoolmates as a child and an adolescent?
Park: As a primary student in Korea, I simply served the peers’ instincts. They were quick to idolize the superiors and justify all the actions to protect their ideals. In fact, I was a superstar beyond the top of my class in every subject, which naturally made me class president multiple times. I was one of the top 100 elementary students in a nationwide English exam hosted by the Korea University at grade 2. I studied TOEFL and TEPS at grade 3 on my own. I scored the highest on school wide Math and Chinese exams with no effort at grade 4. Next year, I quit my service, only to realize that the efforts to please others served me no good. I found no purpose for making friends and getting good marks.
Jacobsen: What have been some professional certifications, qualifications, and trainings earned by you?
Park: I majored in Finance and minored in Chinese during college. I recently completed my MBA with a concentration in Finance.
Jacobsen: What is the purpose of intelligence tests to you?
Park: Discover true IQ based on the most valid and reliable intelligence test for the Gifted (130+, SD 15). Mainstream tests (WAIS, Stanford Binet) fail to distinguish the mental abilities of the Gifted in different categories (I.e. 140s vs 170s), since they are made to identify and counsel the mentally challenged.
Jacobsen: When was high intelligence discovered for you?
Park: I took the highest quality test made by Paul Cooijmans called “The Nemesis Test” and scored the highest among Asians in 2018 (Score: I.Q. 143, Range: Intelligent).
Jacobsen: When you think of the ways in which the geniuses of the past have either been mocked, vilified, and condemned if not killed, or praised, flattered, platformed, and revered, what seems like the reason for the extreme reactions to and treatment of geniuses? Many alive today seem camera shy — many, not all.
Park: At high school in China, I was isolated by my classmates for being different. I often found interest in playing board games, entered the chess tournaments hosted by schools in China and won multiple times. Impressed by my credentials, the Deans at Johns Hopkins and other top schools offered me an automatic admission, given my timely approval followed by an application. Unsurprisingly, the fellow students vilified me for expressing an unofficial approval in the absence of any outstanding academic records. That a hard working transfer student from an elite Daewon Foreign Language High School barely made it into Berkeley, which placed at least 10 ranks below Johns Hopkins, seemed to justify their actions. I redeemed myself by officially rejecting the offers but instead graduated at Indiana University Bloomington with a fair amount of scholarship. I simply didn’t want to create conflicts with others around me.
Jacobsen: Who seem like the greatest geniuses in history to you?
Park: It could be anyone. The mentally challenged may think of his average friend as the greatest genius.
Jacobsen: What differentiates a genius from a profoundly intelligent person?
Park: Genius = High Intelligence + Hard Work + Creativity
Jacobsen: Is profound intelligence necessary for genius?
Park: No. A hard work is enough to compensate the lack of intelligence.
Jacobsen: What have been some work experiences and jobs held by you?
Park: Interpreter Officer (2012–2015):
Translate and interpret verbal exchanges among generals, commanders, and vice ministers of Defense Departments from Korea and foreign countries, including Australia and United States.
Investment Manager (2018-):
Raise private debt funds that finance an expansion or acquisition of foreign infrastructures.
Jacobsen: Why pursue this particular job path?
Park: The correlation between Finance major and Investment Manager job appeared to be the highest, only to realize that individual skills, characters and links mattered more.
Jacobsen: What are some of the more important aspects of the idea of the gifted and geniuses? Those myths that pervade the cultures of the world. What are those myths? What truths dispel them?
Park: The gifted and geniuses have inherent abilities to reason and connect the seemingly disparate ideas. That does not mean, however, that they are academic elites. The most notable Nobel Laureates (and geniuses at the same time), including John Nash and Albert Einstein, are no graduates from, let’s say, Top 5 QS or Times World Universities. Wolfgang Mozart never attended a school in his lifetime. For the gifted and geniuses, curiosity diverts their attentions from one subject, while adamancy drives them towards the other. They also ask fundamental questions before accepting new ideas. On the other hand, academic elites simply follow instructions and work hard to excel in every subject. These elites, typically below “Intelligent” or “Genius” range (<I.Q. 140), are commonly misunderstood as the gifted or geniuses.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the God concept or gods idea and philosophy, theology, and religion?
Park: I am an atheist.
Jacobsen: How much does science play into the worldview for you?
Park: Hard Science > Hard Science + Engineering > Engineering:
I always pondered why humans desire to elevate themselves, while they fail to maintain their own status. Why would they create AI (Engineering) to control, while they succumb to the virus? The machines may replace humans to save lives, but eventually destroy them. An automated driving may impair the learning abilities. A remote working environment may lower the social skills. A robotic environment may degrade the value of a human being. On the other hand, hard science serves to raise human dignity. A development (Engineering) of anti-virus to COVID-19 (Hard Science, Biology) saves lives, while a discovery (Engineering) of Universe’s deepest secrets (Hard Science, Physics), or even a theoretical one (Hard Science, Physics), helps value them.
Jacobsen: What have been some of the tests taken and scores earned (with standard deviations) for you?
Park: I have listed only the most reliable and valid test that measures an I.Q. at or above 130.
The Nemesis Test (Paul Cooijmans) / I.Q. 143 (SD 15)
Jacobsen: What is the range of the scores for you? The scores earned on alternative intelligence tests tend to produce a wide smattering of data points rather than clusters, typically.
Park: Since my test scores, except for one above, were distorted by lack of validity, reliability, or even bad health on the test date, I don’t think there is any significance to the score range.
Jacobsen: What ethical philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Park: None. Since ethics is formed by a majority of opinions, the idea or philosophy is not required to define what it should be in nature.
Jacobsen: What social philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Park: Equality of Opportunity. Dworkin argues that people begin with equal opportunities but may end up with unequal economic benefits as a result of their own choices. It is natural that people should bear the consequences, given that they made the best efforts to analyze the choices and arrived at the decisions free from any external pressures. In reality, the starting points differ at birth and outcomes are distorted by others, but such conditions apply to a minority. In a sense, the philosophy is most applicable to a majority.
Jacobsen: What economic philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Park: Free Market Capitalism. Friedman argues that the government intervention in a nation’s economy should be limited. If the Fed fails to shift the money supply on time, the economy should deviate from its intended cycle. A faster increase in the supply causes an inflation and lowers spending at the growth stage, while a slower one increases spending at the recessionary stage. Instead, a tempered domestic spending at the latter stage should limit the purchasing power to either save or repay any debts and compensate for the lost GDP with higher exports. Otherwise, the Fed would have to raise the interest rate and charge the debt repayments higher than intended, bringing chaos to the overall economy.
Jacobsen: What political philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Park: Luck Egalitarianism by Dworkin. Similar to the social philosophy stated above.
Jacobsen: What metaphysics makes some sense to you, even the most workable sense to you?
Park: Metaphysics of Knowledge. I do not understand why people accept the knowledge as it is. Is the knowledge truly acceptable? A few examples of social knowledge. Why create laws that change? Why require academics to divide? Answers to the fundamental questions will help live the world with rationality, creating a better place for more.
Jacobsen: What worldview-encompassing philosophical system makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Park: Theoretical Philosophy. Similar to the above.
Jacobsen: What provides meaning in life for you?
Park: That life exists to set something for me.
Jacobsen: Is meaning externally derived, internally generated, both, or something else?
Park: Internally generated.
Jacobsen: Do you believe in an afterlife? If so, why, and what form? If not, why not?
Park: Nope. I only exist to be part of the design.
Jacobsen: What do you make the mystery and transience of life?
Park: Every moment in life is a piece of memory that remains forgotten after death. Why humans seek to remember others’ past, knowing they would meet the same doom, is a mystery to me.
Jacobsen: What is love to you?
Park: An illusion. It dies when its bearers disappear.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2021/10/15
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you were growing up, what were some of the prominent family stories being told over time?
Dr. Benoit Desjardins: Nothing interesting. A very ordinary family, trying to stay afloat financially. I found out on my wedding day that my father was adopted, which added mystery to the family for the first time in my life. But I chose not to investigate further out of respect for his wishes.
Jacobsen: Have these stories helped provide a sense of an extended self or a sense of the family legacy?
Desjardins: No, not much of a legacy. My family history did, however, make me prioritize financial stability as one of my main goals in life.
Jacobsen: What was the family background, e.g., geography, culture, language, and religion or lack thereof?
Desjardins: French Canadian, catholic, I grew up in Montreal. I was a first-generation college student, although I never really attended college and was fast-tracked directly to medical school and graduate school. We were not a very religious family. A priest had cursed my mother to get a physically disabled child when she was pregnant with me because she missed mass, and my parents then dissociated from the church. I was fortunately not born with any handicaps.
Jacobsen: How was the experience with peers and schoolmates as a child and an adolescent?
Desjardins: Not great. I was not good with human interaction. I was a bit of a recluse, although I did attend school but did not have many friends. I went to an all-boys high school. I only became comfortable interacting with girls a few years after high school. Now I have a wife and kids. Happily married for 34 years.
Jacobsen: What have been some professional certifications, qualifications, and trainings earned by you?
Desjardins: My path was unusual. I was fast-tracked to medical school in Canada because of my exceptional intellectual abilities, skipping college. But medical school did not satisfy me intellectually. So, after medical school, I received a very prestigious Award to pursue four simultaneous graduate degrees in the US, combining Pure Mathematics, Artificial Intelligence, Formal Philosophy (Logic), and Theoretical Physics. I called this my “intellectual interlude”. I then completed the medical curriculum (internship, residency, fellowship) to earn a living as an academic physician. So, I have an MD degree, a PhD degree, half a dozen Masters, and medical post-graduate training certificates. I also completed several additional certifications on the side, like recent certifications in hacking and cybersecurity. I love to learn new things, and these certifications force me to learn new fields very thoroughly.
Jacobsen: What is the purpose of intelligence tests to you?
Desjardins: Their purpose is to attempt to evaluate intelligence. I just take those tests for fun as I love to solve complicated problems.
Jacobsen: When was high intelligence discovered for you?
Desjardins: It was in high school since I was pretty much a recluse before that.
Jacobsen: When you think of the ways in which the geniuses of the past have either been mocked, vilified, and condemned if not killed, or praised, flattered, platformed, and revered, what seems like the reason for the extreme reactions to and treatment of geniuses? Many alive today seem camera shy – many, not all.
Desjardins: It usually depends on the mindset of the society in which they live. If it is not open to new ideas or non-traditional ideas, geniuses get vilified, sometimes imprisoned (e.g., Galileo), or killed (e.g., Socrates). On the other hand, if it values new ideas and risk-takers, geniuses get praised or platformed (e.g., Gates, Jobs, Musk).
Jacobsen: Who seem like the greatest geniuses in history to you?
Desjardins: One hundred billion humans ever lived on Earth, so out of those, there were quite a few geniuses throughout history. Here are a few: Socrates, Galileo, da Vinci, Einstein, Darwin, Newton, Aristotle, Turing.
Jacobsen: What differentiates a genius from a profoundly intelligent person?
Desjardins: Extreme creativity and long-term focused effort characterize genius. Profoundly intelligent people are much more common, and most don’t amount to much in life.
Jacobsen: Is profound intelligence necessary for genius?
Desjardins: Profound intelligence is usually a left-brain process. Extreme creativity is usually a right-brain process. So no, it’s not necessary.
Jacobsen: What have been some work experiences and jobs held by you?
Desjardins: The main path I followed is that of an Ivy League academic physician and scientist. But I have always pursued multiple sidelines in parallel. For example, one of my current sidelines is being a hacker and a cybersecurity specialist.
Jacobsen: Why pursue this particular job path?
Desjardins: Early in my life, I sought an intellectually challenging career, which generated good financial security income. However, I quickly realized that such a career did not exist or was very difficult to find. So, I decided to pursue two careers in parallel. I picked academic medicine to generate income and pursued many other activities in parallel to provide an intellectual challenge.
Jacobsen: What are some of the more important aspects of the idea of the gifted and geniuses? Those myths that pervade the cultures of the world. What are those myths? What truths dispel them?
Desjardins: There are many myths. For example, the myth that gifted people always do well in school. But, unfortunately, the structure of the education system is not always appropriate for many geniuses, who either do poorly in school or drop out (e.g., Einstein).
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the God concept or gods idea and philosophy, theology, and religion?
Desjardins: God was an invention of prehistoric man to explain what he could not understand. Eventually, science explained more and more and made God and religion irrelevant. As for philosophy, it is a field that helps sharpen critical thinking, analysis, and writing. Therefore, everyone should take courses in philosophy, unless one aims for a job not requiring much thinking, like a farmer or a US congressman.
Jacobsen: How much does science play into the worldview for you?
Desjardins: I earn a living as a physician and scientist, so much of my worldview is based on science.
Jacobsen: What have been some of the tests taken and scores earned (with standard deviations) for you?
Desjardins: I took the Mega test and Titan test in the mid-1990s for fun. My scores on those were good enough to qualify for membership to the Mega Society. Whether they are appropriate tests to measure very high IQs is still an open question, but all similar tests face the same problems. I probably have taken other tests as a kid, but I don’t remember much. I also do puzzles and quizzes whenever they come up, such as Tim Roberts quizzes, and I usually finish first at most of them.
Jacobsen: What is the range of the scores for you? The scores earned on alternative intelligence tests tend to produce a wide smattering of data points rather than clusters, typically.
Desjardins: High enough to qualify for membership in the Mega Society. Narrow range, around five-sigma.
Jacobsen: What ethical philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Desjardins: I take a little bit from each of the main ethical philosophies, depending on the context. Deontological ethics mainly guides physicians, but a utilitarian approach often makes more sense to me.
Jacobsen: What social philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Desjardins: I value the “Live and let live” social philosophy with a set of practical constraints. As long as people’s behavior does not harm others, does not harm the environment, and does not harm the social fabric, let people do what they want to do. If they’re going to hurt themselves, it’s their choice. You can always provide them with the best possible advice to help them realize the consequences of their actions, but in the end, it’s their choice. Physicians use that approach a lot. For example, we inform patients who drink too much or do drugs about the consequences of their actions, and if they chose to continue, it’s not our role to forcibly stop them from harming themselves.
Jacobsen: What economic philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Desjardins: Well, I cannot tolerate the cruelty and exploitative nature of predatory capitalism in the US. I instead value any economic system that provides people with the means to achieve their goals in life and reap the benefits of their hard work while at the same time providing a robust social net to prevent people from falling through the cracks. Canada, where I grew up, is a social democracy that provides all these features and makes sense to me from an economic perspective.
Jacobsen: What political philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Desjardins: I oscillate between social liberalism and social democracy, depending on the context. Their basic policies are often the same. I value the power of the state but do not value as much the power of unions.
Jacobsen: What metaphysics makes some sense to you, even the most workable sense to you?
Desjardins: I have a purely atheistic scientific view of the world, and I do not need metaphysics.
Jacobsen: What worldview-encompassing philosophical system makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Desjardins: As a scientist, post-positivism is the worldview philosophical system that makes the most sense to me. Reality is accessible through careful observation and scientific reasoning. Scientists make theories that can evolve, and they use observation to support or disprove a theory, knowing that all observations have a certain amount of error in them. Thus, science makes steady progress towards understanding reality.
Jacobsen: What provides meaning in life for you?
Desjardins: Three elements provide meaning to my life: my wife and kids, job and research work, and achievements. For the past few decades, I undertook a series of Grand Challenges outside work for personal growth and achievement. Each new Grand Challenge had to meet three conditions: (1) be something I had never done in my life, (2) enable me to grow as a person, and (3) have a well-defined end goal. I have pursued many such grand challenges, such as getting a Black Belt at Tae Kwon Do, earning a Wood Badge with Boy Scouts of America, becoming a pilot, becoming a competitive master marksman, etc.
Jacobsen: Is meaning externally derived, internally generated, both, or something else?
Desjardins: It’s both. In my case, my grand challenges are purely internally generated. However, other aspects such as wife and kids are externally generated.
Jacobsen: Do you believe in an afterlife? If so, why, and what form? If not, why not?
Desjardins: We either get cremated or eaten by worms and get recycled, currently into dirt, but eventually possibly into Soylent Green.
Jacobsen: What do you make of the mystery and transience of life?
Desjardins: Life is a beautiful thing. It appeared by itself out of nothing billions of years ago. It kept evolving until it produced Homo Sapiens, which could colonize and change the planet, and might eventually become interstellar. Science has taught us more and more about the mechanisms of life, so it’s becoming less mysterious with time. The transience of life is a good thing, as otherwise there would be 100 billion people living on Earth, 94 billion of them living in old people’s homes.
Jacobsen: What is love to you?
Desjardins: Love is an emotion that binds people to each other. I never thought of it more deeply or philosophically. But I express it regularly. For example, I’ve bought roses for my wife every month since we started dating, and I have not forgotten any monthly roses in the 37 years we have been together.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2021/07/03
Christopher Harding is the Founder of the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE), and a Member of OlympIQ Society and the ESOTERIQ Society. He was born on August 4, 1944 in Clovelly Private Nursing Home at Keynsham, Somerset, English, United Kingdom. He has never married. He arrived in Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia, in the morning of October 11, 1952. He remains there to this day. He has held memberships with the Eugenics Society (1963–1964), the British Astronomical Association (1964–1969), the International Heuristic Association (1970–1974), the Triple Nine Society (1979–1990 & 1992–1995), the 606 Society (1981–1982), the Omega Society (1983–1991), the Prometheus Society (1984–1990), the International Biographical Association (1985–1990), Geniuses of Distinction Society (1986–1988), the American Biographical Institute Research Association (1986–1990), the Cincinnatus Society (1987–1990), the 4 Sigma Group of Societies [incorporating all groups having 4 Sigma plus cut off points ] (1988–1990), The Minerva Society [Formerly the Phoenix Society] (1988–1990), The Confederation of Chivalry (1988–1990), the Planetary Society (1989–1990), Maison Internationale des Intellectuels [M.I.D.I.] (1989–1990), TOPS HIQ Society (1989–1990), the Cleo Society (1990–1991), the Camelopard Society (1991–1992), the Hoeflin One-in-a-Thousand Society (1992–1993), the Pi Society (also like the Mega Society for persons with 1 in one million I.Q. level (5th April 2001–2002), INTERTEL [The International Legion of Intelligence] (June 1971-March 2010), The Hundred (1972–1977), the New Zealand National Mensa (1980–1982), and the Single Gourmet (1989–1991), among numerous other memberships, awards, and achievements. For the most recent or up-to-date information, please see the ESOTERIQ Society listing: https://esoteriqsociety.com/esotericists/esoteriq-id06/. He discusses: He discusses: National Enquirer; the gap between cognitive abilities and record of employment; living situation without a record of work; alone; the professionals test someone just shy of 1-year-old; parents react to being called “liars to their faces”; genius; intelligence tests; publications or periodicals; artificial constructs; the factors making genius; God as human idealism; the Concept of God; science; the areas most affected by this despoilment; the areas least affected by this despoilment; 6-sigma; the ESOTERIQ Society; conclusions; and the information in Quantum Physics.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What Royal Houses were the main connections with family?
Chris Harding: Most prominent — French side.
Jacobsen: In the National Enquirer published on June 25, 1991, there was an article about a certain man with the “world’s highest IQ” who is a “jobless janitor.” What did this particular media attention do for you?
Harding: Nothing.
Jacobsen: I state the caveat of “absolutely nothing at all” as the response to the work experiences question. It is reported that you have worked in menial jobs and had stretches of unemployment, e.g., in the National Enquirer. What explains the gap between the cognitive abilities and the cognitive demands of the jobs for you? Alternatively, what explains the gap between cognitive abilities and record of employment for you?
Harding: Unknown.
Jacobsen: How did you sustain yourself in terms of living situation without a record of work?
Harding: Family.
Jacobsen: Why the “non-existent” life with peers and schoolmates? Did you feel alone?
Harding: Violence and exclusion.
Jacobsen: How did the professionals test someone just shy of 1-year-old? It seems odd, even stranger than the 2-and-a-half-year-old, or thereabouts, cases entering Mensa International (or their national group).
Harding: Mental age in my case 3 years 4 months made that easy!
Jacobsen: How did your parents react to being called “liars to their faces” when ‘speaking of you’?
Harding: They were taken aback by this.
Jacobsen: Does this desire of cultures wanting genius while not wanting the genius create a toxic dichotomy in the general culture? Something to which only lip service is paid, while wanting to kill in former times, and ‘kill’ in modern times, the genius.
Harding: It comes from competitiveness [jack is equal to his master]. In many cultures submissiveness is considered politeness. That is considered standard in communication. It is why first world cultures see themselves as superior.
Jacobsen: As these intelligence tests have been a part of life before even 1-year-old, may I ask, what has been the life lesson from them for you?
Harding: Look, people see I.Q.’s as not valid above their own. Everybody does this. It is very noticeable that children asked who in their class is smartest will name themselves!
Jacobsen: As you recalled the quote from the Journal of the British Eugenics Society, I’m sure many will be interested now. What publications or periodicals do you continue to read now? What ones did you previously read and no longer do so?
Harding: No preference; I am a total generalist.
Jacobsen: With Leonardo da Vinci as “a Master Genius in an age of Genius,” do you think artificial constructs could fill the gap between genius seen before and unseen genius now, i.e., artificial constructs with the capabilities of the highest human genius?
Harding: They have provided little evidence they are going to solve this one: My Mother once said the process was ‘ant like’ rather than a G-function.
Jacobsen: What are the factors making genius “creative ability of the highest possible kind”? Other than the qualities inherent in ‘marching to the beat of their own drum.’
Harding: Genius by definition would be individualistic. As one person said to me, I was very `singular’.
Jacobsen: If “God is purely human idealism; largely what you can’t attain,” what are some exceptions to this thing one “largely… can’t attain” or the things attainable within this definition of God as human idealism?
Harding: What I meant was the problem lay beyond the nature of logical process. It is answerable in terms of the proof of the last theory of sets. But you still get back to the conclusion that if God exists he either is the Universe or does not exist.
You are still dealing with value judgments or in assigning names; which amounts to the same thing. My Brother agreed with me that the highest form of reasoning was EVALUATION. Since to invoke reason one must first evaluate a proposition.
Jacobsen: Is the setting of the “Concept… beyond what can be considered” a defense against formal knockdown critique of the Concept of God?
Harding: No.
Jacobsen: When did science begin this despoilment with the obsession with “consensus and ignorance”?
Harding: Always was there. In our own time many people use science to moralize, and science has become the new religion. This can’t be done of course. There is no bridge either between philosophy and religion.
Jacobsen: What are the areas most affected by this despoilment?
Harding: It is seen in notions of anthropomorphism with regard to climate change. Not so! The real cause is the Sun. Note, Astronomers had long ago pinned this down to Sun Spot Cycles. A new 11+ year Cycle began last year and rising temperatures have turned back. One Russian Woman Scientist predicts the onset of a period of dropping temperatures starting around 2030, though this figure is very uncertain!
Jacobsen: What are the areas least affected by this despoilment?
Harding: Human aging and Quantum Physics–much progress continues at the moment.
Jacobsen: What were the tests when scoring above 6-sigma several times?
Harding: Most of these I have forgotten. I’m 76 and most were over 30, 40 and up to over 75 years ago!
Jacobsen: For the ESOTERIQ Society, it states, “Christopher Harding (Australia): 197 on SBIS-Oxford-Analysis-New-Zealand in 1976.” What is the full name of the SBIS-Oxford-Analysis-New-Zealand, particularly the “SBIS” part?
Harding: Don’t know.
Jacobsen: While, fundamentally, dispensing with ethical philosophy, social philosophy, economic philosophy, political philosophy, and metaphysics, even philosophy as “word juggling” (!), I see some common points. One is science, though “less and less” with its despoilment, meaning as a “PATTERN” made by each person individually, an emphasis on some of Freud, “QUANTUM PHYSICS” in terms of “truth” with its preservation of information (neither gained nor lost), and the bounded nature of nature (including humans) as “a condition of being defined.” So, there is a there there. I have to ask, “What makes these conclusions more sound, at this time, to you than other possibilities?
Harding: Feynman once said no one understands the Quantum. And yet to further agree with his point “Quantum Superiority” has been proved for the D-Wave Orion Computer. I liken this to statements about the Aleph series in the mathematics of infinity theory.
Jacobsen: Any speculation as to why the information in Quantum Physics simply “IS”?
Harding: I once thought it through and concluded there was another stage beyond Quantum Physics. Simply IS would represent in turn a `single one’ off any general group of abstractions.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2021/07/03
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is new about longevity escape velocity and research into it?
Dr. Aubrey de Grey: I could spend a half-hour just talking about that question. It has been a while. Remind me, how long ago was our last interview?
Jacobsen: 2014.
de Grey: All right, things are unrecognizable now. There is a private industry in this. In 2014/2015, it was the time when we created our first spinout. We took out a project philanthropically at SENS Research Foundation. An investor found us.
Jacobsen: Is this Peter Thiel?
de Grey: No, no, another person who had been one of our donors. A guy who was our second biggest donor back then. A guy named Jason Hope. He decided that one of our projects that we had been supporting at Rice University in Texas was ready to be commercialized.
Of course, it was early in terms of becoming a project. He felt that it was far enough along to invest as a project with his own money rather than as a donation. He created a biotech company of his own. He hired our people. He gave us a percent of the company and went off and tried to do it.
He did not have the faintest clue to run a biotech company.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
de Grey: It changed our attitude to the whole thing. Since then, our business model has been to pursue this kind of thing. It is to pursue projects that are too early to be investible. It is to be in parallel with conversations with potential investors and to identify the right point, where the thing has achieved enough proof of concept.
So, it can be spun out into a company and can receive considerable amounts of support, more than can be provided philanthropically. We have done this half a dozen times. We have been able to do this due to increasing investments at an increasing rate, including deep pocketed ones.
Something that happened 3 years ago with an investor named Jim Mellon who had made his money in a variety of other completely unrelated fields decided that he wanted to get into this. It was the next important thing to him.
He approached me. We started talking. We became very good friends, very quickly. The long of the short is he is the chair of a company called Juvenescence. Its model is basically to invest in other companies.
So, they have already put quite a bit of money into quite several start-ups. Some are spinouts of SENS. Others are closely aligned with what we do. It is transforming everything. It is fantastic. Around the same time, a guy came to us from Germany. A guy named Michael Greve who made his fortune in the early days of the German internet.
He made some of the most successful German websites. He has wanted to do this for a while. He has been investing in a variety of start-ups. The good news is most of these new investors, especially Michael Greve, have been also donating to the foundation as well as investing in companies.
That is very, very important, of course. For the near future, there will be projects that are not far enough along to really join the dots to make a profit. They will need to be funded philanthropically. We try to make the case to investors, even if they are inherently more in an investor mindset than a donor.
We try to make the case. Even if they donate a smaller amount than they are investing, they have as much of my time as they want. They will have the opportunity to have the information, so they will be the founding investor of the next startup.
For me, it is extraordinarily gratifying. I am at the nexus of all of this. Everyone comes to me, whether the investors or the founders of companies who want to find investments. I spend a ridiculous amount of my time just making introductions.
What had not changed, we are still woefully low on the money throughout the foundation. Even though, I have been able, as I say, to put some money in; and we have some money from elsewhere. Nevertheless, it is far less than we need.
I am constantly spending my time on the road and camera trying to change that. That is the biggest thing that has changed. The next thing that we are changing is the huge spike in the value of cryptocurrencies. We benefitted quite a lot from that. Several of our investors who used to be relatively penniless and had not funded us financially suddenly became rather wealthy.
They ended up with a lot of money. We had four 7-digit donations adding up to a total of 6.5 million dollars. So, obviously, this was a windfall. That we are making us of now. Only one of the donors is likely to be a repeat donor because the others decided to give away most of their fortune.
That guy created Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin. He, basically, read my book when he was 14. He is now 26.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
de Grey: He is one of these true children of the revolution who never had to change their mind about anything. They always grew up knowing it was a sad thing and tried to fix it. So, that is cool. My life is largely the same in broad strokes, but, in the specifics, in terms of the ways in which I can bring the right money to the right people; it has improved a lot.
Jacobsen: As aging is numerous processes, what programs of anti-aging, given individual processes of aging, seem the most promising within your remit?
de Grey: When I talk about what is more promising and less promising, I am always looking at the research. I am looking at how SENS is moving forward. Of course, there is a big spectrum to how far along things are.
On the easy end of the spectrum, we have hardly done anything throughout our 10-year existence on stem cell research, even though it is a key area of damage repair. It is a place for others too. Almost every area of stem cell research is important for cell damage and aging, which is being done by others and not us.
While at the other end of the spectrum, things like making backup copies of Mitochondrial DNA, hardly anyone else is working on it. That is a big spectrum. But if I look at the rate of progress, it is not the same at all.
One gratifying thing is making great advances in some difficult areas over the last few years. For mitochondrial DNA, we published a paper about 2 and a half years ago that sounded like only a modest step forward.
Basically, out of the 13 protein coding genes that we need to work in the nucleus, we were able to make two of them work at the same time, in the same cell. It sounds modest, but it is a huge progression from before. With the result now, we have a paper in review, which is a huge step forward from there.
We have these genes working now. We are understanding how we are getting them working. It is not so much trial-and-error now. More of the same thing is crosslinking. So, as you know, the extracellular matrix, this lattice of proteins that gives our tissue their elasticity. It gets less elastic over time because of chemical reaction with circulating sugar.
So, in 2015, the group that we were funding in that area, at Yale University, were able to publish a paper – our first paper in Science magazine – on the huge advance in that area. The advance sounded tangential at first hearing with the structure, which is one of the structures responsible for the loss of this elasticity. We want to break it, therefore.
The advance made that was published was ways to create it, to synthesize it, from simple agents. As it turns out, there is an enabling step. It allows us to perform experiments that would be impossible with the very trace amounts of this material that would have been previously available, just making antibody tissue or finding bacterial enzymes that break it down.
That work is proceeding very much faster now, as well. That is one of the companies that we are in the process of spinning out.
Jacobsen: If you look at the projections of research that looked very promising, what ones were very disappointing? What ones came out of nowhere and were promising?
de Grey: Of course, they are all over the place. Some of the most important ones were the ones no one cares about. One is pluripotent stem cells created 13 years ago, and CRISPR, which was very much more recent, like 6 years ago.
We have been exploiting those advances. Same with the entire medical profession. But there are also isolated things that have been unexpected. Let us go back to mitochondrial mutations, one thing that we were kicking ourselves over. It will be talked about in the upcoming paper.
It is codon optimization. It is well-known. Mitochondrial DNA has a separate DNA. Codons code different things, different amino acids, compared to the nucleus (in the mitochondria by comparison). One thing is true, which we thought was relevant.
Out of the range of the codons that code for a given single amino acid, let us say the 4 that encode for lysine, there may be one of them used more often than others. This will affect the speed of translation of the messenger RNA among other things.
Nobody had bothered to try to optimize that for expression of these genes in the nucleus. It turns out that if you do then things go far, far better. It was a serendipitous discovery. Science, itself, is full of serendipitous discoveries.
Jacobsen: Also, you solved a math problem, recently. What was it?
de Grey: [Laughing] right, that was about 18 months ago. It is a problem called the Hadwiger-Nelson problem named after some mathematicians from 1950s. The question is normally stated, “How many colors do you need to color all of the points on the plane in order that no pair of points that is one inch apart is the same color?”
The answer was immediately shown back in 1950 to be somewhere between 4 and 7 inclusive. I was able to exclude the 4 case. Many, many, many mathematicians have worked on this in the interim. So, it was quite surprising that I was able to do this, as I am a recreational mathematician. I got lucky, basically.
I would describe this as a game. What you do is, you have a two-player game. The playing surface is an initial blank sheet of paper. Player 1 has a black pen. Player 2 has a bunch of colored pens. The players alternate. When player 1 makes a move. The point is to make a new dot wherever player 1 likes.
Player 2 must color the dot. He must take one of his pens and put a ring around the new dot. The only thing that player 2 is not allowed to do is to use the same color as he used for a previous dot that is exactly one inch away from the new dot.
Of course, there may be more than one dot. Player 1 wins the game if he can arrange things so that the new dot cannot be covered. All the player 2’s pens have been used for other dots that are exactly an inch away from the new dot, right?
The question is, “How many pens does player 2 need to have in order so that player 1 cannot win?”
Jacobsen: Right.
de Grey: So, if player 2 only has one pen, obviously, player 1 can win with just two dots. He puts a dot down. Player 2 uses the red pen. Player 1 puts down a second dot exactly an inch away. Player 2 cannot move. If player 2 has two pens, then player 1 can win with three dots by just placing a dot; player 2 can uses the red pen, places another dot an inch away.
Player 2 uses the blue pen. Player 1 uses third dot in the triangle with the two, so an inch away from both oft hem, then player 2 cannot move. So, then, it turns out. If player 2 has 3 pens, player 1 can also win. It is a little more complicated.
Player 1 needs seven dots. But again, it is not very complicated. It was already worked out back in 1950 as soon as humans started thinking about this kind of question. The natural question would be the number of dots go up in some exponential way, but player 1 can always win.
It turns out that that is not true. It turns out if player 2 has seven pens. Then player 1 can never win, no matter how many dots that he puts down. But what I was able to show, if player 2 has 4 pens, then player 1 can win, but with a lot of dots.
The solution that I found took more than 1,500 dots. It has been reduced by other people since then, but it is still over 500 is the record.
Jacobsen: [Laughing] if we are looking at the modern landscape, especially with the increase in funding, what organizations should individuals look to – other than your own as well?
de Grey: Things are looking good. There is a huge proliferation of investment opportunities as well, in this area. They are certainly raising money, as they are investing in more start-ups. In the non-profit world, there are plenty of organizations as well.
I should probably mention the Methuselah Foundation, which is the organization from which SENS Research Foundation arose. They are funding a bunch of research as well as doing prizes. They are choosing well and the right things to fund.
Then there is the buck institute, which is a much more traditional organization on the surface. In other words, it is mostly funded by the NIH and by relatively conservative funding sources. But! They understand the scientific situation. It has become much more acceptable to do work that is overtly translational, even if you are getting money from these types of sources.
We work closely with them. We have two ongoing projects there. We send summer interns there. We have been able to work with them on funding, in terms of bringing in new sources of funding. That is something hat I would include.
In terms of the world, one important organization is called LEAF or Life Extension Advocacy Foundation. One in the UK. One in the US. One in Russia. They focus on advocacy and outreach. They are extraordinarily good and play a key role in elevating the level of debate in this whole area.
In Europe, the Healthy Life Extension Foundation was founded by two people from Belgium. They run a nice conference every year, every couple of years anyway. They have a vibrant mailing list and spread useful information about this area. They could use some more money. The list goes on now.
There are increased organizations, now, not just in this space but really know what they are doing. They know what the priorities ought to be. One thing I have always known since the beginning. No matter how good I get at outreach and advocacy. I could never do this all myself, not just for lack of time, but because different people resonate with different audiences.
So, there are people who will overall inspire. Others will not like people with beards.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
de Grey: People may not like my act. So, there are people around now who are very capably complementing the kind of style that I have in communicating the value of this work. That is also extraordinarily important.
Jacobsen: Any new books that can provide a good introductory foundation into this kind of research? Also, what about advanced texts as well?
de Grey: On the introductory side, there is one guy named Jim Mellon. So, Jim, this businessperson, has a very interesting of going about his job. He preferentially gets into very emerging new sectors. What he does is, he creates his own competition.
He, essentially, writes newsletters and blogs and books about this new area whose intended audience is other investors. That is what I mean by making his own competition. The reason he does this is, basically, that when a sector is just beginning. That the faster it grows, then the better.
Essentially, it is floating all boats by increasing the buzz around something. He wrote a book based on conversations with me over the previous year or so. It is called Juvenescence, which is the same as the name as his company. It is targeted to other investors.
It is very good. I was able to help with this a fair bit with the technical part. But it is written in a style that is very, very appealing, which is not a way that I would be able to write. He has a second edition upcoming. This is one that I would highlight.
In terms of advanced texts, I would not move to texts right now. Things are moving so fast. One simply needs to read the primary literature. One needs to identify that, which is not necessarily an easy thing to do. I would point to our community’s effort.
Probably, the most important one is to fight aging in the blog done by Reason. Even though he has become one of the CEOs of our start-up companies, he is running the blog. He is extremely good at highlighting the important points of the research.
Jacobsen: Any final feelings or thoughts in conclusion based on the conversation today?
de Grey: I would say, “Thank you for having me on your show again,” and for the opportunity to give an update to your audience. I think, really, the conclusion that I would give is that it is extremely exciting that things are moving much faster than before. But we must not be complacent.
There is still a long way to go. My estimation for how long we must go has gone down, but it has not nearly gone down enough. We still need to be putting in every effort that we possibly can in whatever way.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. de Grey.
de Grey: My pleasure, Scott, thank you!
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2021/03/12
Ricardo Rosselló Nevares holds a PhD in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. He graduated from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) with a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering with a concentration in Developmental Economics. Rosselló continued his academic studies at the University of Michigan, where he completed a master’s degree and a PhD in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. After finalizing his doctoral studies, he completed post-doctoral studies in neuroscience at Duke University, in North Carolina, where he also served as an investigator. Dr. Rossello was a tenure track assistant professor for the University of Puerto Rico Medical Sciences Campus and Metropolitan University, teaching courses in medicine, immunology, and biochemistry. Dr. Rossello’s scientific background and training also makes him an expert in important developing areas such as genetic manipulation and engineering, stem cells, viral manipulation, cancer, tissue engineering and smart materials.
In 2010 Dr. Rossello cofounded Prosperous Biopharm, a company that works with protein therapeutic its patented products TransBody™; a class of re-designed, engineered stable proteins that can specifically bind intracellular targets, providing a powerful new way to create novel drugs and targeted delivery. Dr. Rossello has two patents under his name; one as an HIV-1 fusion protein inhibitor (A long-acting hiv-1 fusion inhibitor (Patent ID: CN103755810B)), and another for chronic pain (Nav1.7 inhibitor and its remodeling method for Chronic Pain and Cancer Targeting (Patent ID: CN105348392B). He is currently working on COVID19 drug therapeutic compounds to inhibit viral infection.
His experiences in the intersection of policy and science thus give him a unique perspective on a variety of critical issues for the present and the future. In addition, Mr. Rossello possesses a broad academic background, being a tenure track professor in the University of Puerto Rico and The Metropolitan University for 5 years, and having research experience for over 15 years. His work centered around reprograming cells and stem cells, using viral transfection and viral design, to understand their nature and develop tools and strategies that can be beneficial basic and translational research. His investigative work with stem cells has been recognized by various societies. His research has been published in prestigious journals such as Th Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, eLife and others. Dr. Rossello was recognized as a member of the Iberoamerican Academy of Science and Culture for his scientific and academic achievements, the youngest to ever receive this recognition.
As an executive, Dr. Rossello was known for a strong focus on transformational policy execution. He led Puerto Rico as Governor for two and a half years, was able to, among many other things, reduce unemployment to the lowest levels in the island’s history, establish positive economic growth for the first time in over social and economic structural reform. He also has broad experience managing disasters and recovery response. As Governor of Puerto Rico, he spearheaded two major emergency responses, recovery and rebuilding efforts, in the aftermath of the largest natural disaster in modern US history (Hurricane Maria, 2017).
Governor of Puerto Rico (2017-2019)
Twelfth elected governor of Puerto Rico. Second youngest governor in the history of Puerto Rico, and the youngest in the United States during his tenure. Served during a time in which a US Government-created fiscal oversight board limited the island’s expenditures. Embarked on significant fiscal structural reforms that reduced the size of government by 20% (eliminating or consolidating over 30 agencies in a 2 year span) and operational costs by 17%, the single largest reduction in budget expenditures in the US. Led the largest municipal restructuring in the history of the US. Spearheaded two major emergency responses, recovery and rebuilding efforts, in the aftermath of the largest natural disaster in modern US history. Embarked on economic and labor reforms that produced the first year of growth in over a decade in Puerto Rico (4.1% overall growth), and oversaw the lowest unemployment rates in the history of Puerto Rico. Created a local Earned Income Tax Credit, Baby Bonds and, Welfare to Work programs to enhance labor participation and diminish poverty. In 2018, his administration recorded the lowest poverty rates in the history of Puerto Rico. Increased salaries for teachers and police officers. Established equal pay for equal work for women (4th state/territory to do so) and increased minimum wage for construction workers to $15/hr. Created The Governors’ women affairs council, to establish progressive policy towards equality, protect women’s rights, and ensure real-time actions by the government. Created new markets such as Medical Cannabis, Crypto Currency, Block Chain, Sports Booking, and e-gaming. Externalized tourism and investment from government to steer away from political whims, enhance effectiveness and stability. By the same token, externalized the selection of the University of Puerto Rico’s President (first time ever), and director of the Puerto Rico Energy and Power Authority. Implemented an incentives code reform to give transparency and visibility to all expenditures and investments made by the government, while giving a clear defined set of rules to the market. Designed, enacted and led Education Reform (Choice, organization, transparency, and voucher programs), New Healthcare Model (Offering choice and broader coverage, guaranteeing access for all, Medicaid fraud detection unit and MMIS implemented, Medical malpractice framework), Climate Change Action (Reducing carbon emissions by 50% in 7 years, and establishing adaptation strategies), Energy Reform (42% renewables by 2023, 100% by 2050), Permits Reform (reducing the time to get permits by 80%), Anti-corruption (created the anti-corruption committee by law, created the Office of the Inspector General, established a transformational Procurement Reform). Abolished conversion therapies for LGBT by executive order, established anti-bullying protocols, included LGBT couples in domestic violence issues, police received human rights training and created the first ever LGBTQ Governor’s Advisory Council. Reduced crime rates by 20% during tenure, including murder rates. Embarked on pensions reform that saved and guaranteed payment with operational expenses (paygo system, first in the US) after the pensions fund was completely decimated one month after the administration started. Created a bill of rights for the elderly. Secured over 19.9 billon dollars from Congress in recovery funding for the island in a bi-partisan effort, this being the single largest grant from the federal government in the history of Puerto Rico. Rossello resigned office in the summer of 2019, amidst a wave of social unrest. Frequent speaker, including delivering key-note addresses, notably on Climate Change (X-prize), Equality (NAACP, LULAC), Emergency Response and Rebuilding (Aspen Institute), and Fiscal policies (Heritage Foundation). Participated in numerous US House and Senate hearings on energy, emergency response, fiscal crisis and political status. Governor Rossello was also elected in 2019 to be the President of the Council of State Governments (CSG), one of the largest and most prestigious organizations, comprising elected officials at the state level.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, we’ve done an extensive interview before. This one, we’re going to be focusing on high-IQ communities and the sense of community, mainly. You take these tests. You score really well. By definition, that’s not something people can do very often.
As far as a research tells us, it is mostly an innate capacity. It develops over time, but it is mostly an innate capacity – especially in adults. So, when you are finding these communities, when you are taking these tests, what is the sense of community?
What are the types of community or people can find when looking around for high-IQ societies?
Dr. Ricardo Rossello: In my case, I sort of got into this high-IQ community a little bit later in life. I took these tests for a variety of other reasons. One was the normal route. The other were tests to do some research. I was a guinea pig in one of those.
Lastly, some of them were for fun, e.g., the Titan Test, and some others that are psychologist proctored. Once I finished my term in office (Puerto Rico), I moved away from the island. I wanted to connect with certain communities of interest.
I had a scientific network based on my tenure in academia. Also, I had other public official networks. But something I never thought about presented itself, which was, “Why don’t I become a part of these high-IQ communities and figure out how to interact with some of these folks and get some very good conversations going, high-level?”
At that level, based on my experiences in public office, and so forth, I was looking for people to engage there. The full serious part was to engage and analyze everything that had just happened and see what escaped my peers and myself, to see others who were thoughtful and smart what their views were, and to connect with new friends and have new avenues to do that.
That was the objective. Unfortunately, as I started get into them, the pandemic hit.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Rossello: [Laughing] It becomes more of a distant setting. I am looking forward to some of the events, whether it’s Mensa International or Triple Nine Society gatherings. I’m looking forward to them. A lot of last year got cancelled.
That has been my objective. I have been able to connect virtually with some of them. I have been able to publish in some of the journals that they have; it has helped in a way as an escape for me. It helped me putting my thoughts out there and getting feedback from people in the community.
I still haven’t been able to fruitfully experience the one-on-one, which, hopefully, in 2021, I will be able to experience at some point.
Jacobsen: With Mensa International and Triple Nine Society, those are two big ones. They have that kind of size, where people can come out together and meet one another. American Mensa has upwards of 50,000 people in their membership. What have you heard about these meetups?
When I talked to the current elected Chair of American Mensa, LaRae Bakerink, she mentioned nothing this like them because they have so many things going on at various sophisticated levels, also fun things, e.g., ‘beauty’ contests [Laughing] or something. They had those at one point. [Ed. “Beauty” meaning different talents and qualities showed off.]
What would be the main attraction to you, in regard to those? For example, those scientific associations will have very niche interests and attract highly qualified people in particular areas. Mensa International is going by people who are very intelligent.
Rossello: When I approach these things, I believe I spoke to you a little bit about this last time. I divide them up into two buckets. The first bucket is classical music approach. What in theory would be my plan moving forward to structure and organize? The other is the jazz music approach.
Let’s go out there and see what happens, my goal was to see the structure, see the special interest groups, and so forth. Even though, my experience [Laughing] is somewhat unique. My goal was to see people on the frontier of those experiences and be able to relate to it.
It is to develop things moving forward. I have a two-pronged thought process on where things are going in terms of policy and politics and the role of science. I have been involved in both worlds. I could mesh those.
Practical policy on one side and a set of very niche science in stem cell research. I was looking forward more to how we could use the tools of science to not only measure them as they effect policy moving forward, but see how to make that happen.
One of my big pet peeves is that right now everybody in politics says, “Let’s follow the science,” “Let’s follow the experts.” It is a neat tagline. But there is no institutionalized way to do it. In a 12 steps ahead view of things, my bigger vision was seeing if I could find smart and interested folks, creative folks, where I can download a little of what I’ve experienced and some of my original thoughts.
My goal, in my view, was finding people committed to an endeavour like this or designing what I call a Foresight Function for government. My basic premise is policy and politics has changed in its complexity in the last 20 to 30 years.
I believe we’ve talked a little bit about this last year. In order to address complex situations, you can’t have the same run-of-the-mill answers. I think there’s sweet spot there, where we can take this generalized mentality, “Let’s listen to the experts, let’s listen to the scientists,”and actually put it to practice and benefit society.
I think that’s one of my longer-term ambitions, finding people to coalesce behind that idea.
Jacobsen: What do you think is this barrier in political discourse to listening to experts and trusting the science? It’s not just intelligence. It’s also a kind of critical thoughtfulness about the application about what is known rather than starting from scratch when you don’t have to.
Rossello: I agree. I think the big challenge is having had worn both hats: scientists, typically, spend a lot of time studying and giving you every detail that they know about a certain thing. When it comes time to a conclusion, they don’t have one.
Politicians on the other side are 180-degrees in the other direction. They don’t spend much time wondering about the news. But they have views: Yes to this policy; no to that policy. [Laughing] My thought process behind this is how do you bridge that really big divide between that.
Because if we don’t find a way to bridge it, politicians will find the best tagline, which is “let’s listen to the experts, let’s trust science” at this point. Instead of giving a straight line to a better solution, it allows a reverse engineering to whatever it is that I want to do in an act of policy.
There are some areas, where it is evidence is clear to the me and the scientific community is climate change. It is not unanimous. That will provide some argument whereby we shouldn’t worry about climate change.
Some will gravitate towards it. Not because it fits the evidence but because it fits some narrative. I think there needs to be an institutionalized version, longstanding version that does science. That prepares for the unknown and the complex.
They likely won’t be there. It is like a SWAT squad. These very specialized police officers who are called up in really complex situations when they happen. That is the way that I see it. You institutionalize it.
Instead of searching at random where you can get your best storyline, it gets generated from within. It is complex because, like any human institution, it can go one way or the other. That’s where I think the thoughtfulness of it, the initial design in it, and the initial people in it, is really crucial.
Jacobsen: Doing the interviews with a lot of people in the communities, I’ve heard two things. It is applied to the larger, older societies. One is, “It’s just a social club.” The other is, “It’s a social club!”
It depends about sensibility. What do you think this says about individuals looking for communities coming forward? On the one hand, they are finding something that they are precisely wanting, which is a social club.
On the other hand, there is another group. They find what they don’t want, which is a social club. They, maybe a debate club. Something more intensive.
Rossello: Let me say, I think it’s positive that it is a social club. I just don’t think both are necessarily mutually exclusive. I would tell those whoever is not quite as a happy, at least have a center where other folks can go. A certain percentage who may not be quite as happy.
You can find your brethren there on whatever interests you. I fully understand it is a social platform first and foremost. From there, the general idea is: These people get together socially and interesting thins might ensue.
I am looking forward to sitting with other people and getting ideas. If the worst thing that happens is you make one or two new friends, that’s a good outcome in my view. You just have to have those expectations.
When I go into it, I go into those two boxes. Professionally and intellectually, I would like to develop. You should never underestimate the value of relationship-creating. I found that out the hard way as a governor.
I did minimize, at one point, what somebody told me, “You need to make time to waste time.” I didn’t get it. I set it to the side as a little old man giving outdated advice. He was much smarter than I was and quite wise.
His point was: Listen, you need to set aside time to talk to people, make friendships, have friends. So, when you make policy and do these things, it is not just the intellectual or ideological binding of what you’re doing to move things forward.
It is the personal relationship in binding. In a sense, I do look forward to doing that. Because it is one of those things. From the get-go, it is unclear where it is going. Part of life is a journey. Part of life is meeting new people.
Things will likely evolve from that. In the worst-case scenario in the case of someone for social interaction, I think even for people who are introverts. It is a good exercise.
Jacobsen: What about like online fora, where people can join? There they can have formalized debate clubs, formalized conversations with people. If they are shy, they could use it more. Any thoughts on that?
Rossello: We are in a current place and time where the correct use of language matters. When I got into it, there were battles about being insulting, being too harsh. All these nasty things. I reached the immediate effect that I had seen from it.
I saw these groupings being very cautious about how they approach this. One of those is tiptoeing into the Zoom conversations.
Jacobsen: Tiptoeing [Laughing].
Rossello: They said, ‘Okay, we’re having it. We’re having a moderator. If anyone says anything insulting, and so forth, then you’re booted off forever.” It is a little daunting. Sometimes, it is a find line, particularly in these settings that are international.
Some folks from other countries may have different sensitivities than others or not at all. I think it will be challenging to moderate that kind of things. Something that I see more of a future in is the groups externalizing responsibility of these things.
We know you want to talk. We won’t get in the middle of it. We will get people. It is people from X society, but not necessarily under the umbrella of the society when you connect. I’ve seen that.
Again, I think it’s good! Particularly for somebody who may have a tougher time going into these in-person meetings, maybe, you can connect with some of the folks. Then you have something to bind, and then you can go to in-person meetings.
I think it is a value and non-trivial, and a challenging task. It depends on what your objective is. If you go on this draconian thing, or hint at something might be wrong, I am not criticizing it. I think it will be hard for people to get into it.
People might hold back a little bit. I think that will be resolved when the pandemic ends, when you have the combination of both online and in-presence fora. That’s one point. Another added value of the online fora is seeing the developing, as a higher form of Twitter if you will…
Jacobsen: …[Laughing]…
Rossello: …You can see the thought process of it on a particular topic. That’s something also of value. Right now, I am swimming around and seeing what the best parking spot, if there is a parking spot for us there.
Jacobsen: There’s also a sensibility about not telling smart people what to do.
Rossello: [Laughing].
Jacobsen: You form a society around bringing in really smart people or extraordinarily smart people and then telling them what to do or what to say seems really wrong. It seems against proof of concept if you’re trying to do that.
If you’re thinking about some things that might round out the edges of some of these digital forms of societies, what might be some recommendations coming to mind?
Rossello: First, externalize it, empower people to monitor themselves, as you would in regular society. I think that is one of the core components. Number two, there are levels and there are levels. There needs to be a reasonable level of respect.
But obviously, when it comes to debates, sometimes, people can get aggressive. The thing is you can be aggressive about the idea. It is making the warning of “none of this language will be tolerated” is fine.
You can also state that in the forums; you can get smart people to disagree with one another. Also, another thing is levels. You don’t have to have one umbrella about it. You can say, “This forum is for us to chat, talk, know each other, to not fight, and so forth. These ones are to deal with harsher, more complex issues.”
Let’s say, if you bring about an issue of women’s rights or LGBTQ, or racism, and so forth, those are likely to turn strong opinions in one direction or another. It’s, as you stated, the premise here that people are smart. They should know where they are going and should know what to expect.
What I would not want to see is it become a sort of one-sided issue, I am seeing this in society, unfortunately, sometimes. It depends on who the messenger is, if it is a bad message of a good message.
I would hope that these communities bring forth a certain higher-level understanding, a gray area, and people can choose if they want to be more on the comfort side of things or want to engage in battle on some of these issues.
Externalizing to me is the best way to allow the reputation of the society not to be hindered by something that somebody says, at the same time, it is allowing people to move freely. It is kind of like these opinion shows.
“The opinion of x, y, and z, do not necessarily reflect the views of CNN.”
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Rossello: I think there needs to be that sort of disclaimer.
Jacobsen: What about qualifications for societies? A large contingent of them, they’ll take the alternative tests, which may or may not measure general intelligence. If they do it, then they may not measure it very well, or in non-standard ways, as you mentioned earlier, like the Titan Test.
There are some societies that can give proctored, mainstream intelligence tests like the Bonnardel, the Stanford-Binet, the WAIS, etc. A sort of proof of IQ or something like this. Do you have any thoughts on the different levels of requirements or qualifications societies have for joining them?
Rossello: I think the way you build your society and the robustness behind it will eventually showcase the value of it. Depending on your prism of evaluation, I have taken a lot of these tests. [Laughing] Take the Cattell Culture Fair exam, it is rapid-fire, quick.
You do as much as you can. It’s standardized. You can check it what your raw score is. You put that to the percentile. It’s very tough to argue against that. On the other hand, you have these other tests that are not proctored; that they make a time recommendation.
But you can have an infinite amount of time. They do tap these more complex, elaborate problems, which I did just for fun to see where it took me. So, you know from the get-go. They’re measuring different things.
One is this crude, quick response to certain observations like the culture fair or the verbal knowledge like some of the other exams out there. These other ones are seeing what capacity you have to solve problems. Of course, on those, you can get help.
You can search for similar problems. You have all the time in the world to do so. It is measuring something different. It is, certainly, not measuring the same thing. You go from simple to complex and come back out in what might seem like the simplest outcome.
Again, the basis of these societies is being social n part. Sometimes, the social implies a negative. But it is a social environment. In IQ, you get people of a certain breadth of IQ. If you both get 160, it doesn’t mean you’re going to connect.
You might connect with somebody higher or lower in the spectrum. It doesn’t matter. It narrows down the group of people. Where you know, they are likely to be curious, likely to be looking for other people to balance ideas, likely to connect in some sort of deeper forum. You get it.
I understand that you can do this nuanced thing about “These ones are no good because they allow these” or “these ones are good…” Fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But they all could offer something valuable.
We are getting people interested in engaging, which have either this capacity for problem-solving, critical thinking, and creativity, or who are very much seeking to be part of that community. I think the value of that is the role of the individual to segregate how you use that, where do you participate.
So, obviously, you can see in Mensa, which I have been a longstanding member. It has this enormous structure. The value is in the big structure. From there, you can follow into the smaller structures. That has a value.
Triple Nine Society or other of these societies, they have a certain reputation for how they have been doing things all along. The other ones, and I don’t mean to mention those two, there are plenty of them.
Other newer ones that come along with different objectives. Recently, I engaged in one because they were interested in finding the role of human intelligence and artificial intelligence moving forward. I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination on that.
But I do see the value in this foresight function in addressing 5 or 6 key questions into the future. That is one of them. One of them is artificial intelligence.
Jacobsen: What do you see as the other questions for the future?
Rossello: The climate question to me is fundamental. I not only know it scientifically. Puerto Rico is the third jurisdiction hardest hit by climate change. I – literally – saw a small island on the edge of Puerto Rico disappear in the span of a year and a half.
In 2017, I saw this happening. The artificial intelligence question is another one. Synthetic biology and what we’re going to do with it. Another one parallel to that is aging and research on aging, which is really going to put us into a position from the biological sphere.
There’s no reason why we can’t live to 200-years-old. Although, that’s wonderful. It has enormous implications for society as a whole, as the globe keeps evolving. Those are, at least, a few of the ones at the intersection between those and how they interplay.
The role of space and sort of ‘conquering space,’ if you will, is another one. Not only scientifically because of climate change and the capacity to have a livable planet to live here on Earth. I see there is a lot of culture clash and interactions between people beating on each other. I think we need to learn a big united goal moving forward.
Half-jokingly, I said that many of these fights might end if aliens come tomorrow.
Jacobsen: Right [Laughing].
Rossello: Everyone has a uniting objective in how we confront or fight the threat if it is a threat. Parallel to that, I think space travel is another one. It could be a fun competition between countries rather than a clashing confrontation between them.
I think all these questions are important. The ethics behind those questions are important as well. You bring automated cars. It is slightly going to reduce what you have in regards to some accidents now.
But what is the automated car going to do when it decides to kill the driver or kill the pedestrians in that situation? What’s the ethics behind that? What is the boundary that we are going to push in terms of biological information, synthetic information, and biological transformation on human beings?
I think those are relevant ethical questions moving forward. The way we are currently divided. It is going to be different answers in different places. I use this example because it is my area. Stem cells, you had the United States for a while. George Bush, Jr. never used executive power or seldom did. He used it twice for banning or limiting the scope of stem cell research.
Then you have other countries completely abolishing it. Other countries using it with complete liberal motions through it. Then you have weird intermediates. Germany was you can use human fetuses for stem cell research, but they can’t be German human fetuses.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Rossello: These sort of things arise in complex situations. The last century, we were used to a linear approach to solving problems. I think it is complex. I think it exponential in nature. How do we manage the downsides of technology?
It is the first set of questions I tackled. We spoke about climate change, but also pandemics before. Pandemics aren’t going anywhere anytime soon [Laughing]. You can anticipate in the next 5 or 20 years another COVID-27 coming along. Let’s hope it’s not something worse.
I think the major flaw in the response in the world in general to the virus. Policymakers were solving the problem of the virus today when the virus was 14 days ahead. I think those are the sorts of questions that are out there.
That I think are important to start addressing and to see the overall effect on society because of this.
Jacobsen: What are the barriers when public officials try to make a point with a snowball, like (Sen. James) Inhofe (R-OK, in the United States)? These sorts of cases not just on climate change, but on any of the questions you’re proposing.
It’s not just about a scientifically literate public. It is also about leaders who are scientifically literate, more importantly probably. Yet, they are representative of the public because they are voted in by the public.
What is your prognosis in terms of these things when you have some concerns in those domains?
Rossello: It is not a straightforward answer because it is complex. I have arrived at certain thoughts on the matter. I still think whoever is the leader needs to have two general buckets now. General bucket number one is having high bandwidth.
If you’re not capable of understanding that pushing a small lever here will have an enormous repercussion over here, you’re, essentially, a figure. You’re not able to discriminate or make a smart decision based on the things moving forward.
By the same token, I think leaders need to be great storytellers as well. I think in large part this is something that I worked at; I wasn’t particularly great. I think, as you can see from this interview, I can be verbose.
Part of that quality is balancing and understanding, “If I do something here, if I was to do an honest assessment, I would need to talk to you for, probably, three hours.” The expectation is needing to express it in 180 characters or less.
Who is best suited to having the quality of understanding what is going on and making it as succinct and direct a message as possible across? I think that’s the secret sauce moving forward. I’ll give an example where I failed.
I would have press conferences. My thought process is that I’ll get a pace and answer questions. They would take two hours, and so forth. The media side would cut a 15 second snippet of something that I said, which could very easily be taken out of taken out of context within the whole of the words said by me.
I think leaders have to learn how to be smarter with that. Even though, when you understand the motor, the black box, and what is going on, it is hard to not want to explain all of it. You have to be very disciplined and make sure you say what you need to say.
Even though, you’re never going to be comfortable that you’ve explained the whole story. On top of all of that is the enormous scrutiny, if don’t say something and then something blows up, they’ll say, “You’re hiding something,” or whatnot.
Again, Scott, I don’t think there is a simple solution. What I do think, there are qualities that we should look for in future leadership. One is high bandwidth of understanding. The second is the capacity to adjust.
Things are changing so much. If you don’t change, if you just sit on your plans, then you’re likely going to crash into a wall. Third, you should have this capability of communicating effectively, storytelling.
The only way I foresee going long-term objectives nowadays is embedding them into a larger story. The best example of this is John Kennedy when he said, ‘Send somebody to the Moon.’ [Laughing] Simple, everybody understood, to the day, we use these high objectives.
We call them a moonshot. You have to be very careful and nuanced now on how you’re going to get to the moonshot. If you’re going to do things in a larger scale, where you’re going to be pressed by different angles to produce, then you’re going to have to be thoughtful about that.
Jacobsen: Ricardo [Laughing], we are out of time [Laughing].
Rossello: [Laughing] Sorry for overextending it, I hope it was useful for what you wanted to do. Thanks again for doing the first interview.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2021/03/12
Erik Haereid is an Actuarial Scientist and Statistician. Eivind Olsen is the Chair of Mensa Norway. Tor Arne Jørgensen is the 2019 Genius of the Year — Europe. They discuss: the high-IQ communities available in Norway; membership in Mensa Norway; the issues perceived in running a high-IQ national group; the qualifications for Mensa Norway; the culture of Norway on mainstream intelligence tests and alternative tests; the considered importance of high-IQ and high-IQ societies; the flavours of the high-IQ societies; some of the unique, or nearly distinct, qualities of Norwegian culture mapped onto the high-IQ communities; and some of the plans and expected developments for Mensa Norway.
Keywords: Erik Haereid, Eivind Olsen, IQ, Mensa, Mensa Norway, Tor Arne Jørgensen.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: One of the most respected, for longevity and size, high-IQ organizations in the world is Mensa International. No question about it. Some see Mensa International as nothing more than a gigantic social club. Others see the organization as a means by which to connect and politic with the movers and shakers of some of the high-IQ community globally or within a national context. Nonetheless, its stability belies a particular functionality of aim and purpose, and structure, compared to all other high-IQ societies and, thusly, deserves proper praise and adulation. Another aspect of the global focus of Mensa International is the appropriate functionality in breaking apart the big organization into national sub-organizations with chairs. For example, Mensa Norway is one of the national groups for Mensa International. As it so happens, we have the leader of Mensa Norway here today with Mr. Olsen. Also, we have alternative test very high scorers in the presence of Mr. Haereid and Mr. Jørgensen. All from Norway. With Mensa and with Norway, and based on suggestions from participants, the start with Mensa Norway seems like a functional starting point here. Also, it can provide a basis to get down to brass tax about the fundamentals of Norwegian culture and its high-IQ communities, as such. Let’s begin, as per usual, with some softball questions, what are the high-IQ communities available in Norway, whether formal or informal of which you are aware at this time?
Erik Haereid[1]: I am only aware of Mensa Norway, and became a member at age 49, in 2013. I have never been involved in that kind of organization earlier.
Tor Arne Jørgensen[2]: None that I`m aware of today as informal goes, and as formal goes we have only Mensa Norway.
Eivind Olsen[3]: I’ll expose my ignorance even at this first question, and set myself up to receive a proper intellectual beating. I’m not really aware of any other high-IQ society/community in Norway. Sure, there are some international societies that have some Norwegian members, but I don’t have the impression that there’s much activity.
Jacobsen: How much does membership in Mensa Norway cost? Who is a member here? What are some of the demographics of Mensa Norway? How has Mensa Norway been helpful in connecting to the national high-IQ community for each of you?
Haereid: 500 Norwegian kroner a year.
2% of the 2% smartest in Norway are members of Mensa Norway; about 2,000 members out of theoretically 100,000 members. Who are those 2% of the 2%? A fine mixture. Men, women, quite young, quite old, highly educated, no education, a variety of different works, different political views, different moral views, some nice, some not so nice, and so on. From all over the country.
Anyway, I think the 98% other Norwegians that theoretically qualify for Mensa is, on average, other types than those who are members. I know some people, quite a few actually, who would qualify for Mensa but don’t dare to try the test. That’s one difference; the courage, belief in themselves, bigger ego maybe. And I guess Mensans are more occupied with their and other’s IQ, and not especially more intellectual than the other equal intelligent bunch. It’s obviously about making friendship with someone who thinks like yourself, because “no one else does”.
But it’s also about this identification. Some exaggerating being different from the rest, the normal part of the population, because they want to feel better as to intelligence, and then they can claim that they don’t belong among normal people. In other words: I think Mensans feel more odd than equally intelligent people outside Mensa, in average. The focus is IQ and intelligence, or puzzles and brain games, more than using one’s intelligence to something useful in the general society. Maybe. It’s diverse also inside Mensa. I see people there discuss a variety of themes, most daily problems, in ways that people with more normal intelligence wouldn’t. At least not in such an intellectual language. That’s something. I miss more existential discussions, though.
The egos are generally big, but maybe not more among Mensans than others. It’s difficult to say. In Mensa and in general in high IQ communities it’s more specific focus on IQ-measures, intelligence per se and competition between members.
That said, it’s not easy to be different. Many highly intelligent people are treated bad in a universal harsh environment. It’s about normality everywhere.
The national high IQ community is, to me, Mensa. I don’t feel especially welcomed. I think this varies depending on who you ask. To me it’s more about suspicion and subtle attacks. I guess the reason is mixed; I am not very social and inviting as a person. Stubborn. Demanding, I guess. And I score high on unauthorized IQ-tests. That doesn’t sound well in Mensa. It’s also about personal traits, and what you write and how people interpret that. Mensans and people in the high IQ communities are in that respect not different from others.
Jørgensen: I am not a member of Mensa Norway, but within the near future a Mensa membership could be exciting to explore. So by that I leave the follow-up questions to my peers.
Olsen: The membership fee for a full year is 500 NOK (approximately 57 USD or 48 EUR), if you’re 18+. There’s a 50 % discount if you’re under the age of 18, and a 50 % discount if you join from 1st of July until 31st of October. Yes, the discounts stack. Our gender distribution is about 77.5 % male, 22.5 % female, and < 1 % identifying as other/unknown. Approx. 30 % of our members are in the 31–40 age bracket. Our youngest member recently started in their first year at school, and a handful of current members were born before WW2.
Mensa was the first high-IQ society I joined (I was recruited by my fiancée, before we were a couple), and we have several friends here. So far I haven’t really seen the need to pursue more obscure societies. I don’t even know if I would qualify for any of the “higher” societies.
Jacobsen: For the two who aren’t leaders of a national high-IQ group, what seem like some of the issues perceived in running a high-IQ national group? For the one who is a leader of a national group, what are some of the difficulties of bringing together the high-IQ communities under the same umbrella?
Haereid: To unify a lot of un-unifiable single individuals. It’s a lot of different intelligent people with strong individual opinions, and therefore a lot of ME.
To make objective goals with plans that fulfills the original idea of Mensa from the post WW2 when established in 1946; to gather the most intelligent people to create ideas to avoid future wars and holocaust-scenarios. Including racism and social polarization. It seems that this is forgotten or repressed.
Jørgensen: Well it is hard to say as I have no personal experience in leading a high-IQ group, but I would expect from what I have previous seen in the various groups by portraying the role of active leadership, followed by scrutiny with reference to the group-leaders’ personal innovative engagement within the various thematic forums thus creating and securing oversight with reference to group stability.
Olsen: Here in Norway, I guess a big part of the hindrance is that there doesn’t seem to be any other active hiqh-IQ societies here.
Jacobsen: To the qualifications for Mensa Norway, what are the measurement tools demanded for membership? What is the standard deviation? What is available for members of the community? What is the range of scores of the members if this is known and available for public consumption/presentation? Who is the highest scorer on a mainstream intelligence test in Norway?
Haereid: When I got into Mensa, it was the spatial FRT-A test; a timed 20 minutes with 45 items. It’s a generally accepted, proctored test, with the aim of discriminating intelligence between those who are within and outside the top 2% of the population. The scores are treated by a professional psychometrician. The standard deviation used is 15 on that test; IQ>=131.
I think there are many proctored, mainstream tests that can be used, like WAIS. But Eivind knows more about this, I guess.
The scores are not available. The FRT-A and similar tests are built on equality; its purpose is to measure if you have over or under 131 in IQ; if you are among or outside the top 2% of the general population, not to measure your detailed IQ beyond that.
Who is the highest scorer on a mainstream intelligence test in Norway? I would like to hear from Eivind who that is. I don’t know.
Jørgensen: As to the highest scorer on mainstream intelligence tests in Norway I would say Haereid, I would also rank him as the one to beat to reach top spot.
Olsen: We have the same requirements as other Mensa countries. You’ll need to have taken a reputable and recognized test in a supervised / monitored setting. You’ll need a score within the top 2 %, but you’re not required to take the test we provide; several other tests are valid. The test we do provide gives a score in SD 15. When people join based on another test, it’s quite often a WISC or WAIS test administered by a psychologist.
We don’t have any easily available, good statistics of the scores our members have received, except that we are fairly confident they are all within the top 2 %. Most of them join based on the test we provide, and the highest score accessible there is top 1 % (“IQ 135 or higher, at SD 15”). I have taken a non-scientific approach and asked several people I know what their score was, and it seemed to be approximately 50/50 split between 2 % and 1 %.
I don’t know who the highest scorer on any reputable intelligence in Norway is. I believe the usual reputable tests, such as the Wechsler tests, only go up to 160 @ SD15, and I’m sure there must be multiple people attaining that score.
Don’t get me started on inflated IQ scores where one conveniently lists their SD24-score without mentioning the SD and compares it to someone elses SD15-score, or where people get described as “having a higher IQ than Einstein!”…
Jacobsen: The World Genius Directory does seem to demand certification of the tests and the test scores from testees. This can be helpful. As far as I am aware, Mensa International and the Triple Nine Society — and some others — are similarly demanding and, in fact, more stringent with the requirement of mainstream intelligence tests only as opposed to mainstream intelligence tests and alternative tests for admissions. Indeed, if one examines the World Genius Directory, they can see the degrees to which the alternative tests far outnumber the mainstream intelligence test. For example, in terms of the test scores earned and submitted, Erik earned 185 S.D. 15 on the N-VRA80, while Tor earned a 172 S.D. 15 on the Lexiq. How is the culture of Norway on mainstream intelligence tests and alternative tests? How seriously is either taken? How are these incorporated into the international, national, or local organizations having various cutoffs and criteria for membership?
Haereid: Mensa is strict. Not only as to admission, but also respect; there is an anti-alternative IQ-test culture. In Mensa, and I may exaggerate, are these untimed tests, many of them beautiful cognitive challenges with proper or at least quite good norms, seen as severe diseases. But I see some Norwegian mensans on the scoreboards on these alternative tests. That pleases me.
I am among the top scorers on several different alternative tests, in all categories (numerical, verbal and spatial) with high credibility in the high-IQ-environment, through many years (since 2013), and I still get critical questions from some; even though I beat most people with IQ-scores from 160 to 175 (S.D. 15) on mainstream, proctored, accepted tests, like WAIS. Some norms are, obviously, not good. Some are quite good, even though they can’t beat norms on tests like WAIS; it’s not enough data.
It seems that some have fastened in the speed-thing; “intelligence has only to do with speed”. Of course, speed is a factor, and important too. But why not include the kind of tests that has to do with solving complex problems and necessarily take some more time than 20 or 120 minutes? I guess this is debated thoroughly in the psychological environments, but anyway. I am not the only one in the high IQ community that asks this. Of course, there is a significant correlation in IQ, between the mainstream and alternative tests mentioned. To me this is obvious.
Jørgensen: As to the how the general culture of the alternative intelligence tests and its acceptance by reference to its streamline counterpart, the supervised intelligence tests. This by ground of unbalanced relationship for the sake of its professional structure and seriousness rating. Further,o the incorporation of these tests when based on the grounds of validation by relying on one for its confirmation of its counterpart, thus factualized with the following reference to the incorporation of todays standard deviation is set to the basis of the equalization principle.
Olsen: We (Mensa) can only accept scores from reputable tests that are properly normed, and that are taken in a supervised setting. We need to have confidence that you took your own test without getting any help from friends or family. And I’ll admit that I’m somewhat sceptical of the validity and reliability of any test that’s normed based on response from 10–15 people.
Jacobsen: In America, there has been a long-term decline in the considered importance of high-IQ and high-IQ societies; in fact, there’s a continuous decrease over decades of the perceived import of IQ in general. How is this trend, if any, in Norway?
Haereid: That’s interesting. It’s the opposite in Norway. We have a rise in focus, and with the Mozart of Chess Magnus Carlsen in our backyard, its importance is increasing. I don’t know if this is the case within the educational system. Tor Arne could say more about that. In general, it has gained more respect. That’s my impression.
Why is it a decline in America, do you think?
Jørgensen: The obvious response to the question at hand is to only give my support to the notion of decline, based on my personal opinion to have a high intelligence has never been looked upon as a «big deal» in any form or shape, only physical activity is viewed as any proper degree of importance in Norway.
Olsen: Whether high IQ is of importance depends entirely on who you ask. Of course, having high IQ doesn’t make you a better person, it doesn’t guarantee that you’re don’t have any glaringly negative personality issues, and it doesn’t ensure you’ll have great success in life, but there can’t be any doubt that in general higher IQ gives you access to a somewhat better toolbox. Whether you use the tools for anything worthwile is a completely different matter.
I’d also like to mention a comic strip; it’s an goldie oldie from Savage Chickens: https://www.savagechickens.com/2008/12/iq-test.html
Regarding the importance of IQ societies: it is what we make of it. Several of our members consider us to be a social environment for them. And we are that too, but not *only* that. Like pretty much every volunteer organisation, we do what we can with what our volunteers can or will provide. For example, we recently spent some time and effort into writing and sending our answer(s) to an open hearing regarding a new “law of education” here in Norway. The proposed changes to the law would have made it more difficult for gifted children to get an individually adjusted education.
Jacobsen: In terms of the flavours of the high-IQ societies, of which there are many, what seem like some of the overlaps of the styles and contents of Norwegian high-IQ individuals and societies?
Haereid: I think there are many equal traits among high IQ people independent of nation; some general ones, like stubbornness, knowing best, strong opinions, fast (and often wrong) conclusions, feeling alone and isolated, victims of bullying, nerdy, ironic. A winner in one’s own view and a loser in the normal population. This is the same in Norway as anywhere else.
Jørgensen: The general search for innovative commitment within various fields of interest such as politics, technology, and space exploration. Futher more, intelligence testing of varying degree of difficulty in the search for what is possible to achieve considering one`s mental qualities.
Olsen: I know there’s some overlap. Some of our members are also members in one or more other high IQ societies, but I don’t have the impression that it’s something many of our members do. Disclaimer: I don’t have hard facts / numbers to back this up. This is just my gut feeling, after having conversations with several members.
Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, what seem like some of the unique, or nearly distinct, qualities of Norwegian culture mapped onto the high-IQ communities, inasmuch as these exist to various types and degrees?
Haereid: At the moment I can’t come up with any specific.
Generally, Norway is a social democracy, with traditionally a rural population. We are not very social, but kind if people (want to and dare to) learn to know us. We hate small talk, I guess, and fumble when we meet any from abroad that are better than us in being nice to strangers. That’s not one of our strengths. We are not very nice to strangers, who we treat like trespassers; people we don’t know, foreigners, can experience Norwegians as ignorant and rejective. But often it’s shyness, based on a history under suppression. Norwegians can be quite rude, and seemingly lack empathy. It’s not our best trait. But we can also be the best friend if we feel comfort and learn to trust the people around us. Norwegians are intelligent. But it’s not always that visible because of the shyness and introvert behavior; you have to read between the lines. I think Norwegians are complicated, and that includes the highly intelligent ones.
Jørgensen: With that notion in mind from previous question, there is a clear link in order to not undermine their qualities in order to «fit in» with their own, and not overestimate these qualities solely based on their sociocultural perspective within its contextual contemporary momentum.
Olsen: I guess modesty might be a Scandinavian thing; it does seem like several members are afraid that others will know they’re a member. Not because they’re ashamed of the organization, but because they think it might be considered bragging.
Some members are asking if they should put their Mensa membership on their resume / CV, also fearing that it might be seen as bragging.
Personally, I don’t see why it should be a problem that someone finds out you’re a member. For me it boils down to if, how and when I inform people. It’s never the first thing I tell people, unless it’s relevant. If I meet someone in a social setting, I *never* introduce myself as “Eivind Olsen, chair of Mensa Norway”, but I will do that if it’s relevant, for example if I’m being interviewed by media. I don’t even try to argue that “you should listen to me because my IQ score is probably higher than yours” — that’s the quickest path to losing any discussion, really. I don’t flash my membership card unless I have a good reason. One good reason would be when I buy hamburgers at the regular meeting place of my local Mensa chapter, since I will then get a discount.
Jacobsen: What are some of the plans and expected developments for Mensa Norway in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, whether in 2020, 2021, even potentially beyond?
Olsen: All our physical activities were put on hold for a while but we’re now opening up more and more again. We have our annual “national test day” in 2 weeks, and all our proctors have been informed about the extra precautions we are taking, such as ensuring people keep their distance, and making sure there’s plenty of disinfectant available (for external use only). We are still growing, but somewhat slower than we would have expected had this been a non-coronavirus year. Some of our bigger plans have had to slow down due to the situation but we’re hoping we can pick up the lost speed.
Appendix I: Footnotes
[1] Erik Haereid has been a member of Mensa since 2013, and is among the top scorers on several of the most credible IQ-tests in the unstandardized HRT-environment. He is listed in the World Genius Directory. He is also a member of several other high IQ Societies.
Erik, born in 1963, grew up in Oslo, Norway, in a middle class home at Grefsen nearby the forest, and started early running and cross country skiing. After finishing schools he studied mathematics, statistics and actuarial science at the University of Oslo. One of his first glimpses of math-skills appeared after he got a perfect score as the only student on a five hour math exam in high school.
He did his military duty in His Majesty The King’s Guard (Drilltroppen)).
Impatient as he is, he couldn’t sit still and only studying, so among many things he worked as a freelance journalist in a small news agency. In that period, he did some environmental volunteerism with Norges Naturvernforbund (Norwegian Society for the Conservation of Nature), where he was an activist, freelance journalist and arranged ‘Sykkeldagen i Oslo’ twice (1989 and 1990) as well as environmental issues lectures. He also wrote some crime short stories in A-Magasinet (Aftenposten (one of the main newspapers in Norway), the same paper where he earned his runner up (second place) in a nationwide writing contest in 1985. He also wrote several articles in different newspapers, magazines and so on in the 1980s and early 1990s.
He earned an M.Sc. degree in Statistics and Actuarial Sciences in 1991, and worked as an actuary novice/actuary from 1987 to 1995 in several Norwegian Insurance companies. He was the Academic Director (1998–2000) of insurance at the BI Norwegian Business School (1998–2000), Manager (1997–1998) of business insurance, life insurance, and pensions and formerly Actuary (1996–1997) at Nordea in Oslo Area, Norway, a self-employed Actuary Consultant (1996–1997), an Insurance Broker (1995–1996) at Assurance Centeret, Actuary (1991–1995) at Alfa Livsforsikring, novice Actuary (1987–1990) at UNI Forsikring.
In 1989 he worked in a project in Dallas with a Texas computer company for a month incorporating a Norwegian pension product into a data system. Erik is specialized in life insurance and pensions, both private and business insurances. From 1991 to 1995 he was a main part of developing new life insurance saving products adapted to bank business (Sparebanken NOR), and he developed the mathematics behind the premiums and premium reserves.
He has industry experience in accounting, insurance, and insurance as a broker. He writes in his IQ-blog the online newspaper Nettavisen. He has personal interests among other things in history, philosophy and social psychology.
In 1995, he moved to Aalborg in Denmark because of a Danish girl he met. He worked as an insurance broker for one year, and took advantage of this experience later when he developed his own consultant company.
In Aalborg, he taught himself some programming (Visual Basic), and developed an insurance calculation software program which he sold to a Norwegian Insurance Company. After moving to Oslo with his girlfriend, he was hired as consultant by the same company to a project that lasted one year.
After this, he became the Manager of business insurance in the insurance company Norske Liv. At that time he had developed and nurtured his idea of establishing an actuarial consulting company, and he did this after some years on a full-time basis with his actuarial colleague. In the beginning, the company was small. He had to gain money, and worked for almost two years as an Academic Director of insurance at the BI Norwegian Business School.
Then the consultant company started to grow, and he quitted BI and used his full time in NIA (Nordic Insurance Administration). This was in 1998/99, and he has been there since.
NIA provides actuarial consulting services within the pension and life insurance area, especially towards the business market. They was one of the leading actuarial consulting companies in Norway through many years when Defined Benefit Pension Plans were on its peak and companies needed evaluations and calculations concerning their pension schemes and accountings. With the less complex, and cheaper, Defined Contribution Pension Plans entering Norway the last 10–15 years, the need of actuaries is less concerning business pension schemes.
Erik’s book from 2011, Benektelse og Verdighet, contains some thoughts about our superficial, often discriminating societies, where the virtue seems to be egocentrism without thoughts about the whole. Empathy is lacking, and existential division into “us” and “them” is a mental challenge with major consequences. One of the obstacles is when people with power — mind, scientific, money, political, popularity — defend this kind of mind as “necessary” and “survival of the fittest” without understanding that such thoughts make the democracies much more volatile and threatened. When people do not understand the genesis of extreme violence like school killings, suicide or sociopathy, asking “how can this happen?” repeatedly, one can wonder how smart man really is. The responsibility is not limited to let’s say the parents. The responsibility is everyone’s. The day we can survive, mentally, being honest about our lives and existence, we will take huge leaps into the future of mankind.
[2] Eivind Olsen is the current chair of Mensa Norway. He has scored “135 or higher” (SD15) on the test used by Mensa Norway. He has also previously been tested with WISC-R and Raven’s. He recently took the MOCA test and aced it. When he’s not busy herding cats, he works in IT. He sometimes spends time with family and friends.
Eivind Olsen is a member of Mensa Norway since 2014, having filled various roles since then (chair of Mensa Bergen regional group, national test coordinator, deputy board member, and now chair).
He was born in Bergen, Norway, in 1976, but has lived in a few other places in Norway, including military service in the far north of the country.
Since he got bored at school and didn’t have any real idea what he wanted to do, he took vocational school where he studied electronics repair. He has worked in a different field ever since (IT operations).
He is currently residing in Bergen, Norway, with his significant other, 2+2 offspring, 2 cats and a turtle.
[3] Tor Arne Jørgensen is a member of 50+ high IQ societies, including World Genius Directory, NOUS High IQ Society, 6N High IQ Society just to name a few. He has several IQ scores above 160+ sd15 among high range tests like Gift/Gene Verbal, Gift/Gene Numerical of Iakovos Koukas and Lexiq of Soulios.
Tor Arne was also in 2019, nominated for the World Genius Directory 2019 Genius of the Year — Europe. He is the only Norwegian to ever have achieved this honor. He has also been a contributor to the Genius Journal Logicon, in addition to being the creater of toriqtests.com, where he is the designer of now eleven HR-tests of both verbal/numerical varient.
His further interests are related to intelligence, creativity, education developing regarding gifted students. Tor Arne has an bachelor`s degree in history and a degree in Practical education, he works as a teacher within the following subjects: History, Religion, and Social Studies.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/10/05
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, let’s open the discussion with the election and lead into healthcare. Rick, I believe you had some thoughts on the election. We had some discussions before.
Rick Rosner: Kirk wanted to go deeper than that. Right before we started taping, he wanted to talk about deeper causes because everybody has had a stomach full of the more obvious proximate causes, but I believe deeper trends help generate the situate we’re in.
Kirk Kirkpatrick: Yes, I think he’s right. If I can start the conversation, my background is rather diverse considering most Americans. I lived in 8 countries. I have probably have been to every country in the northern hemisphere. I speak several languages.
My wife is a native Chinese. I tend to take a more international look at things. But when I returned back to living in the United States, one the things that struck me was the way people think they are entitled to hold an opinion.
And they confuse the entitlement of holding an opinion with the veracity of the opinion. In other words, “I have a right to hold an opinion, and that means you need to consider this opinion as valid.” So, I see, if I can give an example.
If I had never been to LA and I was speaking with Rick, and we were having a discussion about Los Angeles, and Rick said to me, “You know, Kirk, I grew up here. I lived here all of my life.” I would start deferring to him about finding out what Los Angeles was like.
I would be the last person in the world to start arguing with him about a place I had never been to before, and that he happened to live in and had grown up in, and is a rational, intelligent human being. Do you understand my point?
Rosner: Yup.
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: And I agree with it. I’ve been calling it “super empowerment.” Where a lot of our tech and social media give people reinforcement of the idea that whatever you believe must be the truth, you’re entitled to spread that truth by whatever means necessary.
Kirkpatrick: The evangelists, I think that’s a very good point. The way I put it, or the succinct way I say it, “A Google search does not an expert make.” Because you Googled an article and read it doesn’t even tell me that you 1) had the background to understand the article that you read or 2), and more importantly, to validate the article and find out whether or not the author knew what he was talking about.
Rosner: I heard on NPR yesterday, day before. Some country or entity wants to install something before you’re allowed to comment on the article. You have to take a quiz on the article to make sure you even read it and understood it.
Kirkpatrick: [Laughing].
Jacobsen: [Laughing] That’s very good.
Kirkpatrick: I can give you a perfect example that will illustrate it excellently. If you remember a while back, we did a deal, or I say we were part of a deal, with Iran to try to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.
While that was going on, I had a phone call from a woman who claimed to be from my congress, which I don’t believe. But she said she was. I’ll quote her as quickly or as accurately as I can. She wanted to know my opinion on “Obama’s deal with Iran.”
And those were her exact words. I said to her, “Ma’am, can I ask you a couple of questions first?” She said, “Yes.” I said, “What is your opinion on Obama’s deal with Iran?” She said, “I don’t like it.”
Rosner: Sure.
Kirkpatrick: I said, “Have you been to Iran?” She said, “No.” I said, “Can you name 5 cities in Iran?” She said, “No.” I said, “How about 3?” She said, “No.” I said, “Can you name the countries that border Iran?” She said, “No.” I said, “Then, what is it that bothers you about this deal?” She said, “It threatens Israel.” I said, “That sounds reasonable. Can you name 5 cities in Israel?” She said, “No.” I said, “Can you name 3?”
She said, “No.” I said, “Can you name the countries that border Israel?” She said, “No.” I said, “Have you ever visited the place or been there?” She said, “No.”
I said, “Then allow me to answer your question.” I said, “Firstly, I don’t know any deal that Obama did with Iran, but I know a deal that the P5+1 nations did with Iran under the auspices of the Security Council at the UN. If that’s the one that you’re referring to, I’ve been to Iran and can easily name 5 cities in the place, and can tell you every country that touches it.”
I continued, “And on top of that, I lived in Israel. So, 5 cities are really easy. I can tell you every country that touches Israel. I have been to all of them. And in spite of all of this, I still don’t know enough about this arms deal to form an opinion one way or another. So, the operative question for me is, ‘Why do you care what I think? And why do you even have an opinion?’”
Of course, she hung the phone up.
Rosner: Nice.
Kirkpatrick: That’s my point. You’re going to have an opinion on an arms deal that you incorrectly describe to these people, and it’s an arms deal! You know, it’s like, who are you?
Rosner: What she characterized as an arms deal was the nuclear weapons development negotiation going on, I guess, right?
Kirkpatrick: She meant the P5+1 nations’ deal with Iran. But my point is, you’re going to form an opinion about something like that. You’re not bothering to educate yourself? Not knowing the countries that border Iran?
It isn’t that advanced. Let’s put it this way, if Rick and I were talking, and Rick put an equation in front of me that said, “y+ 8=4,” and I looked at him and said, “You can’t add letters to numbers.” I’m not sure he’d take my opinion on math very seriously.
Rosner: Yes, Yes.
Kirkpatrick: That’s the point I’m trying to make. This is what I call the “American Disease.” Where because we have TV, cable news, and Google, we think, “Oh, I’ll Google this.” The American becomes unaware of the fact that the guy who wrote the article doesn’t know any more about the subject than he does. He’s writing down what somebody else has said, over and over again.
Rosner: I’ve watched a lot of the middle to Left-leaning news. I watched a lot of MSNBC. I reluctantly watch CNN. With Fox News, at least you know, you’re getting biased news. CNN presents itself as news and tries to be even handed, or at least they present the appearance of being even handed.
That involves assembling these panels of 6 or 8 people. Most of whom either don’t know what they’re talking about or who are dispensing fairly pure bullshit. And this was a staple of coverage during the election. CNN has stayed with that format.
All of the little tricks they learned about drawing in eyeballs during the election. These cross-partisan panels. People on Trump’s side. People on the other side. Countdown clocks, town halls, they’ve kept it all. It’s as if the election is still going on.
It is endless presentations of uninformed and/or deliberately misleading opinion.
Kirkpatrick: Yes, I have to give you credit here because I can’t stomach any of it. I watch no, absolutely zero, television news. So, you understand, I can’t do it.
Rosner: I used to write jokes for late night TV. Which meant that I…
Kirkpatrick: you had to…
Rosner: Yes, I had to be informed. I’ve kept the habit. Much to the detriment of my blood pressure.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Kirkpatrick: Here’s what I advise my friends who come and ask me, because my news is a little tough, in that, I speak multiple languages. I am able to read Het Parool in Holland or Die Welt in German. So, I get a little different viewpoint.
But what I tell them is to go to Google News, if they go down to Google News at the bottom, there’s a link that says, “Other languages.” Or there’s about 20 overseas editions of Google News that are English, but presented from the perspective of the person in that country.
So, for example, India has an English Google News and Australia has an English Google News, Israel has an English Google News, and South Africa has an English Google News. If you click that, then there’s every article that you’ll never see in the United States.
Rosner: That’s really good to know. I get sick of my three stupid go-to sources. The ones that I can stomach. I go through it pretty fast. I’m unnecessarily informed after going through it.
Kirkpatrick: They all have to buy it. That’s why I say, “If you get a bunch of them, you read them in the middle.” The other thing I tell people is that if you want to, for example, tell me about Germany and the problem they’re having, or perhaps not having, with the immigrants, and then try to sit there and argue with me.
First thing I’m going to do. I’m going to research it in the German press. Because when I lived in Europe, sometimes, you can see the European press writing in glee about a problem The United of States was having.
When you look down into the problems, it wasn’t nearly as bad. There was a lot added to it because they wanted that. That goes in all directions for any country. I’m not blaming Europeans or anybody else.
Rosner: I had a discussion with a super conservative friend about Sweden being the rape capital of Europe because of the Muslims. My buddy is an artist, which means he’s using his eyes and hands all day but his ears are free.
He pipes in ten hours a day of conservative talk about this stuff. He is very informed on all the conservative talking points. The story about this rape in Sweden. You poke at it a little bit. It starts to fall apart because it starts turning into mush where you really have to do a lot of research on it.
It’s all the parts, but you’re not left with anything because now you’re left with uncertainty. One reason that Sweden seems rapey is that they have a super inclusive definition of sexual assault that can include things such as micro aggressions.
Kirkpatrick: It is worse than that, okay? Now, let me give you an example, my company, the one I am the CEO of, has about 15 employees who has 10 on contract. We build countrywide telecommunication systems, but we generally use the manpower of whoever is buying our system to build it.
So, let’s get to Sweden, I’m talking to some young thing in the bar. I tell her I’m the CEO of a telecommunication company. Then we go to bed because she thinks I’m hot. In the next morning, I get a phone call.
I say, “I’ve got to do this and that. It’s my accountant. I don’t have a secretary.” She asks, “How big is your company?” I reply, “We have five employees and ten contractors.” Now, she thought I was this rich Apple type CEO, but, in fact, now she found out that my company is not as big as she thought it was.
That’s right; I deceived her. That’s rape after the fact. That’s what Julian Assange has been accused of; that exact thing. That he lied to the woman about who he was. I’m not going to show what they do about it, but I don’t think that that’s right in the other direction.
But it’s the same thing when you’re talking to a conservative about the crime rate in the UK. If I raise my fist to you in the UK, then I’ve assaulted you, even though I’ve never hit you. In the United States, that’s not a violent crime and in the UK it is.
But I think that’s my point in the case of discussing this about Sweden. I will move this on social media. This will come up and almost lead into the conversation. A guy who is not only Swedish, but he lives there. He’s living there now. He’s never lived any place else.
I’ll still have Americans who argue with him. Sure, that’s much more.
Rosner: Yes, so, in a deeper sense or looking at its people feeling super empowered, at the same time, they’re almost more manipulable than at a lot of other points in history.
Kirkpatrick: Does that mean the Dunning-Kruger effect?
Rosner: Yes, I love that thing. I tweeted about that during the election so many times. To explain to everybody, the Dunning-Kruger Effect, let me explain: in movies, there are magical characters. Often, in movies, dumb people have a special wisdom. They know they’re dumb.
Forrest Gump, he’s retarded. He’s got an IQ 70. Yet, he’s full of this wisdom, a deeper wisdom that goes beyond his academic difficulties. That’s in the movies. In real life, the Dunning-Kruger Effect is that somebody who’s dumb is also dumb about their level of dumbness.
So, a lot of people who are dumb think they’re super smart because they’re too dumb to realize that they’re dumb. There’s nothing magic about them. There’s no deep wisdom about them. There’s a deep assurance that they know what’s what.
They’ve been catered to by these news sources. Fox being the first one to it. I’m not sure my understanding is completely accurate, but it is my understanding. That 30-40 years ago conservative think-tanks started researching how to win people.
They realized that dumb, colourful, easy branding, easy issues were the way to grab low information – meaning dumb – voters, and yank them around. They started by that. Anyway, Fox News has been going for 37 years. People have their brain tenderized.
They are super confident about what they think, but they’re not good in the head.
Kirkpatrick: I think you’re giving them a little too much credit.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Kirkpatrick: Let me tell you what mean by that. I think this is more Rupert saying that there’s the gullible objects. First, what I’ll say is this, we say it about CNN and MSNBC. I think MSNBC tried to be FOX a little bit.
But what I would say is most of the American media and a lot of European media are biased towards sensationalists. If it bleeds, it leads. They want to be sensational. CNN is the worst with this, but Fox is appealing to a specific constituency that Rupert Murdoch realized CNN wasn’t available to feed these people.
When I was dealing with a man who was very close in the group, I helped set up Sky Latin America for him down in Latin America. He told me that they had brought in a bunch of marketers who’d do a marketing plan for Sky Latin American.
The groups produced a document about a 158 pages long. Rupert wasn’t there. Rupert came down. My friend whose name happens to be Scott, came in to say you may have this marketing plan in his hand, which they put together.
He said, “I handed it to Rupert.” As I see Rupert glance at the cover, he said, “This hand never stopped moving towards the next page.” Finally, he dropped it. He looked at him. He said, “Scott, you buy the football. You put dishes on the roofs. That’s the marketing.” You get it?
I would say deep understanding of these markets. 80% of the decisions when multi-channel video is made on the basis of sports program in Latin America; soccer is everything. So, Rupert was much more fundamental than Scott was.
Guys, it’s really simple. These guys want football, buy the rights, then y’all run to you to get it, okay? Same with FOX. You could out that conservative being this The people will have confirmation by us. They want that to be right and will turn you into the exclusivity of everybody.
Rosner: I can’t get me to shut up about the size of the American population. 325-329 million people You got the dumbest half of the country. Then half of that again is the dumbest half of the dumbest half. That’s still 80 million people.
Kirkpatrick: FOX has this subscribership of about 30 million. So, that’s not even half of that, but look at how much money they’ve made.
Rosner: By the way, this is little off what you were saying, where the coverage is people who are on the Left. They lost the election, lost the government. All the branches feel pretty angst and bereft.
Perhaps, beyond even the immediate or midterm consequences of the laws, I think it’s hard on people’s sadness that the coverage took the form of sports coverage during the election. So, it’s not the political implications, but there’s this emotional bond you have with your political team now.
The way that people either love or hate you the way they do with the Patriots.
Kirkpatrick: You definitely have this, but I think there’s ignorance. I know that there’s a lot of – I didn’t say – angst because we lost the election, but this in my opinion is fundamentally different. I’ll tell you why for a couple of reasons. Number one, as I told you, I’ve lived more than half of my life in other countries.
You might imagine other countries follow American politics closely. The reason is because it affects their lives. But until the second George Bush election, I had never seen that end up with the American people. What I mean by that is people saying, “I don’t like your government at all, but I think the Americans are best people who work.” You understand what I mean?
Rosner: We’re starting to get hit hard with our own brushes.
Kirkpatrick: Yes. After the second George Bush election, people started saying, “Straighten this out, if that is the way you are, then, maybe, the American people are not who we thought they were.” I don’t think the average American understands the picture that we started painting for over the border.
If I can give you an example, did either of you gentlemen see the movie ‘The American Sniper’?
Jacobsen: Nope.
Rosner: No.
Kirkpatrick: I haven’t either, on purpose. But I know about the scene because I went out and looked at it, because of the description of the scene. The first scene of this movie they’re attacking a neighborhood in Iraq. I believe it’s Iraq.
The red’s a woman in a Hijab and Abaya, where she’s got a 10-year-old kid.
Rosner: I heard about that scene too.
Kirkpatrick: You’ve heard about it? So, he shoots the woman. The whole time he’s sitting there saying, “Please don’t throw the grenade, please don’t throw.” But she starts to throw and he kills her. The little 10-year-old kid picks up the grenade and he starts back with this.
Of course, to make it more dramatic, his partner says, “If you’re wrong about this, you’re going to go to prison.” And, of course, he hesitates, the boy throws the grenade, but it doesn’t make it all the way to Americans. So, he saved their lives.
I say to people, “If you watch this scene in this movie, the only thing about the movie is that you convert the American soldier into a Soviet Union informant and make the woman and the boy Afghans, how would you feel? Would you feel the Soviet guy was a hero because he is saving the other Soviet soldiers from this evil Afghani woman and her child, as they’re invading their country?”
Rosner: Not so, much.
Kirkpatrick: Not so much, what’s different about the situation with Chris, Scott? We’re invading their country. They’re defending their homes the same way. Yet, now, he’s a hero and the whole world looks and wonders.
Let me give you a second example to chock the crap out of them, my wife is Chinese. She became an American citizen. She applied for American Citizenship. They had a nationalization ceremony. 80 people got their citizenship. I went to it.
While she went to what should have been a solemn ceremony, they had a big screen in the centre of the room that would pop down when they played the national anthem. People stood up. After they said their oaths and stuff, they handed out to these little American flags.
After the ceremony, the screen comes back down, then they start playing Proud to be an American, the country music song. A woman walks on stage swinging a huge American flag back and forth. She yells at these guys and says, “Now, new American citizens stand up, wave your flag and sing.”
Now, I’m sure my wife has never heard this song before. She’s sitting right in front of me. They (new immigrants) were sitting together. But my point was when the song is over, of course, the 80 guys stood up and smiled and waved their flags.
It was as soon as it was over my wife not knowing what she was doing looks over at me six rows across the room and says out loud, “Just like IN CHINA, So Communist.”
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Kirkpatrick: Guys, that’s exactly what I was thinking. I spent time behind the Iron Curtain. I was thinking “This looks eerily like in Moscow.” What do you mean stand up, wave your flag and sing? Is that an order? I never did anything for it. Scott, you’re Canadian, right?
Jacobsen: I am, yes.
Kirkpatrick: Yet, can you imagine a lumberjack in the middle of the nationalization ceremony?
Jacobsen: [Laughing] If on the condition that it was a replay of a Monty Python song.
Kirkpatrick: Oh, right, right. And you don’t have the guy doing Doug & Bob McKenzie impressions from the podium. No, I can end this by saying my team I hired him out of Moscow. He grew up in the Soviet Union and has lived in the US for 5 years. ,
He came to me and said “One of the big differences between the Soviet Union and the US is that we have understood that our propaganda was all bullshit, “But you guys believe yours!”
Rosner: Because it comes out of an earnest people because the basic American values are not cynical. The 20th century marked the decay of American institutions that people used to believe in wholeheartedly: the church, Boy Scouts, patriotism, and so on. Everything got torched.
That stuff worked great for a while. So, it’s easy to sell people on stuff that used to work without examination and qualification. I remember in the ‘60s being taught critical thinking skills in elementary school.
There was a lesson on the nine ways advertising manipulates you. It was good to have that.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Rosner: If that is still taught, but I know that we’re in the middle of a bunch of new technology and new social media, that makes us vulnerable because we haven’t learned the considerate bullshit. We’re still virgins.
When I worked in bars, one of my jobs was walking through the bar and looking for underage people who’d snuck in one way or another. One way I found them was I’d look for the clump of lame guys over there night after night without picking anybody up.
If there were several of those gathered around somebody, I knew at the center of the cluster of lame-Os would be an underage girl who had yet to bullshit. She didn’t have the experience yet on how to detect bullshit, how to push it away.
We are in that situation, where there’s all this new stuff. It looks shiny and powerful and makes us feel powerful. It makes us manipulable.
Jacobsen: Then maybe a closure question for the two of you: do you think social media, the new technology, amplifies the American Disease as you call it, Kirk, or the Super Empowered population as you call it, Rick?
Kirkpatrick: I think we’re both right. What I mean by this is I think it amplifies the American Disease, but as Rick implies, it’s probably going to be solved. In the end, it’s probably going to be the closest to the point that, as he mentioned before, you’re going to pull something and it’s going to pop up.
Instead, I’ve marked this is incorrect for anybody who might read.
Rosner: I totally agree with that. It takes a while to get resistant. When people first had cell phones, only 10% of the population had cell phones. We saw a lot of behaviour because it made everybody else pissed off: talking really loud on your phone in the line at the bank or in a restaurant.
Over time, people calmed down with that. Now, the new prop is texting all over the place, in crosswalks or while driving. Eventually, people will calm down with that and will learn to make better use of technology and understand. They will be less swayed by it. The trouble is by that time. It will be two or three new ways of tech to mess with people, but I remain optimistic.
Kirkpatrick: I do too.
Rosner: Is that a good place to end right there?
Jacobsen: That is a good line to end on, I think.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/10/05
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s take some of the fundamental research of recent, what are key terms in the analysis of the quality of government?
Roberto Stefan Foa: “Quality” of government – or “good governance” as it is also termed – is fundamentally a normative concept, that gets used to describe what features of our political institutions might be considered desirable. As such, there is no single agreed definition, and it is more of an umbrella term.
That said, absence of corruption, congruity between citizen preferences and policy outcomes, quality of public services, rule of law, or political stability are typically the things authors have in mind. There are obviously differences between these, so it can be thought of as multidimensional, rather than operating along a single spectrum.
Jacobsen: The Centre for the Future of Democracy was founded in January 2020. Its inaugural Global Satisfaction with Democracy 2020 report examined some of the indices of “satisfaction” with democracy writ large. What were some of the most startling findings in the midst of the research? It’s a 60-page report.
Foa: The main finding is that there has been a sustained decline in citizen satisfaction with democracy across the world over the last generation, especially in the United States, Southern Europe, and Latin America. By using a dataset that has been compiled by my colleague Andrew Klassen, which combines over 4 million respondents from over 25 datasets across all major world regions, we were able to get the most comprehensive overview on this issue to date.
The second finding, however, is that some parts of the world have bucked this trend. In much of Asia, for example, people are fairly satisfied with their political institutions, so to some extent, the “crisis” of democratic legitimacy is also simply a crisis of the West. And in sub-Saharan Africa, though satisfaction has fallen since the 1990s, it remains comparatively high relative to other regions of the world. While the headline finding of global democratic dissatisfaction received the most press attention, the report itself sought to highlight these differences, not least of all as until now most empirical research is based on western democracies.
Jacobsen: We have been seen concerns about Brexit, about inept handling of Covid-19, about populism and national reactionaries in much of the West, and the crumbling of infrastructure in several societies. Do these factors emerge in some of the data analyses? For example, we have seen more democracies in the world at any time in the history of the world now. So, I would not necessarily expect a massive drop in the number of democracies. Rather, I would predict a slowing or a declining of the rate of the institutionalization of democratic systems in previous autocratic or theocratic societies with said realities.
Foa: The data in the January report only public examined satisfaction with democracy and not the “health” of democracy in a broader sense. For example, we are not looking at the health of liberal democratic institutions, such as freedom of the courts or of the press. It is not that those things are not important, but rather that they are already covered very well by other projects, such as Freedom House or V-Dem. And there is already a very vigorous debate about whether the world is currently undergoing a democratic recession, and if so, whether that should be seen as a temporary plateau in the adoption and spread of democracy or if it is the start of a more profound reversal. But that’s not the focus of our January report. Academic research is a collective enterprise, so you have to focus on the areas where you are able to make an original contribution.
So instead the contribution of the report was deliberately very narrow – just to examine democratic legitimacy, measured via the indicators for which truly comprehensive comparative data are available. That is less a measure of the health of democratic institutions, and more a measure of how well citizens feel they are performing in delivering the other outputs citizens care about, such as public services, rule of law, and accountability in office.
That’s an important metric, though, because if citizens do not feel that democracies are delivering then it augurs badly for the stability and consolidation of democracy going forwards. While it is possible to have a democracy in which civil liberties are generally respected, but which are losing the faith of citizens, it may not be a sustainable equilibrium in the long term. If you look at countries like Venezuela in the 1990s, there was widespread disillusionment with the political system even though the country had been a liberal democracy for four decades. Then Chávez was elected, and began to chip away at political rights and liberties. More recently we’ve seen the same thing in many western societies, and that has foreshadowed the rise of populism, so we need to see it as a warning indicator of potential instability.
Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, another facet is the decades-long view on the “satisfaction” with the level of democracy or democratic participation in societies, which leads to some questions about the international perspective or the global view on democratic participation and satisfaction. How pleased or satisfied are citizens in each region of the world with democracy as an idea?
Foa: There are huge differences by region, while as I say was one of the key messages from our January work. The “crisis of democratic legitimacy” that we see today is disproportionately concentrated in specific regions, such as Latin America, Southern Europe, and the United States. Of course, those regions contain a significant proportion of the world’s democratic citizenry, so that means there is also a “global” crisis in a very real sense.
Jacobsen: Are there countries in the world in which the citizen population do not like democracy, do not see it as an ideal?
Foa: Back in the 1990s, when global comparative survey research was still in its infancy, scholars noticed that majorities in every country agreed with the statement that “democracy” is the “best way to govern the country”. That was seen as proof that liberal democracy had emerged as the only remaining legitimate form of governance, and fit with the Zeitgeist of the times.
But the problem with that conclusion is the ambiguity inherent the term “democracy” itself. It is what Walter Bryce Gallie had called an “essentially contested concept,” in that is interpreted very differently across different regions and within different ideologies. To give a very simple example, the country which in the 1990s had the lowest public support for democracy as a system of governance was Russia, where “democracy” was associated with the country’s anarchic transition from communism. Today, by contrast, a much higher proportion of Russians say they are “satisfied with democracy”, but they have in mind the system of “managed” or illiberal democracy set in place by Vladimir Putin. So that is hardly evidence of support for liberal democracy, in the western sense of the term, even if it is more pluralistic than the system of Soviet authoritarianism that prevailed in the 1980s.
More recently scholars have become a great deal more attentive to this issue, and there have been some innovations in survey design to attempt to tease out differing understandings of democracy. There is also good research on how those vary across the world, such as the work of Doh Chull Shin at the Center for the Study of Democracy at UC Irvine using the Asian Barometer surveys. But I still think comparative survey research has a long way to go on this issue. For example, comparative survey projects are only now starting to do bring in items examining “populist” conceptions of democracy, for example based on the principle of the “will of the people” or the denigration of political elites. Scholars of populism have examined this for decades, but somehow it never permeated through to the broader comparative survey community.
Finally, though, I think there is a more fundamental problem in making inferences about citizen support for democracy, which goes to the root of the assumptions inherent in survey research as a field. While survey respondents may have well-formulated opinions about their own lives, most people don’t have deep or fixed theories about political concepts. There is a longstanding tendency among political scientists to over-estimate the degree to which citizens are literate and fluent in political ideas. But since the classic work of Philip Converse in the 1960s, we know that isn’t true: people may have intuitions about certain issues, but those can be fairly shallow and labile. Perhaps one of the reasons why political scientists failed to anticipate the rise of populism, was an overly strong inference from responses to survey items, as the example of “support for democracy” above illustrates. Often people have a vague sense of what prevailing norms or socially desirable responses are – but if those are skin deep, then they can alter rapidly when a society undergoes a dramatic change in the climate of ideas.
Jacobsen: Are there nations of the globe where the citizenry love democracy in spite of known or perceived flaws in the system, the leadership, the laws, and the institutions?
Foa: Yes, there are.This is something we generally observe in transitional democracies, where citizens are still fresh with the euphoria of democratic transition and the demise of an autocratic regime that was widely seen to be corrupt, oppressive, and illegitimate. In such cases, citizens are prepared to forgive the flaws and failures of their democratic institutions. So we see that today in Southeast Asia (e.g. Malaysia or Indonesia), as well as sub-Saharan Africa.
Secondly, it is still fundamentally true for many western democracies, insofar as many citizens who are frustrated or dissatisfied with the functioning of democratic institutions in practice still desire such institutions to function better. So for that reason, low levels of citizen satisfaction with democracy do not in and of themselves portend a systemic crisis. But the issue in my mind is how stable it is to have a society in which citizens desire a functioning democracy, but “really-existing” democratic institutions seem to be structurally incapable of reform. Something has to give – and the risk is that sooner or later that feeling turns into something more destructive, a desire to tear down the status quo and upset existing institutions, rather than implement gradualistic improvements.
Jacobsen: Is there dial relationship between populism, as in negative populism such as ethnic nationalism or some such thing, and democracy in which the increase in one, as a principle, tends to lead to declines in the other?
Foa: Actually, I don’t think that is a simple relationship. There are liberal forms of nationalism, such as that which swept across Eastern Europe following the collapse of communism. And not all forms of populism are authoritarian, though there is obviously a relationship between the two.
Just as importantly, however, it is important to remember that many forms of authoritarianism derive their legitimacy from being explicitly anti-populist. This was clearly the case for the dictatorships in Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s, which saw themselves as vanguards against democratic populism, as well as more recent military coups in countries such as Turkey, Pakistan or Thailand. The late political scientist Guillermo O’Donnell referred to these as forms of “bureaucratic” authoritarianism, as in contrast say to fascist or communist regimes which legitimated their rule by claiming to represent “the people”, they did so by claims to technocratic competence and political stability. One avenue historically by which populism leads to authoritarianism is democratic erosion when populists are afraid of losing office, and there is an extensive recent literature on this following the “populist wave” of 2016 to date. But another has been in the reaction to populist excesses by societal elites, and that probably merits greater awareness.
Jacobsen: Do post-colonial politics play a role in satisfaction with democracy, e.g., Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the United States, and Australia?
Foa: Well, most of the countries you list there are former British colonies, which either inherited their democratic institutions directly from colonial governors, in the case of Australasia or Canada, or developed democratic institutions based on the inspiration of English radicals, in the case of the United States. These are also countries in which democratic institutions and national identity have been fairly closely intertwined, and historically that provided a baseline legitimacy to democratic institutions, so in those cases there are limits to how far a politician can go in making explicitly authoritarian appeals.
Jacobsen: Men leading countries in the rule rather than the exception. A type of male leader has been seen more and called strongman or strongmen leadership. What characterizes it? Who represent it? Why are these threats to democratic ideals?
Foa: I don’t think a “strongman” leader necessarily has to be male – there are plenty of examples of strong female leaders, from Margaret Thatcher to Indira Gandhi – though I suppose the attributes of “strength” or “decisiveness” are probably more strongly associated with a certain understanding of masculinity.
But at any rate, I think the reason why such “strongman” leadership has been appealing in many developing democracies is linked to the lack of strength – the weakness – of the state itself. It is sometimes said in politics that institutions should be strong, so that individuals do not have to be. The flipside of that, is that when institutions are weak, people look for “strong” leaders to take their place.
I think that is a very important and neglected explanation for the rise of authoritarian populism in developing democracies today, and I am working on a new article on this currently. If we look at many new democracies in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, or the former communist bloc, the period of democratic transition has been accompanied by a steady erosion of the state’s basic prerogative to provide rule of law, accountability, and fair access to services. In Brazil, the homicide rate has soared by six times since the 1980s, reaching a peak in the year before Bolsonaro was elected president. In Russia in the 1990s, crime and corruption became rampant, while public salaries stopped being paid. In India, the political system was mired in corruption scandals in the years before Narendra Modi was elected prime minister. So it is not surprising that when citizens see signs of dysfunction around them, they will be attracted by outsider “strongman” politicians who say they will drain the swamp, take back control, and restore order. In many developing democracies, this appeal to restore order is at least as important as appeals to identarian politics.
Jacobsen: Do you believe this is the end of the democratic century or not? This would oppose certain visions of the world of some inevitable march towards progress. What are the indicators of this?
Foa: For context, that is a reference to an article Yascha and I wrote in 2018 in Foreign Affairs; for which the final assigned title was The End of the Democratic Century. In the end I quite liked the heading, in that there’s an oblique reference there to Hobsbawn’s “short” twentieth century, from 1914–1989 – a period that saw both the “second wave” of democratisation after World War II and the “third wave” in Southern Europe, Latin America, and eventually Eastern Europe – and of course Fukuyama’s End of History thesis.
But when we talk about the “end of the democratic century” we are not saying that the world is about to descend into autocracy, as some people might misinterpret it. Rather the core idea there is about what we can know based on the past and whether it still allows us to make inferences going forward. In many ways, the twentieth century has an exceptional period, in which western democracies were economically and culturally dominant and played a key role in spreading democratic institutions throughout the world. So now as we enter a new century in which this is no longer the case, we need to re-examine the question of whether the established relationships between economic prosperity and democratisation will continue to hold. Now, it might well be that those theories will be vindicated. But already there are other signs that the relationship is changing: compare the fates of democracy movements in Venezuela, Hong Kong or Iran to those of Chile, Korea, or Turkey in the 1970s to 1990s, which could rely upon extensive international linkage and support.
So this is really an epistemological issue more than anything else. Almost all of the theories – and most of the data – we have in comparative politics about democratisation are based on this short period of time, going back to the early twentieth century. That’s an important scope condition. We simply don’t yet know how well predictions based on data from this period will hold up in a world in which western powers are no longer dominant, and liberal democracy is not the only form of governance among the most economically developed powers. Of course, they might do. The point is, we don’t really know.
On a similar note, the same holds for an earlier piece we wrote in the Journal of Democracy, in which we introduced the notion of “democratic deconsolidation”. I think there was a widespread misconception that somehow we were conjecturing that democracies across the world were about to collapse, not least of all as the piece got caught up in the wave of debate over U.S. democratic stability that followed Donald J. Trump’s election in 2016. But what we actually wrote was something far more nuanced – namely that the conditions for consolidation, or certainty about the future of democratic stability, might be eroding, such that in the future we wouldn’t be able to assert with confidence that currently democratic countries will remain so indefinitely. Ultimately, that is a claim about what we don’t know: we tended to assume that countries that have been democratic for a certain duration of time, one generation say, had almost no chance of backsliding away from democracy. So this is an argument about the end of the “consolidation paradigm” as a way of thinking about democratisation.
Jacobsen: What is secularization? How does this play a role in some of the analyses of democracy, autocracy, authoritarianism, and the like?
Foa: It depends on your definition. Secularisation in its broadest sense, as Weber’s “disenchantment” of the world, does not necessarily produce democratic outcomes – after all, there are secular authoritarian regimes, just as there are longstanding democracies in religiously devout societies. Once you take away divine legitimation as a justication to exercise authoritarian rule, there still remain secular alternatives such as the nation state, historical progress, or claims to technocratic competence.
On the other hand if we think of secularisation in a narrower sense, as the distantiation of the secular and the religious realms, with the notion that religion should be confined to the private sphere while the public sphere, then there is both a conceptual and an historical link to democratisation.
Historically that was a very important moment in the emergence of western democracy, because you had a period after the sectarian conflicts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries following which religiously-divided countries such as England or the Netherlands had to find new means to govern. And conceptually, once you “desacralise” political authority, you take its legitimacy out of the divine realm, and in to the realm of humanity. In England that meant parliamentary sovereignty, and in the Netherlands it meant confederation and constitutional protection of religious freedom.
Such historical comparisons might not seem relevant to understanding the position of democracy today, but arguably there are some post-colonial states, such as India, Lebanon, or even Nigeria where religious pluralism has pushed societies on the road to more democratic and decentralised models of governance. But the key point here is that it is not about secularisation in the sense of a society becoming less religious, but rather, in terms of how you manage ideological diversity. And unfortunately, it is still a lesson we are learning today in many parts of the world, where deepening political polarisation and divides between secular and non-secular ideologies continues to strain the governance of the public realm. Ironically, secularisation in the former sense can actually exacerbate that, and that is part of what we have seen since the 1990s in countries like the United States, where progressive secularism has reopened a conflict about the ideological neutrality of the state, that in a formerly more pluralistic society had been relatively more settled.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/10/05
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Issue X set a different tone than the previous issue of WIN ONE. It opens with the quote, “To the tranquil mind, flowers are great friends, radiating beauty without recourse to words.” Why this quote or statement for this particular issue? Who owns the quote? You note the problems inherent in the issues of the early 21st century with some turbulent times while also acknowledging the benefits in the ease of travel for in-person discussions within members of the meta-society known as the World Intelligence Network. How important was the tenth issue to get right? Once more, you solo edited. What is the workload in terms of hours and level of effort per issue, as the size and scale of the issue began to stabilize?
Graham Powell: Yes, Scott, this Edition took on a new ‘voice’, I think this a corollary of the meeting of minds at the 12th Asia-Pacific Conference on Giftedness, plus the fact that I was in Al Ain at the time, an Emirate that is part of the United Arab Emirates. In the heat of the desert, the mood was reflective. Usually I was walking to the Internet Cafe in temperatures above body temperature. I reflected on the beautiful flowers at my home in Sardinia — the quotation is my own. It was a struggle to get this edition finished, especially as many of the inclusions arrived late, so, yes, repeated treks to the internet cafe took some pluck as the hours ticked by and the deadline got closer and closer. There is a mood in this edition of discussion and, I think, a little remorse; there is poetry and an artistic intensity that is greater than in previous editions. I wanted everything to be right, yes, despite the challenges. The world was in the middle of an economic meltdown and the effects on people’s daily lives were coming through. There is always a kind of backwash to the wave of macroeconomic hardships, which is tough to bear. It strikes homesteads across the world and this was being reflected on people’s faces. I put in a great deal of effort for this edition too, having time to do that, but also because it was the beginning of an era whereby people had other things to concentrate on. Much of this edition came from friends, or via my own hand. I had just met Gwyneth Wesley Rolph (prior to going to the Emirates) and that was great. I am pleased that she has now realised her potential and is pursuing what, at that time, was a dream. Her research on intelligence and related neurophysiology reminds me of the work by Rex Jung, who I admire greatly.
Jacobsen: “Biofeedback” by Gwyneth Wesley Rolph covers the issue of biofeedback as a research topic. The article provides some grand claims about health benefits and the forms of equipment used for the biofeedback, e.g., EMG or electromyography, temperature or thermal feedback, galvanic skin response training, heart rate variability training, neurofeedback through the EEG or electroencephalogram, and others.[3] Does biofeedback still seem reasonable as a practice and valid as a tool for self-knowledge and awareness? You reviewed Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes by Anna Konnikova (Dr. Maria Konnikova) in “A book review.” She writes about the fictional personhood of Holmes. His personality, abilities, and how this ties to modern psychological research with some reference to the work of Professors Mahzarin Banaji and Anthony Greenwald by you. The most important point, or takeaway for me, comes from the way in which Holmes focused on a goal to filter information, as a means to solve problems before him, as per “Peter Gollwitzer’s 5 Goal-orientated Behaviour traits.” Sections included mindfulness and motivation, interpretation of the world as the world, the DMM or default mode network, the importance of common sense found through deduction or, more properly, induction/abduction described as “systemised common sense,” and knowledge of self. You gave an enthusiastic review of Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes. What was some feedback on the text since the publication of the review? How has Dr. Konnikova’s career progressed?
Powell: Interesting that you ask about this, Scott, because I am involved in neurofeedback at the moment, a new adventure that has taken me back to Dubai. It is, indeed, just that: feedback. In my work, there’s low electrical input, mainly just sensors. People undergoing the feedback monitor their responses alongside the technician and they are ‘rewarded’ via a notification system. This reward system is decided upon via consultation. I have undergone some of the light and sound sessions and it is effective. I have found that my sleep patterns have returned to a healthy rhythm, with theta waves being emitted more than previously. As such, I think the three main goals espoused by Gwyneth are being met: I self regulate, know more about how the brain is functioning, and I am taking the results into my everyday life. I have a hunch that the other forms of biofeedback can have similar effects, hence Gwyneth’s three, generic goals.
As for Maria Konnikova Hamilton (her full name), her writing career has progressed and she has produced several books of note, her latest book resulting in her becoming a gambler in casinos. She is about to move on from that, but, unfortunately, due to a certain amount of fame, she has distanced herself from me these days, so I don’t know in what direction she is about to go.
Jacobsen: “A Brief History of IQ Tests” by Thomas J. Hally talked about the history of low range and normal range testing, and high range testing, of general intelligence with a tip of the hat to Paul Cooijmans, Ron Hoeflin, Robert Lato, Laurent Dubois, Mislav Predavec, Jonathan Wai, Kenneth Ferrell, Jeff Leonard, Jason Betts, and Ivan Ivec. Of course, noting, the test scores do not define the person and the HRT test creators remained all men at the time. This may stay the same into the present. However, as a caveat, as a singular trait pervading aspects of an individual’s life, access to joining societies, access to contribute to and write in journals, and the like, the test scores, at minimum, define part of the person, if defined in an extended sense of “person” as in an extended relational self. What are the issues of high range tests from the most serious to the trivial? What are the benefits of high range tests over low range and normal range tests? How do the politics and personalities of the HRT world impact the dynamics of the societies, the development of tests, and so on? If someone donates money to a high IQ society and to the career of an individual within the HRT world, and if one exists as a member of a society in which a test developer uses individuals for the purpose of increasing the relevant sample size of the tests in development, do these amount to financial conflicts of interest and other forms of conflict of interest? How do these considerations impact the legitimacy of the creation of some tests and some societies in the 3-sigma and higher world of the high IQ?
Powell: Okay, let us break this down, then push people in a direction to learn more. A fundamental issue is said to be the lack of people to provide data, though the current world population is 7.8 billion, which statistically indicates the possibility of at least one person having an IQ of 201, SD16. One in 7.2 billion reach that score. It also equates to one in nearly a million scoring 176 SD 16, (1:982,001), so a quantitative sample of at least 7,385 is possible. This poses the following problem: from where can we find these people? I think a more serious consideration is: how many of these people wish to participate collectively? Having spoken face to face with one such person, the related anecdotes don’t bode well for these people to interact. A further example is an article by Michael Ferguson, who calls them ‘The Inappropriately Excluded’. In a previous round, I cited Hollingworth’s research and the issues of the isolationism of a group which would now, utilizing Gaussian distribution IQ scores, be considered to have an IQ score of around IQ 159 SD 15, or above. Ferguson also refers to this. Generally, the HRTs may identify certain people, but my knowledge about the interactions which take place at the very high IQ level, does not make for pleasant reading. That’s the ‘trivial part’.
As for conflicts of interest, attempting to identify and further research and data collation is necessary. If there is a monetary gain in doing that, I provisionally say that it is fine. In the end, individuals have a choice about whether to participate, or not. At the IQ societal level, I don’t think the funding of individuals occurs very much, at least not due to particular membership of a society. Rather, members of the very exclusive societies can make themselves available for exceptional research and development work — if they so desire. It’s a vicious circle for them, really: the opportunities are there, if they want to run the gauntlet of what may seem banal. As stated before, in the end, many of the plethora of tests are not sufficiently tested to be both reliable and verifiable. In the end, I’m not sure how beneficial all this is to these people anyway. Other factors in life are more important than an IQ score.
Jacobsen: “Feedback on ‘Atheism’….” by Dr. Claus D. Volko provided a short retort to the eighth issue article by Phil Elauria. His critique focusing on the non-need to move to multi-valued logic where classical binary logic suffices to resolve proposed problems in logic. Any thoughts on the retort by Dr. Volko? “The Writer’s Dilemma” by Thomas J. Hally provides an implicitly amusing frolic on the nature of writers, literacy, mathematicians, and other intellectual types. In “Juggler of Day,” a poem by Emily Dickinson, accompanied pictorially by Dr. Greg A. Grove, we discover a new fact: Dr. Grove’s synesthesia or cross-talk between senses. “Emily Dickinson Eats Out” by Dr. Grove was a charming little piece. You wrote “Meeting In-flight.” Where was this a trip towards at the time — other than someone’s lips? Or was this more of an imaginary production? “Not Quite Carbon Copies” by Hally is a delightful, and humorous, observation-bound poem on sex and gender dynamics in general. What made this poem stand out to you? “The Lost Child” by Therese Waneck put forth a one-word poem, in a way, which brought to mind, “Cooked.” What words and images come to mind for you, in this poem? “Dying Dawns” by Waneck brings the sorrow known to and expressed by many elderly friends to me, in intimate conversations. What does this poem evoke for you? “Renewal” by Hally brings forth a strangely depressing but hopeful tale of reflection on the generation and the hope for the metaphysical and spiritual — “transformation” — in spite of the flaws, failures, and follies of the generation. I am ambivalent on an emotional judgment of this piece. What do you think, feel?
Powell: I tried to encourage feedback on the pieces in the magazine, so Claus-Dieter’s was a welcome inclusion within this edition. I recognized the logical sequence that Claus-Dieter proposes, though I had to liaise with him on it at that point in time. It was a steep learning curve for me, so rewarding too. One of the joys of editorship is learning along the way. A curious aftermath was the fact that Phil Elauria took a course in Computer Programming and it is at the core of his career path now, though I’ve no idea if this intervention by Claus-Dieter made Phil consider entering that job sector. All I do know is that Phil is proving successful in his new job.
As for Doctor Grove and his synaesthesia, I knew about it and indeed took part in an experiment involving art. Greg loves music by Scriabin, whose atonal scale was influenced by synaesthesia. Greg also loves the poetry of Emily Dickinson, hence the artwork. Greg would make a fascinating person to interview.
The Meeting In-flight poem is a modern version of Meeting at Night by Robert Browning, though I must confess that it is also based on a real-life experience in Izmir, Turkey. I think Tom Hally and I share a poetic interest in these facets to life, though I am perhaps more of a romantic. That comes out in Renewal, too. Tom is more sardonic in his outlook.
Therese Waneck’s poems always entreat me. Like Emily Dickinson’s, they are bijou expressions, yet pierce to the core. I love Therese’s work.
Jacobsen: “Another Friend Dies From AIDS” by Beaux Clemmons portrays a moving depiction of loss, of death and coping, and moving on, once the shock disappears. Clemmons, as a Christian, comes to confront an apparent injustice with anger at purported love for his Creator. Doubt, anger, and a generally pissed off demeanour seeps through portions of the text, understandably. In a seriocomic stance, Clemmons pretends God is imaginary, not present, and remains unconvinced of the view here in the thought experiment too, which belies a certain agnosticism, implicitly. Clemmons ends on a re-invigoration of strength by putting the feelings to text. What stood out about this piece to you?
Powell: Beau (his actual name) is a devout Christian who I’ve known and, indeed, assisted sometimes for a few years, now. This piece arrived as I was walking through around 45 degrees centigrade to publish the magazine from the internet café in Al Ain. It was a heartfelt piece, one which clearly made Beau question many aspects to life, his sexuality, his beliefs, the seemingly unfair judgement that is bestowed upon us at times. I had to go back through the scorching heat to add his article. Beau expressed that he had to let the emotions go and was keen that I help him by publishing the piece. I think it was a cathartic experience for him, which these occasions often require, whatever your belief.
Jacobsen: “As I Recall” by Hally opens with the psychological knowledge of the most prominent memories tending to be emotional ones. Although, Professor Elizabeth Loftus’s, from the University of California, Irvine, memory research may buffer direct statements about this, especially in regards to Rich False Memories, for example. Hally’s focus is “arousal” and “valence” and “mood” as integral to strong, detailed, and lasting memories. A wonderful, concise, and effective summary of memory research to this point, at an intermediate level. Does educational material, as opposed to that which requires some interpreting, become more easily accepted into the journal? You wrote “A festive poem” and “The Challenge,” which provided some mental food for thought. “WIN Meetings” provide some further context of the relationships between executive members of WIN with visits to Dubai in April and June of 2013 with pictures of Dr. Thabet, Dr. Katsioulis, and Dr. Karyn Huntting Peters. How were the subsequent meetings in person with Drs. Thabet, Katsioulis, and Peters? What have been fruitful dialogues since that time?
Powell: I think people like to learn, yes. I also did a little research and high IQ people are not interested in doing puzzles within magazines. I didn’t realize that at the time, but it seems to be a prevailing viewpoint.
On a different tack, I was pleased to make the interactions of WIN members evident visually, which had been done in an earlier WIN magazine, G2G Manifest. There was quite a lot of interaction while I was in the Middle East, so it was a great opportunity, in that respect. The three WIN members that you cite are at the epicentre of my high IQ experience, even to this day. We continue to change the world, I am sure, in a positive manner.
Jacobsen: Dr. Volko wrote “Gödel and the Limits of Computability.” In it, he describes the ways in which the two incompleteness theorems — 1) incomplete and consistent, or complete and inconsistent and 2) consistent systems cannot be proven consistent within their own formalities — describe the limits of computability. Any further thoughts on the incompleteness theorems for you? Any known additional theorems adjunct to these two theorems? What do these theorems appear to mean for computability and human computation? What stands out about Dr. Volko’s material over the years? “Epigrahams,” clever as well as entertaining as a word, connects to “The Editor’s Anagdoku.” What inspired the tying of these together? Also, what is the image behind the text, the background picture?
Powell: I think you would do best to ask Claus-Dieter about the theorems and the lasting nature of his work. The magazine is largely a snapshot of intellectual considerations at certain moments in time. As I said before, my real-life interactions with the people you mentioned previously are more significant to me now and take up a great deal of my time. The results of that will become clear, I am sure. Please watch the media.
Regarding the Epigrahams, I have kept a journal since April 1983. The Epigrahams were a collection of epigrams from those journals. As I hinted near the beginning of this interview, in the desert, reflections on matters often bring quite original thoughts, with neologisms, if you will. I like anagrams and I also enjoy writing the occasional Sudoku, so some of the anagrams and a Sudoku combined to produce the Anagdoku. The picture behind the text (the watermark) I don’t recall now, though I am sure it is an engraving which is redolent of the work of William Blake, so it is a hark back to the cover of Edition VI, which was very much styled on Blake’s Songs of Innocence.
Jacobsen: “X-Test Solutions Finally Revealed!” by Marco Ripà pulled a first with the exposing and exposition on the solutions to an IQ test developed by the test creator himself. Not too much commentary here in the question other than the unique laying out the solutions to problems on an IQ test, as if Penn & Teller. Any thoughts on the prospect of benefiting from the practice of HRT with provision of the solutions for an educational purpose? You did accept and publish the article after all. Then there were some individual images of famous mostly dead smart people for consideration as parts in a puzzle inside the issue as a whole. Alan Wing-Lun published “About ‘Codin’ Code Al Coda’” in response to the ‘composing’ (I was a bit loose in the language before, sorry, and so partially wrong, in a prior interview part) of the puzzle and the literal zero correct responses sent in about the puzzle, in spite of a competition placed for it. He ends, humorously, on a quote by Oscar Wilde stating, “I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.” What comes to mind when a puzzle remains so difficult for the international high IQ community that no correct solutions come into the creator of the puzzle until after a competition and not during?
Powell: I remember that a couple of the items in Marco’s test had been compromised, by unscrupulous people either asking for the answers, or by giving the items as puzzles to solve, thereby gaining insight via other people offering solutions, or by actually giving the solutions. Marco was getting frustrated about this, as one can understand, and he decided that he would submit all the answers and put his X Test into IQ-testing history. We also moved on, with another type of test. It is computer generated and changes each time a person decides to take the test. It was a bold move by Marco and Gaetano Morelli, with a small contribution by me towards the end of the project — what was really a consideration of the best practical way to administer the test, though I did check the workings of it too.
Jacobsen: You composed “Music: ‘Theme from Love, Injury, Fear, Embarrassment’.” Then comes a rapid succession of solutions to puzzles throughout the issue. If you had to guess, how many readers look to the solutions before solving the puzzle? How many get them right on the easier puzzles and on the harder puzzles (excluding the one with zero solutions)?
Powell: As I mentioned before, generally, it seems that high IQ people are not interested in puzzle solving when reading online magazines. Occasionally, people compliment me on the ingenious nature of the puzzles, but I sense that less than 1% of readers do them. The lack of solutions submitted for Alan’s conundrum I feel validates my point. As a point of further interest, the music you cite was composed in 1988 for my play Love Injury Fear Embarrassment, which was performed at the Betchworth Festival, Surrey, England, that autumn.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Graham.
Powell: It was a pleasure, Scott.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/10/05
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Issue IX was published on 12/12/12, as some may see the patterns — if they looked into the publication dates on the cover pages — of the materials with the publishing dates: 10/10/10, 4/4/11, 11/11/11/, 6/6/12, and 12/12/12, and so on. Why these patterns? A fine touch to the ideas of problem solving with numeric sequences within the dates of the publication too. So, in another tone of not only the fact of the patterns themselves, why these patterns, too?
Graham Powell: When I agreed to take over the role of WIN ONE editor, Evangelos Katsioulis mentioned that the date of publication could have some numerical sequence. Since that conversation, I have gained a certain amount of joy continuing the tradition, the first one having the obvious value of being all 10s. The second series is more subtle, 4 divided by 4 and then divided by 11 coming out with the series 0.09090909 (recurring). Some later dates, which you have not quoted, were Fibonacci sequences; others were prime number sequences; one was International Pi Day — which is also Einstein’s birthday. Therefore, it’s mainly just a quirky feature of the magazine. We’ve tended to produce the magazine every six months, so finding a sequence within a particular period of the year is a challenge. It is, in fact, what dictates the publication date. The next publication date will be 3–11–19, these being prime numbers.
Jacobsen: This issue works within the framework of “philosophical notions” challenging to “ardent intellectual brains” with an emphasis on the “thought-provoking” and “amusing” nature of the works. This issue continues to represent a stabilization in issue size and the complement to the eighth issue with the inclusion of the post-reportage on the 12th Asia Pacific Conference on Giftedness and announcements from WIN, including the appointment of Dr. Manahel Thabet as the Vice-President of the World Intelligence Network or WIN and the continuation of efforts by Dr. Katsioulis (the President) on work for WIN. How did these additions improve the format, the content, and the generality of the presentation to the WIN membership? How does the inclusion of a Vice-President help with the organization?
Graham Powell: Manahel Thabet has been a stalwart of the WIN for many years and she finances many aspects to it, which is very generous of her. She advises on how to run the WIN more efficiently and, though it is primarily a charitable, online entity, she makes it run in a more economically sound manner. This is mainly regarding the maintenance of the website — which inevitably had costs covered by the WIN administration, that is, before she intervened. I volunteered to help her organise the conference in Dubai and that developed into a series of workshops, which for me was a chance to put out into the world some thoughts, especially ones I had been developing during a sabbatical from work. I also wanted to include photographs from the conference and the cover shows the waterfall by the entrance to Dubai Mall, a place where Evangelos and I had dinner. It was a special few days during which we enjoyed each other’s company. From our discussions, a few more ideas became projects, the appointment of Manahel, for example, stemming from one such talk. I think overall, the WIN website is much better now than it was, the earlier versions being cumbersome and overly complex to navigate around easily. People just didn’t bother much — or took the easy route by asking me to advise them. Access to the magazine is also easier as a consequence of all that I’ve mentioned about the site.
Jacobsen: “The Importance of Kant’s Concept of the Highest Good (Pt. 1)” by Paul Edgeworth contained sections 8 through 11. He begins the issue with a philosophical mind wallop, with Kant’s conceptualization of virtue, happiness, and the highest good with fancy terminology including supremum, consummatum, originarium, perfectissimum, phenomenal, noumenal, and so on, where focus is on the modern commentators’ neglect of “his conception of the highest good.” Within the context of the nature of the think-piece, one idea comes from the idea of existence, personality, and rational being with the existence of a rational personality. Another comes from the Stoic idea of virtue and the Epicurean concept of happiness as an interplay and a hybrid between Stoicism and Epicureanism to come to the “highest good,” which appears to take on the Aristotelian maxim of moderation between virtue and happiness. Even so, Edgeworth places virtue as “cause” and happiness as “effect.” For the true attainment of the highest good, Kant requires the existence, through reason, of the soul and God. Without the eternality of the soul and the absolute existence of God, the cause of virtue and the effect of happiness cannot lead to the highest possible good. It begins to sound like lay notions of a Christian heaven. The rational being, through the eternality of the soul, must continue endlessly for the existence of the highest good. The complete subsuming of the will to the moral law for achievement of moral perfection becomes impossible in one’s own lifetime (thanks, Kant). However, one can strive towards the highest good through pure reason, as “the pursuit of the highest good.” As Edgeworth quotes in a statement, “Thus Kant declares, ‘We ought to strive to promote the highest good (which must therefore be possible).’”[3] This highest good is permitted in the light, as aforementioned, of an ultimate cause of “supreme being.” This may hold bearing on some of the previous articles on atheism. I like the explanation of the co-incident nature of nature and human rational beings as enacted virtue in line with moral law to produce happiness closer to the highest good with the explanatory framework around which nature’s larger manifestation — in a manifestor, i.e., God. Humans co-incide in the Good with God.
Edgeworth brings forth the work of Terry Godlove, Jr.[4] An argument for the non-coherence of moral acts by non-theists, not a-theists interestingly, without the supreme being, God, because the ultimate cause for a penultimate end of good acts in a highest good requires an omnipotent unifier of moral virtue, for moral law, where non-theist moral acts, even if moral, become disjunct from one another and in some sense foundational sense dis-unified and, therefore, worthless in an eternal view. This, to Edgeworth and Kant, paves the road to the “Kingdom of God” in which “nature and morals come into a harmony through a holy author who makes the derived highest good possible.” Intriguingly, Edgeworth describes the Christian ethic as heteronomous, or non-theological (counter-intuitively), and autonomous pure practical reason with devotion duly placed in duty. Happiness does not become the goal, but the result of a partial achievement in attainment of a targeted objective, the highest good: some worthy of happiness; others not worthy of happiness in proportion to their attainment of the good oriented towards the highest possible good bound to the eternality of the soul and the absolute existence of God and, in the end, leading to the necessity in some practical philosophic sense to the need for proper religion for proper moral virtue and real happiness of which one becomes worthy.
What was the reaction of the community to this article? What changed the orientation to a philosophically heavy one in this issue as an executive editorial decision? What seems right in Kant’s thinking about the highest good? What seems incomplete, if at all? What about a non-theist religion? Would this — a non-theist religion — by definition become impossible to attain in some manner?
Powell: Firstly, Scott, I must congratulate you on what is, without doubt, the longest introduction terminating with questions that I have ever had put to me. I will try to break it all down a little, and, indeed, this was the main factor in presenting this essay in the magazine. The notion of “an author who makes the highest good possible” summarises neatly the article, though the reaction of the community to the article was, as usual, not specific. Only Evangelos Katsioulis expressed appreciation of the content and tipped his intellectual hat towards the contributors, particularly Paul Edgeworth. Paul is a good friend — as are, still, the majority of people who contributed to edition IX. I think this steered the content towards the philosophical, it being part of the friendship I share to this day. As to what is ‘right’ in Kant, well, in retrospect, my girlfriend believes in the kind of predetermination that Kant and Paul describe, Lena being convinced that we are destined to emerge with our good intentions made reality, primarily by God’s will. This approach has fortified my altruistic mental framework, if I can express it that way for now. I sense that many people prefer to act on behalf of an extraneous force, or being, which, when genuine and demonstrable by action, is implicitly of ‘a higher good’. I think the current Pope, Francis, is of a similar line of thinking, the majority of great religious figures too. To have a sense that you are primarily doing things and creating thoughts for the benefit of the universe outside yourself, in whatever way that manifests itself (and towards whichever essence) is the highest good. I don’t necessarily believe that a god is necessary to attain that supreme level of goodness, to the point where I think such thinking is restrictive and ultimately, risks divisiveness. “Divine, divisive, divide” to summarise in three words. In short, I think a non-theist interpretation of the highest good is possible. Buddhism is a non-theist “religion”, though (and hence) the word “religion” is not usually ascribed to it by those who practice Buddhist thought. Taoism is also, by definition, “of the way”, to give another example. I don’t usually discuss religion in everyday life because, in my mind, I have a caveat that I call “Powell’s Law”, put simply, that discussing religion inevitably leads to division. I try to live peacefully and have no problem, per se, that people believe differently from each other, believe differently from me. I consider that the highest good.
Jacobsen: “Meeting of Minds” images presented interesting displays from the 12th Asia Pacific Conference on Giftedness. Christina Angelidou, Dr. Evangelos Katsioulis, Jonathan Wai, Marco Ripà, and yourself can be seen in some. I like the one with the gargantuan Burj Khalifa behind Wai and Katsioulis. What was meeting everyone in person like for you?
Powell: I have no doubt in placing the experience of meeting all the people you mention, plus colleagues from the European Council for High Ability, right at the pinnacle of my joyous existence. It was just wonderful! Everyone was so enthusiastic and ready to make a difference in the world. Meeting Christina Angelidou, then going around the arena at the centre of the conference, was delightful, and we discussed my first workshop too, which was intellectually rewarding. Christina is the founder member of Mensa Cyprus and she was introduced to me via my contacts in America: I was interested in getting Mensa members to the event, Mensa International being based in the USA. British Mensa, which I joined in January 1987, directed me to liaise with the Americans about attendance at the conference. Christina and I are still in regular contact. Dr Jonathan Wai was also a joy to meet, so calm and mild mannered, yet with a subtle, incisive sense of humour. We got on very well. I was also very pleased to meet Marco Ripà in person, something Evangelos arranged. I helped Marco with his presentation, which he was nervous about, quite naturally, because English is his second language and he doesn’t get a great number of opportunities to speak it. I was happy to reassure him about his ability to communicate, which he did very well in the end. It was also an opportunity for me to speak Italian, which was useful for me. Quintessentially, it was astonishing to reflect on the fact that I was often standing in front of four people, knowing that the SD 15 IQ points of those four people added up to well over 650. That is truly tremendous brain power!
Jacobsen: “The Importance of Kant’s Concept of the Highest Good (Pt. 2)” continued with sections 9 through 16 of the essay. Edgeworth starts with some commentary of the highest good made apparent, as a transcendent object, to the rational being through pure practical reason. This gives grounds to actualize the highest good here-and-now, to bring the Kingdom of God, according to Kant, into the present and the future. He — Kant — makes immanent the highest good. I like this point in the argument for extension from the theoretical into the practical with a Kantian ethic meaning someone must act in such a way as to do that which they have not ever done if it leads them into a state of approximation of the highest possible good further than before. A sub-argument for individual growth as axiomatic, or at least derivatively unavoidable. In describing the base of transcendent moral law, Kant eked out some normatives. In a sense, every individual rational being becomes, or can become, a locus of the highest good in the real world on the condition of promoting it “with all his capabilities.” The idea implied before through the endlessness of the soul becomes explicit with mention of an afterlife. Edgeworth notes a limitation or blindspot in the thought process of Kant with “the highest good” implying “the reincarnation or rephenomenalization of the moral self.” Only infinite existence, hence the soul, permits the arena in which the endless striving for moral perfection or towards the moral law exists. Edgeworth provides a tip of the hat to an accurate description of a physicalistic, naturalistic, and secular interpretation to ethics-in-action with morals as something achieved in the here-and-now by human beings, where Kant’s first two, earlier, works began as more theological and latter, and third, work began to lean more secular in orientation in the morality. In short, a secular interpretation of the targeted objective of Kant becomes social ethics. Also, the, apparent, in-between comes in the form of an ethical commonwealth, which reminds one of The Commons from Anglo-American law in which everyone contributes and all benefit. This ethical commonwealth as a means by which to attain a status of a “rational church,” back to religion as a foundation for a unified ethic with God and an eternal soul. As Edgeworth states, “We can therefore state without fear of contradiction that Kant’s formulation of the highest good makes it abundantly clear that it is fundamentally about a common and shared human destiny,” whether secular or religious and, in this sense, more humanistic but atemporal too. What was the final takeaway from this extensively researched and well-written academic essay for you? Of those in the community who read some or all of it, what was their commentary on it? By chance, any commentary by scholars of Immanuel Kant?
Powell: With these points that you make, Scott, I am now of the mind that a review and a prompting of discussion would be beneficial, a kind of ‘afterword’, as I would call it. The production of the WIN book was intended to put these notions out into the general public and to stimulate discussion and some reassessment of the current milieu. The most apparent result of publishing such well-researched pieces was, I think, the generation of enthusiasm to read further and to attempt to produce work of a high standard to publish on the internet, whether for the WIN ONE, or on other sites, in other blogs. I still wish to produce books that will have more of an impact on broader society, but the acceptance of that is still being negotiated. As mentioned earlier, from my part, ‘peacefulness’ as immanent in the highest good was what I carried away from the essay, though I remain sceptical about any eternality of self regarding that.
Jacobsen: “The Corporate Strategy Column” by Elisabetta di Cagno gives a punchy set of thou shalts and thou shalt nots about corporate culture — take from it what you may, I suppose. “Differentiating features of gifted children and dealing with high IQ societies” by Marco Ripà examined giftedness, identification, and, sometimes, problems, even “big PROBLEMS” encountered by the gifted young with some connection to hyperactivity. The orientation of the academic article comes in the form of a human rights perspective and a compassionate one, too, in which myths abound about the gifted and their needs in life. Does di Cagno miss anything about corporate culture and output? Does the article on giftedness sufficiently differentiate the identifications of the different levels of the gifted? How does British Mensa, of which you remain a member, help the gifted and talented and distinguish the needs of the levels of gifted, of cognitive rarity and exceptional mentation?
Powell: Elisabetta’s piece is fictional, yet with overtones from reality, as the best fiction does — it’s part of what makes prose ‘literature’. Having read it again, I see it primarily as a statement about preparing for an interview and how that asks people to transcend, even betray, their inherent instincts in the name of ‘Business’. As a postgraduate student of Human Resource Management, I was most interested in Organisational Culture as part of the course. Dr Jackson liked my contributions and essays. Even Hugh Scullion, Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Management, admitted to the class that the best way to earn a promotion and ‘getting on’ in an organisation was via getting involved in events outside of work hours. Elisabetta’s piece hints at that, plus an inordinate display of knowledge and expression about share pricing (which she calls ‘stock’) and basically kow-towing to those in a position of power. If I may enlarge the discussion for a moment, this pays homage to what we talked about earlier on in this series of interviews, when we talked about Hollingworth and the difficulties of communicating and relating across broad spans of intelligence. In the context here, the more recent writing of Michael Ferguson and his popular essay about The Inappropriately Excluded has many ‘hits’ on his blog, so I recommend people to read it, plus the discussion pieces that surround it.
Marco’s article was originally his presentation at the 12th Asia-Pacific Conference on Giftedness, a presentation I helped him with just prior to him delivering it. It helped forge our friendship. In no way is it an attempt to cover all aspects of giftedness in youth and the associated problems; it was more an attempt to open people’s minds to some of the almost universal aspects of giftedness, especially prejudices and the lack of understanding and identification of hypersensitivities. British Mensa does contribute to the aspects you mention, especially via its promotion of national entities which are dedicated to provision for the gifted. I contacted British Mensa with a view to it sending people to Dubai for the aforementioned conference, but I got deferred to Mensa International in order to get contributors. Amongst my numerous friends in the high IQ community, the most ardent people who are transforming matters for fellow high IQ folk are not members of Mensa anymore, if, indeed, they ever were.
Jacobsen: Dr. Manahel Thabet wrote “Organizing the 12th Asia-Pacific Conference on Giftedness.” A significant event, as stated, “6,000 participants, all of them experts, teachers, researchers, decision makers, parents and educators. 325 papers were presented, from 42 countries.” Dr. Chris Fischer, Christina Angelidou, Dr. Evangelos Katsioulis, Jonathan Wai, Dr. Lianne Hoogeveen, Marco Ripà, and yourself took part in the event as well. “Artistic License,” “Between You and You,” “Seventy Shades of Gray,” Safe Between the Fluffy Covers,” “The Sleeping, Roving Genius Among Us” in “Poems” by Dr. Greg A. Grove provided some reflection on, in many cases, stark contrasts without direct opposites. What did “Poems” evoke for you? How important was the post-event reportage of Dr. Thabet for wrapping up the event? Any further developments since that time?
Powell: I asked Doctor Thabet to write something, which I could have done myself, having been heavily involved in the organisation and supply of people for it, but I was already contributing much to the IX edition, so I wished for someone else to write an article. As it was, she was busy, so I outlined for her what I considered should be written, then added the summary at the end anyhow. I had hoped that the filming of the event would produce extensive courses and presentations for posterity, but that never happened. Several of the WIN members put their presentations on Youtube, but that was it. I was really looking forward to seeing my presentations, especially the second one: it went down really well and Manahel’s assistant came running up to me afterwards saying what fantastic feedback I had received. It’s all part of the low-key work I have done in the eyes of the majority these last ten years. As for Greg’s work, they were extracts from a book he produced and it is still available in Kindle format. They form part of a total assessment and expression of psychological states and attitudes. I enjoyed the read and have the entire kindle book “Leopards in the Sky” on my computer. I recommend people look for it and make what they want of it. It’s subtitle is “For the Preconscious Mind”.
Jacobsen: Then we come to “On the Epistemic Standing of Claims of the Nonexistent” by Phil Elauria. Another interesting twist on the content of old, often boring and sterile, debates found only in philosophy classes and theology seminars. The first two points remain salient with principles of non-contradiction as a point of thought contact for existence as a property and the knowledge of the non-existent, as in the statement of “formal (deductive) logic and mathematics are, when applicable, the highest form of certainty.” Paraconsistent logic in Dialetheism is an interesting notion. However, Elauria finds this dishonest approach dishonest. He runs through the logic of non-contradiction with the famous problem of evil, often seen as the most difficult problem to theologians within Abrahamic traditions in search of an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent self-existent (with property aseity) being. Elauria asserts, “Indeed, the fact that there is apologetics concedes my point. For, if reason weren’t important in the defense of theistic claims, then apologetics would be a waste of time at least, and an elaborate red herring constructed to mislead people from the fact that reason actually plays no role in coming to the conclusion about the existence of God,” as Elauria identifies as an atheist (one can assume an absolute atheist). Does this problem of evil in the midst of the Law of Non-Contradiction seem like a serious problem to the hypothesis of a God? He makes other examples with 2-dimensional objects and the statements of a single object having the complete set of properties of two 2-dimensional objects at the same time: a square and a circle, which amounts to a contradiction, e.g., a square circle or a circle square. His next methodological placeholder ideas become plausibility and likelihood. Is a God plausible? Is a God likely? He presents science and fallibilism as the next premises.[5] These through contacts of plausibility, likelihood, science, and fallibilism form the basis for the argument called the Weak Knowledge of Non-Existents. Much of modern science seems premised on the opposite secondary part of the title with tentative of weak knowledge, ever-improving and searching and refining, of the existent. This becomes the basis for the doubt inherent in the position of atheism for Elauria. Does this argument convince you? The argument for the non-existence of God. Also, in personal experience with 2-sigma and higher high IQ community, what tendencies in religious and non-religious beliefs exist among them? Does a tendency exist more towards theism, whether mono-theism or poly-theism, or a-theism, or an agnosticism amongst members? Does Elauria’s professed atheism seem as if atheistic as an assertion in a philosophical sense and then agnosticism in an empirical — plausibility, likelihood, science, and fallibilism — sense?
Powell: In a literary context, the notion of evil was an initial criticism of John Milton’s Paradise Lost, his stated aim of ‘justifying the ways of God to man’ faltering because many thought the depiction of the Devil more engaging than that of God. People empathised with the fallen angel, who reacted to the vicissitudes of God and was punished eternally for it. The Epicurean Paradox, which Phil Elauria alludes to, has often fascinated me and I have talked to Phil about choices and how they make for life’s experience, because in life, we have choices, right up until our death — and even then, perhaps, there are more choices to take. We can not be certain about that, as we cannot be certain of the existence of God. I favour an approach which (to paraphrase Pascal) does not concern itself so much as to whether or not there is a god, but rather, focuses on the notion that we should behave as if there is one.
As for the ‘Weak Knowledge’ and the your interpretation that science proceeds via searching with the ever improvement and refinement of knowledge of the extant, again, this is a linear progression as stated, but knowledge does not proceed like that, according to Popper and Kuhn — for example. Phil Elauria chooses, as a corollary of his arguments, to be atheistic, though I prefer the agnostic stance whereby there is still a possibility of an alternative existence, even if it must remain within the realm of post-death. I actually think the confrontation with what is regarded as an inevitable in life (death) is the reason why mankind has confronted existence with the idea that there is something after death, preferably something good.
As for the high IQ community, discussions on belief and the existence of God always divide vehemently, the arguments for and against often becoming so intense that even the highly intelligent start resorting to ad hominem after ad hominem. I am loathed to try and define trends in the high IQ community regarding this topic, but most of the people I respect express strong arguments in their particular paradigm (as I wish to express it here) and that is intrinsically what retains my respect for them. My experience notes that those who believe in a god believe that there is only one, so they have monotheistic beliefs, and, moreover, this places them within a deistic stance. Those who counter the argument for the existence of God take a similar line of argument as Phil Elauria, so are atheistic. That’s my experience, Scott, especially online.
To summarise, your notion about atheism having a philosophical sense, agnosticism an empirical one, has credence, based, again, on my experience.
Jacobsen: Finally, we come to the “3D Lego Griddler ‘Chasing Nessie’” of Alan Wing-lun. Are puzzles an important inclusion for each issue? How do you vary the puzzles in order to maintain interest in these sections of the issues?
Powell: I like to have puzzles in the magazine, yes, the magazine genre demanding them to a certain extent. Most of the magazines pitched towards the high IQ sector have puzzles and quizzes and I produce most of them myself, which I also enjoy. Akin to the concept of having a series of numbers in the publication date (which began this interview) I like the inherent creativity involved in creating diverse and interesting puzzles. Alan certainly veers into the esoteric, which is very much his personality too. I was very pleased to meet him in London and we had a lively discussion about many things. I hope more people will contribute puzzles in the near future to maintain a diversity of interest and an enhanced expression of puzzle creativity. Most puzzles are derived from others. I read quite widely and, if I like a puzzle, I try to adapt it into something not seen before. I especially like puzzles which also tell a story.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Graham.
Powell: You are welcome, Scott. It has been a very enjoyable interview.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/10/05
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How did you originally get into writing and reading? What were the first sparks of literacy for you?
Eric Litwin: Wonderful, I will give some context now and leading up to it. At this time, I have written the original four Pete the Cat books. The series has about 50 books in it. I wrote the original four. They’re really becoming classics. You may find that they are available and found at so many places in Canada, nearly all pre-schools, daycares, and first grade classrooms, and pre-K classrooms in the United States. I have written the Groovy Joe series. Recently, I cam out with my first development book for teachers called The Power of Joyful Reading. It talks about the role of joyful, engaged shared reading experiences, and how it is the root of learning to read, and howe can implement these ideas in our early childhood classrooms, and how all our children build their reading foundations that they need. I will talk about how that is important. I sold over 13,000,000 books. My books have been translated in over 17 languages. I have won 26 awards.
How I came to become a writer of children’s books, and now professional development books, I was a teacher. I was working with 3rd graders. So many of them were struggling to read. They had lost the love of reading. One day, I was walking down the kindergarten classroom, heading to my 3rd grade class. I passed the kindergarten class. I heard a teacher say, “Who wants to read a book?” The children erupted with joy. I looked in the class. I saw the teacher reading with some students. Some were reading together. All of the sudden, a little girl jumped out of her desk, ran to the bookshelf, and grabbed her favourite book, and held it in her arms like a baby. I could tell at that time moment. Her and the children loved books. They love reading and saw themselves as readers. When I went to the 3rd grade class, inspired by what I had seen, I said, “Who wants to read a book?” Some politely shook their head and said, “Yes.” Many looked at me, shook their head, and said, “No.” I asked myself a question on that day. I would end up leaving the classroom and work on becoming a writer, and working on how to make books more engaging, how to develop the love of reading.
That question was, ‘What happened between kindergarten and 3rd grade?” Where did the love of reading go? Scott, that’s what I’ve been focused on for a few decades now. What I came to a conclusion was, it was in the engagement with literacy that children developed key foundations of their reading foundation. I can share those. Without those key elements, they get very frustrated with trying to learn to read. With my 3rd grade students, many were missing these key elements. I started thinking about how I can help them develop those key elements of reading. How can I make books more engaging? What I did, I started writing books with music, movement, call and response, repetition, fluent rhyme schemes and rhythm. All developed to help children get involved with the reading process. My first book came out in 2008. But I was a storyteller and a writer working on my craft since 2000. It was a couple decades ago.
Jacobsen: Now, when we’re thinking about children, they’re at a time of life, which is rapid development. They’re going to be differing from grade to grade. Sometimes dramatically, but pretty big changes compared to later life, so when a child comes to a kindergarten class, grade 1, grade 2, grade 3, they have this excitement in one grade for reading, even for writing. They come to another grade later on, even on grade later, without much enthusiasm for the art of writing or solitary reading [Ed. Or, “shared reading”]. What explains the fact North American children in particular can lose the enthusiasm fairly quickly? What are some practical tips for teachers to re-engage those kids who are in those pre-k through grade 3 levels who appear to have lost the enthusiasm about the written word, about stories?
Litwin: To answer that question, we want to go back to daycare, kindergarten, and pre-K. We want to see what it is that sets children up to keep their joy of reading moving along, and what it is that sets them up to lose that joy of reading. What we have found, what it turns out to be, children need an abundance of joyful, engaged and shared reading experiences. Here is what is fascinating about this, with young children, this starts right at birth. They experience oral language. This oral language gets connected to print. This needs to happen all the time. This is a full-time job. They need to be immersed in oral language connected to print. What will happen, to the degree that the children enabled and empowered to be immersed in language and print, it is the degree to which they are building reading foundations. So, oftentimes, this reading foundation is called pillars. It consists of a few things.
First, you have to know a lot about sound. I don’t know how technical you want me to get, but there are 44 phonemes. Let’s keep it simple, there’s a certain limited number of sounds. Those sounds are represented by letters, but there are not as many letters as sounds. You have combinations of letters. Some represent combination of sounds. These make words. This is called phonological awareness and phonemic awareness. So, first, they need a lot of sounds. Second, they need a lot of words. Vocabulary is a major predictor of how well they will do in school. Another is “speaking like a storyteller.” This is called fluency. It is how appropriately quickly that they recognize the word. Also, it is how they use expressions. An expression in a word is what conveys meaning. This is what we call prosody. Finally, they need to know a lot about print. This is called print awareness.
These are the three components. I break it down into a simple reading chart. These are the things that kids need to know. When they get into nursery rhymes and see the words on the board, all the components come together. When you say, “Humpty Dumpty had a great fall,” you can see the words. There are two ls there. It is in a book. There is print awareness. We also are learning words: fall, wall. You can start to make connections. All of these experiences are important. What my suggestion is in the joyful reading approach book, co-written with Dr. Gina Pepin, The Power of Joyful Reading: Help Your Young Readers Soar to Success!, the basic point is: we can immerse our early childhood students in these joyful, engaging reading experiences throughout the whole day. We can interweave them into our routines, our activities, and our instruction. Let me give you an example, many schools, most teachers, will have expectations. The rules repeated many times a day. Why not put the rules in a poem, write it out on the wall? “Sittin’ in your chair, hands in your lap, smile crocodile, and clap, clap clap!”
We are doing this because we need to share and express ourselves. We can interweave this into our lunch menus, our activities. In addition, we can interweave them into our lessons. So, all of my lessons, I am not sure if you have children, Scott. All of my books have messages of resiliency. I have many books with math lessons built into them, like the original Pete the Cat and His Four Groovy Buttons has subtraction. These are all important components of how we can provide a strong reading foundation fro all of our students. Here is the thing, everything relies on this. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, shared reading experiences are necessary for children to develop their sole language, cognitive, and socio-emotional development. If you think about it, it puts shared reading experiences in the health category with food, love, and shelter. Many pediatricians, now, are recommending books to families and children in a program called “Reach Out to Read,” which is a thoroughly research-based program on its absolute necessity.
If you are not having these shared reading experiences, then you are already at a disadvantage because you’re not building the key components of a reading foundation. What will happen is, children will reach 3rd grade without these fully developed, without having the reading foundation, and reading becomes frustrating. After a certain level of frustration, they lose interest. At that point, everything becomes harder, and harder, and harder for them. Everything depends on basic reading skills. From educational success, which will affect our future opportunities, but also our self-esteem, how we view the world, everything relies on it. Everything is built upon it. That is the message of the power of joyful reading. Here is the wonderful thing, when we introduce reading to children in a way that is most effective, it looks like joy and happiness because there is human interactivity, engagement, and joyful expression. All of the things that make up joy.
Jacobsen: In terms of the reading and educational statistics coming out now, girls tend to do better in school. They do better in the areas in which English language is more demanding, e.g., English, English literature. How does this play out in early years behaviourally and cognitively in terms of the literacy of young girls and young boys?
Litwin: That is a really wonderful question. I will acknowledge that I do not know the answer to it. I will also acknowledge this is similar to another question that you asked. Why is this happening? What are the variables involved? I will share a number of variables that are highly correlated to lower achievement in reading. The first variable is poverty and low income. This must be seen without judgment or blame. There are many, many reasons that children who grow up in homes that would qualify as poverty or low income would have less achievement in reading, e.g., less access to books parents moving between jobs and so are busier. They don’t have as much time to engage in joyful reading experiences. In the United States, children who live in households that fall in the category of free or reduced lunch; you are 125% of the poverty line. To receive a reduced lunch, it is 185%.
That is a rough indicator of poverty and low income in the United States for children. It is a rough indicator because, sometimes, schools have so many children who qualify or participate. The statistics in the United States and the number of children in household who qualify, subsequently, as homes at or below the poverty line are between 41-42%.
Jacobsen: Wow.
Litwin: Right, that’s the exactly reaction I’d expect here. It is a stunning, stunning, fact. So, it is no surprise so many children have so much trouble learning to read. Also, let’s also go back to the research, the American Academy of Pediatrics shows poverty severely impacts reading. We have studies showing this. There is also something called the ACE, adverse childhood experiences. This could be a parent wo is an alcoholic, or abuse or neglect. According to the CDC, 1 in 7 children come from homes where they experience ACEs. We also have a number of children who are English learners. It is not their first language. Obviously, there are many benefits to having a second language, but it does produce a lot of challenges if you’re not hearing as much English. It makes it harder to learn it. It is certainly not as negative. It requires just understanding of the situation. Finally, now, there is also competition with electronic devices.
So, learning to read, language experiences, they have characteristics that make them optimized. One is that children learn through interactivity with cherished adults. I go through this in my books. There is enormous interactivity going on, in my books. Engagement and interactivity are part of what optimizes initial learning to read. In addition, experiential has to be part of the experience. Children don’t learn by just listening. They need engagement, singing along, physical activity. It needs to be recurring, needs to have over, and over, and over again. Finally, we can optimize this. What I am trying to say, sitting in front of an electronic app, it is not going to be a highly effective way to learn to read. It is possible for electronic devices to benefit learning to read, e.g., reading a book with grandma on Skype is wonderful. If there is no recurring process, actual experiential engagement, it is not going to be an effective way of learning. At this point, children are spending more and more time in front of screens.
So one, parents who are distracted by their own screen may engage less with their children. Second, children engage is their own screen. There was a recent study. I think it was the Cincinnati or Cleveland one. The outcome of the study is that children who spend more time in front of screens have lower language development. I am going to read from the book, right now, because I go over all these things:
For example, researchers at the Reading and Literacy Discovery Centre at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital found a troubling association between an increase in screen use and a decrease in the development of our young children’s brains, especially in areas related to language development. The exact cause of the decrease is not known.
That’s important. We don’t know why.
However, it may be the result of a decline in the use of everyday language and in reading experiences between young children and their cherished caregivers. That’s another reason why children may have difficulty learning how to read.
Learning challenges and reading challenges, what is being discovered is that many children are facing these challenges. So, they need even more, even more, engagement and immersion in joyful and engaging, shared reading experiences to build their reading foundation and to make sure their primary reading foundation is joy. There must be a condition that even though reading will be frustrating for many children. We can’t help that. But it shouldn’t be the primary experience. We have to meet every frustrating experience with overwhelming joyful experience. Those are some of the experiences why some of those children are having difficulty reading. But, as you can see, these are big challenges.
Jacobsen: In the United States, decades ago, there was a search for and a great emphasis on genius. This came alongside standardized testing. This phenomenon, cultural trend, has declined in terms of an emphasis on these things, as a culture in America. At the same time, there are still accelerated programs, gifted programs, etc. For those children who do fall under those categories, or would be suitable for some of those resources, what are ways in which to meet the demands of children who have a seemingly insatiable need for the written word?
Litwin: Fortunately, there are so many ways to feed that demand. Libraries are, obviously, an astonishing resource. In addition, we are surrounded by print in our lives. We can also encourage our gifted children to write their own print. But the most important answer to that has to do with what is called deep reading. This is a phenomenon that is often thought of in graduate school. When you go deep into a subject, it does wonderful things for your brain. It is part of the magic, when you are lucky enough to go to college and graduate school, especially when you get to specialize in an area. It takes us to new levels. With our children who have an insatiable desire, we would encourage deep reading into subjects. That is an endless, endless resource for them. It is such a joy. I have to say, this recent book, The Power of Joyful Reading. I have been thinking and reading about this topic for two decades. I left the classroom to advocate for this.
My picture books, which became big commercial successes, were designed to model the successes of this reading program. I love reading fiction. But the opportunity to deep read and write about a topic is just wonderfully joyful! [Laughing] It is just wonderful. You know that! You’re a writer.
Jacobsen: Yes [Laughing].
Litwin: Our gifted and talented students will benefit greatly from it. So will everyone else, some of my attention goes to the goal of every child having a strong reading foundation. To do that, learning to read needs to be joyful, immersive, something that we just do all the time. It is to read in everything we do: At school – definitely, at home – hopefully. That’s my primary focus. How do we make that happen? How can we make this happen in our society? Because all the efforts to improve reading scores, in my opinion, if we do not get to the root problem, will not succeed.
Jacobsen: Eric, last question, any recommended organizations or other authors, in fact, who could be resources for individuals who might be reading this for a young person that they are mentoring or a child of their own?
Litwin: Absolutely, in our book, in terms of research, we wanted to make sure our research was accessible. We focused on four sources. One is the American Academy of Pediatrics. You can Google that: “Early Literacy.” They have statements and a lot of wonderful advice. Also, the American Psychological Association has a lot of brain-based research. In terms of our parents, there is a website called leading rockets. It is a phenomenal resource. The International Reading Association is also a wonderful resource as well.
Jacobsen: Eric, it’s been a lovely conversation. And I thank you so much for your time today.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/10/05
Eric Litwin is a song singing, guitar strumming, # 1 New York Times Best Selling author who brings early literacy and music together. He is the original author of the Pete the Cat series as well as the author of The Nuts and Groovy Joe. Eric’s books have sold over 12.5 million copies, been translated into 17 languages, and won 26 literacy awards including a Theodor Geisel Seuss Honor Award.
Best-selling author of the original four Pete the Cat books, The Nuts and Groovy Joe.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/05/04
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is some familial background? How did this produce some of the family dynamics for you?
Anja Jaenicke: I was born in the formerly divided city of Berlin/West, Germany. My mother was a well-known film, theater and TV actress. When I was a child we often went to the Kurfürstendamm Boulevard where her name was written in golden letters above the entrance of a theater. People recognized her in the street and even tried to touch her, which, as a child, I found very scary. I did not particularly enjoy this kind of public fame. I was a very introverted child. I am still an introvert. When I was about five years old; I have been asked what I want to be when I grew up and I answered: “Unknown.” In primary school, I experienced an extreme anxiety because I have been bullied for being different. My father comes from a Greek family in Istanbul. He is a writer and author of lyrics. My family lives everywhere from Istanbul to London and Berlin. So I can say, “Yes.” My childhood had, indeed, a lot of family life dynamics. Due to the profession of my mother, we moved a lot. I spent more time with grown ups than with children my age. When I was three years old I appeared in my first movie, but I didn’t enjoy it and quit the shooting albeit the producer tried to bribe me with some special toys. I thought this profession was full of silly infantile people who tried to boost their ego personalities. I told the producer in my own words and left the set without the toys.
Jacobsen: What where some formal postsecondary academic qualifications earned by you if any? If so why those.
Jaenicke: I am an autodidact par excellence. In some ways I did everything earlier than others my age. I finished them earlier too. I had to! When I was ten years old, my mother became very ill; and we changed roles. I had to grow up fast and take care of her. I became her mother. I had to feed her, dress her, and because she didn’t have an agent at this time, negotiate her film and theater contracts, so that she was able to fulfill them. I had to make sure that she was on stage in time, so I accompanied her to the theater. In this time, I learned a lot of my later directing skills because I watched the same show over two hundred times. The other actors knew that I was in the audience and continuously asked me what they could do better or different. I answered things like: “Did you notice that nobody laughed at this or that gag? Hold your breath longer before you speak.” Sometimes I also joined the rehearsals in the morning sitting next to the director. All in all, I spent lots of time in the dust of the stage or played in the puddles on a film set. Unfortunately, in the following year, the illness of my mother worsened. I could not continue my school education. We moved constantly and I spent my days at home working myself through all the moving boxes with books from my mother’s former library. I read the interesting mixture of Shakespeare, Goethe, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein, Kant, Henry Miller, the diaries of Anais Nin, Bert Brecht, and Charles Bukowski. It must have been in this time that I started to question Kant’s a priori morals. I pulled together strings from my own eleven years of life experience and compared them with what I had read.
I questioned Kant by seeing events in the way film was made. You need many single cuts from different perspective angles to make a scene seem real. There could not be one a priori truth, but there had to be many and each one claims to be the absolute. I kept looking for answers and dived into mathematical philosophy. I read Bertrand Russell, who influenced my later years very much.
Jacobsen: What have been some important professional capacities for you?
Jaenicke: Well, I started my early career as an actress. I played my first lead role in the film “Das Heimkind.” A year later, I worked with the director Peter Lilienthal in the film “David.” By that time, I was officially recognized as gifted and excused from school by the German Minister of Education. I also performed in a Ballet company in Munich and played Shakespeare on stage. From there on, I received one offer after the other, mostly name over title roles. I worked with colleges like Goetz George, Franco Nero, Christoph Waltz, and many others. For the movie, “The Swing” about the youth of the writer and poet Annette Kolb. I have been awarded with the Bavarian Film Award. Later, I received the “BAMBI” and the “German Actors Award of the Federal Association of German Film and TV Directors.” All in all, I have participated in around a hundred film and television productions, When I was thirty, I stopped acting, became a professional dog musher, and took my twenty self bred and trained sled dogs on an expedition through the Canadian Arctic. After my return, I moved to a medieval Chateau in France and founded my own film developing company. Among others, I developed the motion picture: “Eagles Dance” and “The Perfect Job.” I wrote the script, directed, and played the female main role in the film “The Mirror Image of Being,” which was developed after my own novel. I was the writer, director, and producer of the documentary film “Lucky Me.” I wrote eight lyric books, a novel, a couple of short stories and many screenplays. I appeared as a guest writer in several other books I am also a published author of “Leonardo Magazine”, “City Connect Magazine- Cambridge”, “WIN One” and “Genius Journal” For my creative work, I have been honored with the Distinguished Visionary of the Year Award 2018 and the Genius of the Year Award 2019 by the VedIQ Guild Foundation. And I recently published two books about an insane penguin called Werner.
Jacobsen: Following from the previous two questions, how have those professional capacities and postsecondary academic qualifications helped intellectual and skill development for you?
Jaenicke: Oddly I perceive your question the other way around, but, maybe, that is the price for being an artist. My intellectual capacity has helped to pursue my artistic work of creating. I think the pure joy of creation shaped my mind and helped me to achieve academic qualifications. This is why I see myself as a Thinker cum Arte.
Jacobsen: When was high intelligence discovered for you?
Jaenicke: Somehow, I was a strange kid. I loved learning. I started to speak full sentences very early. I did so continuously. I talked and talked. Also, I became a rather silent child in later years. Maybe, I had the feeling that the talking straights out the many confusing questions I had.
My grandmother notoriously claimed that she has never, never told a single lie in her entire life. I started to ask myself what “never” meant and if “never” can ever be? I guess this was the moment where my interest in the miracles of the universe have been born. I started to teach myself how to read and write because I was too impatient to wait for school. My mother gave me some French children’s books. I started to read them all. At that time, I did not notice that I read in a foreign language. I just kept reading and filled the gaps with the illustrations of the book. After we have been on a holiday to Italy. I started to speak Italian quite fluently. I had never learned the language. I was still in diapers, but I understood and spoke perfectly. Until now, I have no explanation for that. In some way, it was a hindrance too because I never developed the right attitude to learn a language from school books or structured courses. It needed a lot of discipline in later years, but I finally got over it. My mother decided that I should enter school early, but, at this time, there was no way in Germany to do so. Finally, she got me into first grade public school. It was the greatest disappointment ever. I desperately wanted to learn and couldn’t wait to go to school and meet all the other kids of whom I thought they might have the same intention as I have, but, unfortunately, it turned out that they were a bunch of noisy idiots with sticky hands. I had to sit still in a stinky classroom and bore myself to death while the others practiced how to draw a straight line. The teacher forced me to write three pages of As, Bs, and Cs. I remember becoming very furious. I cried until they sent me home. It was decided that I should take an IQ test because teachers thought I might be overwhelmed by school and not quite ripe for it. I remember sitting in a room with a lady who called herself “Aunty.” I was very nervous; I didn’t want to make mistakes in the test. The test result turned out as a surprise and catapulted me right into second grade. Finally, I was allowed to write real words and I loved math. I had a wonderful little teacher, Miss Hoffmann. I loved to discuss numbers with her. A couple of years later, when I quit school, which officially was not allowed in Germany, I had to repeat IQ testing. I didn’t like these supervised tests. I felt a bit like a mouse in a laboratory. Much later, I took IQ tests by Nathan Haselbauer [Ed. Founder of the International High IQ Society, deceased by his own hand.] and Jason Betts. But I think that IQ testing is not an end in itself. Much more important is what you make out of it.
Jacobsen: How was this nurtured in an early life?
Jaenicke: As a single child growing up with a single parent I had many so called grown up talks with my mother from early age on. I never felt happy with other children and I spent much time alone. I loved it as I do today. I never feel lonely when I am alone. I think one big component in my early life was that I was forced to adapt frequently, to watch people and situations and to process circumstances fast. When I was fourteen, my mother got an offer for the TV series “Holocaust.” I joined her and made my math homework at the film set, which ended in discussing Dirichlet boundaries with the actor James Woods (IQ 185). He got so excited over it that he wrote notes on my math paper and I rewrote the paper together with him. For this paper, I got the worst grade in my whole school career. Obviously, my teacher didn’t understand the thought processes of James Woods.
Jacobsen: How did you develop intellectual interests and productions over time into the present, in adulthood?
Jaenicke: I am creative but I do not feel very adult. Although, as a renaissance person, I might be very old.
Jacobsen: How did you find WIN? How did this become taking part in WIN ONE & Phenomenon community?
Jaenicke: I entered WIN a couple of years ago. I am a member of about twenty-five High IQ societies, among others the Poetic Genius Society in which I used to be very active. I also wrote for Leonardo Magazine. From that time, I know Graham Powell who asked me if I want to write for WIN ONE and so I did.
Jacobsen: Who have been some important writers and speakers in your life as guiding lights or signposts as to what is meaningful and important to you.
Jaenicke: I think Bertrand Russell is important to me, Wittgenstein in some way and, of course, Douglas Hofstadter. But also Charles Chaplin and the director Werner Herzog who is the inspiration for my insane penguin Werner.
Jacobsen: You are part of a large number of high IQ societies. What ones mean the most to you? Why?
Jaenicke: The high IQ landscape has changed very much over the years. There are countless societies out there to choose from. Some make it and others don’t. When I began looking for high IQ groups online, there were not so many choices available as today. I am a founding member of the WGD (World Genius Directory founded by Dr. Jason Betts). As a poet, I have been very active in the Poetic Genius Society. Today, I think it is not so much the name of a certain society that matters, but the people who took the initiative and invested their effort, time, and love into the upbringing of these groups. Without naming anyone in particular, I would like to thank those among us who are working tirelessly to make the communication in high IQ groups and societies not only possible but highly enjoyable.
Jacobsen. What have been the mainstream intelligence tests taken by you before? What have been the scores and the standard deviations?
Jaenicke: As a child, I have taken the HAWIK (Hamburg-Wechsler Intelligence Scale für Kinder) and later the WAIS. Germany is mostly a mediocre country and in my childhood there were many concerns about measuring the IQ of children. The tendency was to foster the ordinary and not the extraordinary. Children with a higher IQ were often bullied and forced to adapt to the learning pace and capacity of the lesser talented. Germany had made bad experiences with the fostering of elites during the Third Reich and after the war the official aim was to create an education system based on the average population rather than one that promotes excellence. Everything above or below average was regarded as out of the norm or not normal. My scores as a child were very divergent, from Mensa entry criteria to ridiculously high, depending on the circumstances, but also on the particular state of my development. I do not think the results of these tests are very representative as a whole. Anyway, for me, the actual fixed number does not have such importance because, in my opinion, it is a fluid value. I try to fill my IQ potential with purpose and become the best me I can possibly be; that is enough work for one lifetime.
Jacobsen: What have been the alternative or non-mainstream intelligence tests taken by you before? What have been the scores and standard deviations of those scores?
Jaenicke: I have taken a couple of high-range tests. I think the average result of all tests taken gives a good and trustworthy result.
Jacobsen: What would be the most accurate IQ or true IQ for you?
Jaenicke: My shoe size is 37 (US 6 1/2). My body mass index and my true IQ are very personal, but the score of 153 S.D. (Standard Deviation) 15 listed in the World Genius Directory suits me most [Ed. A statistical rarity of 1-out-of-4,873 people out of the general population].
Jacobsen: What is intelligence to you? Do you identify as a genius?
Jaenicke: Intelligence is somehow recursive. Everything which is animate is in its own way intelligent and has a complex dynamic, connected to particular loci in a given verse. The root of the word genius is “geno-,” which includes the whole of mankind. I like that, but I would describe myself more as a polymath. I know a little bit of all kinds of something, but I really know nothing.
Jacobsen: Why do women appear to take fewer high-range IQ tests? Why do the highest scores appear to be almost dominated by men?
Jaenicke: That is an interesting question. One could say that the structure of IQ tests is more oriented toward male intelligence or that men are more competitive, but that is not the whole answer. Recently, I have read an article in a German newspaper, where someone suggested to separate boys and girls in science classes because of the lesser participation of girls in mixed classes. I think that is total nonsense! But in my opinion, there is a point that should be discussed more openly in high IQ groups and that is about mobbing. I have spoken to a lot of women and many say that they have been mobbed or insulted in the high IQ community at least one time. Some of them even left the groups or prefer to communicate on a private basis via email. It seems only too comprehensible that women with very high intelligence and sensitivity do not perform well under this kind of pressure. It is perfectly understandable when they back off and leave the high IQ community. While a high IQ score in a test is certainly something desirable, we should not forget our awareness for our fellow men and women. A high IQ is nothing without a minimum of empathy.
Jacobsen: Who do you consider some of the most significant or important geniuses in history?
Jaenicke: The first anonymous who ignited the flame.
Jacobsen: Any favorite authors, poets, painters, or composers?
Jaenicke: A.A. Milne, Edgar Allen Poe, Douglas Hofstadter, Bertrand Russel, J.W. Goethe, William Shakespeare, the unknown artists of the Lascaux and Chauvet cave in France, Vincent van Gogh, Lucas Cranach the Elder (I have some loose family ties to him), J.S. Bach, Mozart, The Rolling Stones, etc. We are all standing on the shoulders of giants.
Jacobsen: Do you have any personal opinion on God or gods?
Jaenicke: In your question lies the answer. Every opinion about God or gods is personal and entirely subjective. But the fact that you spelled the one God with a capital G suggests that the importance lies in the all comprising unity of One.
Jacobsen: This one is murky. It is hard to define. What is religion?
Jaenicke: Well, let’s see, first, we should differ between religion, spirituality, and, pure gnosis, which means knowledge. From early times on, humans have had an inborn spirituality, a connectedness to nature and the universe and the strong awareness of something greater. I would go so far to say that we are not alone with this concept. While I have been working with wolves for a behavioural study, I noticed that they have a sense for hyper-natural phenomena. Later, I have often noticed the same in my dogs. I think all intelligent large mammals are able to experience the overwhelming vastness of the universal realm to a certain grade. And nature is the key to spirituality. Religion, is a manmade construct, which has proven to be very useful to communicate a certain desirable moral or ethical codex. It is mostly based on myths and legends, which are very important because they are our connection to the past. But many religions use mediators to interpret between the direct spiritual and the people. These interpretations are often based on the principles of blind obedience and subjective beliefs without any proof or certainty. The unfortunate byproduct of this kind of blind faith is dogma and dogma can lead to error, fanaticism, and fatality. Nevertheless, religion has an important purpose to accompany humanity from infancy to adolescence. In a world where moral, ethical, and humanitarian aspects are often ignored, religion and prayer practiced in private has its very own and important standing. Or as Kierkegaard would have said: “The function of prayer is not to influence God but rather to change the nature of the one who prays.” My personal approach is an open one based on old and new knowledge, and science. I somehow don’t think it is heretical to state that a God is also a Dog. Is the light of the reflection from a mirror less light than the candle I hold? Everything is fractional and has multiply sides. One should not avoid a Void.
Jacobsen: What was the culture of Germany in the 1960 and 1970s?
Jaenicke: Well, I was a child at this time. As I mentioned before, I was born in the western part of the city of Berlin. After WW2, the city of Berlin was divided between the allied forces of the U.S., Great Britain, and France on one side, and the Russian sector on the other side of the Iron Curtain. The atmosphere in the city was dominated by the Cold War. The western part of Berlin was a free democratic island surrounded by the communistic dictatorship. West Berlin was connected to East Berlin by the famous Check Point Charlie and only had transit corridors to the rest of West Germany. Today, you can find many great books and films about this time. From John Le Carre’ to the film: “The Bridge of Spies” by Steven Spielberg. It was the great classical time of espionage and Berlin was in the center of it. Of course, as a small child, I had no clue about all this. At this time, I often went on the public bus with my granny. I saw the many sad and worn out faces, which made me very concerned. I decided to make people happy by singing songs to them. My cultural life at this time was mostly dominated by the newest Walt Disney movies. My mother worked for the Disney studios in Berlin. We got free tickets for the cinema. I loved the movies. A couple of years later, when the film “Cabaret” with Liza Minelli came out, I desperately wanted to go to it. Unfortunately, the film had an age rating of 18 years. So, my mother put some make up on my cheeks and dressed me up. She told the ticket seller that I was a 63-year-old dwarf and a bit challenged. She was my caretaker. It worked and I was in!
Jacobsen: What makes a bad poet, a good poet, and a rare great poet?
Jaenicke: His or her poetry.
Jacobsen: With your intelligence and level of productivity, what seems like the relationship between intelligence and productivity?
Jaenicke: Perhaps, we should distinguish between productivity and creativity. A productive hard working person does not necessarily need to have a very high intelligence. Farmers, toolmakers, and engineers, with an average intelligence can produce a multitude of great products by walking in the footsteps of others. A creative person has the urge to find new fertile lands by setting her/his own traces. Creativity is in the first place the ability to think outside the box and come up with new concepts and solutions, while high intelligence is the ability to process information. In some rare circumstances, both go hand in hand and can lead to a certain output.
Jacobsen: What motivates you? Why write, produce?
Jaenicke: As I said, it is an urge to do so.
Jacobsen: Everyone determines the happiness, or rather happinesses, for themselves. Those hills and valleys of potential, chosen and actualized to make meaning, significance, in life. What makes you happy? What gives you significance-meaning in life out of life?
Jaenicke: First of all, I can not remember when I was born into this life, that someone promised me to be happy, the deal was to be alive. I think every day, every hour of our life should have a meaning as you and me belong to the few lucky ones who have come into existence and actually have the possibility to live on this planet for a while. Many others aren’t so lucky and some of us even die after the first couple of hours. Since the dawn of time life has been associated with struggle, the first breath of a child is struggle. But life means also love, immense beauty, and the precious moments of happiness and contentment. If you look at nature, at birds fighting for survival in the long month of winter and bear mothers caring for their cubs, you might understand perfectly what the significance of life is. It is a learning curve. Homo sapiens has managed to take itself out of the direct impact of nature and now longs for some substitute for happiness. Those I love give meaning to my life and I try my best to give meaning to theirs. Concerning my own doubtful significance, I think you should not ask me, but those to whom I am in someway significant.
Jacobsen: You earned the Bavarian Film Award, Bambi Award, Deutscher Darstellerpreis, and the 2018 Distinguished Visionary of the Year Award from the VedIQ Guild Foundation. What was the reason for the honours – the production honoured – for you?
Jaenicke: The Bavarian Filmpreis has been awarded to me for the Film “The Swing” by Percy Adlon. The Bambi for the TV family series “Mensch Bachmann” where I played the youngest daughter called “Bunny”. The Deutsche Darstellerpreis was for a film with Franco Nero and the Distinguished Visionary of the Year Award has been awarded to me for the whole of my artistic work as a Visionary and Thinker cum Arte.
Jacobsen: What did the awards and honours mean to you?
Jaenicke: I see them as a conformation and feedback of my work but also as a major stimulus to go on and become better in what I do.
Jacobsen: What is the real purpose or positive purpose of awards for poets, people in the arts and humanities, especially when the pay for the vast majority stinks?
Jaenicke: It is an acknowledgment and a motivation for sure!
Jacobsen: How does Germany support artists? How does the European Union even in the current social and political climate?
Jaenicke: I think I mentioned before that Germany is a rather mediocre country with little free spaces for artists. Or as the Chinese painter Ai Wei Wei said: “Germany is not a good place for artists.” Filmmakers are almost entirely dependent on governmental subventions, which is a bit disturbing because a state where the government controls film and media is in danger of drifting away from democracy.
Jacobsen: What have been some poignant artistic productions on the current artistic scene about the political and social dynamics in Germany?
Jaenicke: After the fall of the Iron Curtain, there have been some internationally renowned films. For example, the Academy Award-winning film “Das Leben der Anderen” in 2006 by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck. Unfortunately, such productions are rather rare because financing is too slow and complicated, Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck was only able to make this movie because the actors were willing to work for only 20% of their costume salary. And the filmmakers were running more than ten years to get a budget of two million Euros. Later, this film became the flagship of the German film industry. Germany has become very technocratic and ridged in some way. But the cars are still very good!
Jacobsen: What ones have been more art for art’s sake as individual expression without some political or social commentary implied to it.
Jaenicke: While the U.S. has a commercial studio film industry, the film market in Germany is crucially dependent of governmental funding and television co-productions. This kind of funding implies that filmmakers produce what pleases the media boards or is in a certain degree political and socially correct. The result is mainly a very unoriginal output, which is brought into line with the current social and political demands. Also, I think there are a lot of very talented young film makers and artists around. Every year, many people graduate from German Film Academies, but only a handful of them finds work. The rare group of dedicated filmmakers who make film to express themselves need years to get a decent free funding or have to pledge grandma’s heritage. They often make only one film or are financially ruined after their first work. It is a rather sad development.
Jacobsen: How do you see the world as a producer of original work, as an artist does? Most others either recreate some work in a technical manner, e.g., engineers, find something new once and then hand off to the recreators, e.g. scientists, or work a life of drudgery, e.g., most of human beings in history and now at an ordinary job?
Jaenicke: In my opinion you can only be good at what you love and if you love what you do, there is nothing ordinary about it. Whatever it is.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/05/04
An Interview with Monika Orski
Monika Orski is the Ordförande/Chairwoman, Mensa Sverige/Mensa Sweden. She discusses: family background; development in early life; learning of giftedness; nurturance of giftedness; investment in the gifted and talented; families and friends and guidance for the gifted, and a myth about gifted peoples’ social skills; precision in the definition of Western Europe and the provisions for gifted peoples in it; geniuses in the more precisely defined geography of “Western Europe”; high-IQ as never being a detriment; and feeling connection with one’s cultural heritage.
Keywords: Chairwoman, Mensa Sverige, Mensa Sweden, Monika Orski, Ordförande.
1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In terms of geography, culture, language, and religion/irreligion, what is personal family background?
Monika Orski: I was born and raised in Stockholm, Sweden. My parents had immigrated from Poland just over a year before my birth, the effect of an antisemitic campaign that resulted in many Polish Jews emigrating, among them a few thousand to Sweden. Thus, I’m first generation Swedish. Or, in the parlance of official language as well as large part of the public view, second-generation immigrant.
The Jewish inheritance in my family is a matter of culture and ethnicity, not a religious one. I was not brought up to care about any religion at all. Which, by the way, fits well into the general, relatively secular Swedish culture.
As for language, my native Swedish has always been supplemented with the Polish that remained the everyday language for family life in my childhood, and that my parents still use when we talk. Then, I was taught English and French in school. I consider this early access to multiple languages a real treasure.
2. Jacobsen: How did these multiple facets of family background feed into early life for you?
Orski: It’s all part of me, of course. Being part of a minority is a very basic experience, and in some ways defining. I never had a choice not to be visibly ”different”, and I’m sure it has shaped a certain outlook. I am, of course, as much of a consensus seeker as anyoneSwedish, but I am not afraid to stand out when needed.
Also, I am aware that family background was an important influence when I chose my field of work. I studied literature in parallel with computer engineering, but it was always clear that the serious, long-term part was to become an engineer. It had to be something that wasn’t language dependent, something that could be used more or less anywhere in the world. An element of “just in case” was always part of the equation.
Not that I ever regretted being a software engineer. Today, I have been a freelancing consultant for a long time, mostly in the area of solution architecture, and also do other things on the side. I am a writer with books published, and I offer lectures on leadership, mostly based on my experience within Mensa.
3. Jacobsen: When did giftedness become a fact of life for you, explicitly? Of course, you lived and live with it. The key, when was the high general intelligence formally measured, acknowledged, and integrated into personal identity and loved ones’ perception of you?
Orski: It was formally measured when I took a Mensa admission test at age 21. But there was no change in either personal identity or loved ones’ perception caused by this formal measure. By then, I was a student, and had been considered – and considered myself – intelligent since childhood. For better or worse.
4. Jacobsen: Was your giftedness nurtured in early life into adolescence?
Orski: Yes and no.
I was lucky to grow up in a family where academic success was encouraged, or even expected. I guess we fit the stereotype of a Jewish family, at least in that way. Also, there were always books around, and while my parents often tried to make me spend more time outdoors, they were never opposed to my copious reading as such.
School was another matter. I was not a top-grade student, but I did well enough, while I was horribly bored by school work and had no chance to learn how to actually work to gain knowledge. Being different didn’t help the social interaction either. For quite a long time, a day without physical violence would count as a good day, and there were not that many good school days.
In class, I was often used as an unpaid teaching assistant, starting somewhere around the age 9 or 10. Then, I was a child, and only saw that this singled me out even more, and certainly didn’t help. But as an adult, I am most appalled by what those teachers did to my classmates. Imagine you are eleven and have some trouble following the class in math – and then you are supposed to be taught by a frustrated ten-year-old. Doesn’t that sound like a failsafe way to turn temporary difficulties into permanent failures? Although with time, I actually learned some pedagogical skills, mostly the hard way by trial and error.
5. Jacobsen: Why should governments and communities invest in the gifted, identification and education?
Orski: First and foremost, because every child should be allowed to explore their potential, and feel validated in doing so. Of course, it is more important to teach everyone the basic skills: read and write etc. However, if that is the only level you measure your education system by, you have already given up.
There is the individual point of view. People are not happy when they are kept back, and while adults always have at least some opportunities to counteract this themselves, children usually do not. Even more so when they know they are somehow different from those around them, and are left with only the negative consequences. Also, if you don’t learn how to work to learn things, you will probably experience a sudden change at some point, when you no longer can absorb everything without effort. If that happens before you are old enough to understand it, it will probably cause a traumatic decline of self-esteem.
There is also the society point of view. Many of the gifted will end up in regular, but qualified careers, and thus benefit society as a whole. But there is more to it. If allowed a broad education, some of those gifted children will shape future fields we do not even have names for today, and provide huge contributions. Some, of course, will choose other paths, not visibly using their intelligence in career or public life, but the community will benefit in those cases too. Overall, the number of gifted trouble makers, in schools as well as far beyond, will be less if everyone gets the chance to explore their potential. We cannot know in advance who will end up where, but we do know that either way society as a whole will benefit from investing in their education.
6. Jacobsen: How can families and friends help prevent gifted kids from a) acting arrogant and b) becoming social car crashes (with a) and b) being related, of course)?
Orski: There is a prevailing myth that intelligent people have poor social skills. In fact, research shows the contrary. There is a positive correlation between intelligence and social skills.
That said, all children have some tendencies to see themselves as the center of the world, and act accordingly. This is perfectly natural. It is true that in gifted children, an arrogance rooted in their giftedness would be a common symptom of this tendency. Like all children, they need to be taught to interact with others, and called on behavior that is not acceptable. That would include to let them know that kindness is usually more important than specific skills, as well as more important than an ability to learn quickly.
Another aspect is that all children need to have peers they will consider equals. When other gifted children are not a natural part of a child’s environment, the most valuable assistance family and friends can provide is to help them find them. This can be done via aMensa youth program, or a chess club (if they like chess), or a choir (if they like singing) or online gaming (if they like games), or some other context that brings people of similar interests and gifts together. Of course, I am personally very much in favor of the Mensapath.
7. Jacobsen: How well-established and funded is the acceptance and nurturance of the gifted and talented through the formal mechanisms of the countries in Western Europe?
Orski: Western Europe is a very diverse area, and it’s hard to discuss it as a whole. In short, every country has it’s own educational system. Now, I’m not sure how many European countries should be included when using a term like “Western Europe”, but to provide some understanding of the diversity, remember the European Union currently has 28 members, and that not all European countries are part of the EU.
However, among the things we do have in common one comes to mind when discussing education. Tuition is financed by tax money in most European countries, including university tuition. The access to university education is subject to many things, and will again vary between countries, but no potential student needs to worry about whether their finances, or those of their parents, will allow them to pay for their education.
To narrow down to an area I do know, for a few years Sweden has a law stating that in elementary and secondary school, every pupil should be allowed to learn and develop to their potential. In practice, this is far from being the case at every school, but at least there is a general framework that is supposed to help nurture all children, including gifted children.
Among the things we are most proud of within Mensa Sweden, is the Gifted Children Program (GCP). Our GCP-volunteers offer schools a free 2-hour education on giftedness for their staff. Thus, we help not only gifted children with parents who recognize their talents and seek ways to nurture them, but also children we never meet, as their teachers are taught how to recognize them. This year, between them our 40+ volunteers give 2-3 such lectures a week.
8. Jacobsen: Western Europe produced a number of great geniuses. Who comes to mind for you? What periods of time represent the largest flowering of intellectual progress in this region of the world?
Orski: Again, I would like to start with the proviso that Western Europe as a concept is diverse and without clear delimitation.
Among those who come to mind for me are scientists Isaac Newton, Carl Linnaeus, Marie Curie and Albert Einstein; philosophers Spinoza, Voltaire, Hegel and de Beauvoir; writers Cervantes, Dante, Shakespeare, de la Fayette, Goethe, Austen, Heine, Lagerlöf, Strindberg, Ibsen … I could go on at length regarding writers.
Intellectual progress spreads over the long history of Europe. Not being particularly well versed in the history of ideas, I will however venture the guess that the age of enlightenment (17th – 18th century) represents a flowering with effects also seen in the 19th century, and that the Romantic era (late 18th – 19th century) represent a surge in arts and literature that is still relevant to these areas today.
9. Jacobsen: How can a high-IQ be a detriment in life?
Orski: High-IQ itself is never a detriment. On the contrary, high-IQ makes many things in life easier, and there is research indicating a positive correlation between intelligence and many desirable things, such as longevity and health.
However, high-IQ can have detrimental side effects. Being and feeling different always has its downsides, especially while you are very young. Even a child who is told ”you’re really gifted and that makes you different in all sorts of good ways” will only hear ”you’re different”. Those who do not know about their intelligence often feel like aliens, not being able to understand why they don’t think the way most people around them do, and they often draw the conclusion there is something wrong with them.
This is part of why the acknowledgment of high general intelligence can make a fantastic difference in an individual’s life. Suddenly they get the tools needed to understand why they feel the way they do. Even more important, they gain an understanding that helps them look for peers they can feel equal to, sometimes after half a life of feeling inferior because they perceive themselves as different.
10. Jacobsen: How can ethnic heritage provide a bulwark for confidence in life? Something of a pride or happiness in heritage and culture, and tradition, but not in the accident of birth with ethnic grouping.
Orski: I agree, to feel pride in the accident of birth with ethnic grouping would be like pride in the color of your eyes – basically meaningless and in my view inconceivable.
While I can see a point in discussing pride in heritage, I am rather reluctant to use the word pride in this context. A feeling of connection and history is a better description. The heritage of culture will always be part of every one of us, and it’s usually good to feel a connection and continuity within it. Also, such a connection can foster feelings of responsibility, and a will to do good in and for the world around us.
A 2nd Interview with Monika Orski: Ordförande/Chairman, Mensa Sverige/Mensa Sweden
1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What have been the books written by you? What topics tend to be the focus for you?
Monika Orski: In this area, I am a typical mensan, in that my activity is diverse. This far I have published three books, each of them very different from the others.
My first book, in 2007, is an introduction to open source software. There was no such book in Swedish, and I saw a need for it, as part of my computer systems related consulting work.
The second book, in 2011, is a young adults novel. It tells a story of friendship, incipient romantic interests, and mental illness. When it was published, I often got the question whether it’s autobiographic. It is not.
The third and most recent book is a collection of short stories, published in 2017 but written over many years. The short stories are partially intertwined, with most of the main characters part of a Jewish family in Stockholm, Warsaw and Jerusalem. Again, I often get the question if it’s autobiographic. It is not, but of course I have used settings I am familiar with, and in part processed stories I have heard.
If things turn out according to plan, there will be a fourth book published next year, 2019. This time around I go back to nonfiction, for a book on leadership of the highly gifted, largely based on my Mensa experience.
2. Jacobsen: Also, why those topics for the texts?
Orski: Well, they are all topics that interest me. I always write something or other. Some texts reach publication, others do not. Writing is a hobby I find rewarding in itself, even when it does not produce tangible results.
I also look to what is currently topical in Swedish literature, as for the young adults book, and of course to what I know about, as in the nonfiction. All in all, there are many factors shaping the choice of topics, and I am aware that I am probably unaware of half of them. Like most writers, I would presume.
3. Jacobsen: Let us talk about the different functions and facets of Mensa Sweden: how many members?
Orski: Around 7,000 members, and the number increases every year. With Sweden’s circa 10 million population, we are the national Mensa with the highest number of members per million inhabitants, which we are very proud of.
I also find it noteworthy that the only other national Mensa at a similar level of members per million is Mensa Finland. Since many years, we have a friendly competition with our neighbours for this first place. There are larger national groups, of course, but no other is even near the same numbers per million.
4. Jacobsen: What demographics remain a part of Mensa Sweden?
Orski: Well, we do not really keep statistics of demographics regarding anything but age and gender. The average age of Swedish mensans is 36. We have around 25 % women, 74% men, 1% others / unknown gender.
As a side note, the success rate of candidates who take the admission test is slightly higher for women than for men. Not a large difference, but visible. Thus, if we could only persuade as many women as men to take the admission test, the gender balance would even out with time.
5. Jacobsen: What other Mensa groups frequently associated with Mensa Sweden?
Orski: All the national Mensa groups, currently around 50 of them, are associated under the realm of Mensa International. But there are also regional cooperations, and we are very happy about the close cooperation we have between the Nordics, i.e. the national Mensas of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden.
6. Jacobsen: What does Mensa Sweden provide for its members?
Orski: Mensa is member-driven, and almost all work within the organization is done by volunteers. This means the most important service we provide are ways to meet other members, and decide what to do together. There are local meetings spread around Sweden, organized by members who simply announce a pub meeting, or book a lecturer and a room for the lecture, etc.
There are, of course, larger meetings organized by groups of volunteers and supervised by elected Mensa officers on the board. There is also a magazine published 8 times a year, by volunteer editors and with contributions from members.
Then there is the opportunity to help out as a volunteer in the Gifted Children Program I mentioned before, and many members see this as a key function. It is a very tangible way to contribute to one of the three stated purposes of Mensa: to identify and foster human intelligence for the benefit of humanity, to encourage research in the nature, characteristics and uses of intelligence, and to promote stimulating intellectual and social opportunities for its members.
8. Jacobsen: What is the average standard deviation IQ score of the members?
Orski: The criteria to join Mensa is the same all over the world, to score among the highest 2% on a supervised intelligence test.
We prefer the use of percentile to IQ scores. To still answer the question about scores: Intelligence is normally distributed. Assuming a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, a passing Mensa score is 131 or above.
9. Jacobsen: What is the relationship between Mensa at 2-sigma and other high-IQ groups at 3-sigma and 4-sigma?
Orski: In short, none. Mensa is by far the most well-established high-IQ group, and has no direct relationship to any other group.
Of course, there are members who also join other groups, like Intertel (1%) or Triple Nine (0.1%) or ISPE (0.1%). In my experience, those who do usually stay in Mensa too, and are more likely to continue their Mensa membership than members of any of the others.
10. Jacobsen: There seems to be a widespread loss of the gifted and talent for the benefit of society and the fulfillment and meaning, in their own lives. How would you recommend Sweden move forward in the identification, education, and utilization of the young gifted and talented population?
Orski: I’m not at all sure there is such a widespread loss. Of course, most of the gifted people I come across are members of Mensa, which means they are in the relatively small group that wants to join a high-IQ society. Among them, far from everyone has any sort of visibly intellectual career, but that doesn’t imply they cannot be happy with their life and benefit society.
That said, I still think that much can be gained if gifted children are identified and given an education proper to their needs. If schools learn to identify them early, they can be taught in slightly different ways, to cater to their intellectual conditions and needs. Most important, they should not be held back. It can make a significant difference just to allow a child to sit quietly and read about something s/he is interested in, instead of having to explicitly wait for their classmates to accomplish a task they themselves were able to do in a few minutes. Not only does it let them do something meaningful, it also gives them a feeling of being rewarded for having done the standard tasks, instead of being punished for completing them faster than others.
11. Jacobsen: What programs exist in advanced industrial economies for the gifted and talented that could easily be implemented in Sweden?
Orski: There are probably many good programs I am not aware of. Then, every educational system has its problems. However, I think the schooling systems of France and Finland would probably be interesting to look to for hints, as both tend to produce good results.
12. Jacobsen: What gifted and talented programs would take the longest to establish in Sweden but would have the greatest long-term impact on the intellectual flourishing of the country?
Orski: In my view, the greatest long-term positive impact would be produced by a shift of focus in university education. Today, it is mostly about training students for specific professions. We have university education for teachers, psychologists, engineers etc – but to gain a broad education that spans over several subjects is hard, not in terms of the actual learning process but in terms of being able to put such an education together. The system is designed to streamline student throughput, not to let them explore several possible talents.
Gifted young people should be able to combine subjects more easily. If they are allowed to find new combinations, and follow their usual multiple talents, some of them will be eminent in fields that do not even exist yet. But that takes a shift in education as a whole, and especially a shift that would allow university students to still pursue a specific field, but also let them create new combinations for learning.
Also, there remains the basic imperative never to punish gifted youth for being gifted. It is not as easy as it sounds, as every educational system has to be mostly adapted for the average, for practical reasons. However, I think much can be accomplished by the general approach that no one should be held back.
13. Jacobsen: What are some informal education and practical life skills the gifted and talent should acquire if they wish to pursue a life in writing?
I will start with the things everyone who wants to pursue a life in writing should do: Read, read, write, read, write and then read some more. You need to be truly rooted in your language, you need to know about other literature in your field, and you also need to read classics to be able to relate to current writing, including your own. If you do not enjoy reading, writing is not the path for you. Also, writing is a craft. It takes practice.
The next thing is, remember that very few writers can actually live off their writing. This is especially true for all of us who work in small linguistic regions. Here, the gifted usually have an advantage. Most highly gifted people have multiple talents, and thus it is easier to pursue a “daytime job”, or another parallel career, as well as being a writer.
Another important practical thing is to find peers to exchange text analysis. Find other writers at about your own level, and form a group that will share text and help each other by criticism. It is important that you should not be in the habit of praise each other’s texts, but actually criticize. That is the way to learn, and also learn to pay more attention to the strengths and weaknesses of the text before you. This group should, ideally, contain writers from different walks of life and with different intellectual skills.
14. Jacobsen: What are some prominent cases of when a known highly gifted person went wrong, e.g. antisocial, violent, and so on?
Orski: My Internet search is no better than that of anybody else… It has been widely published that the “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski is probably highly gifted. The same things are said about another terrorist, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Of course, I have no way to corroborate these claims.
High intelligence is no guarantee against mental illness. Neither is it a guarantee for high morals. Unfortunately, there is no sign that the highly intelligent don’t go wrong about as often – or as seldom – as those of average intelligence.
A 3rd Interview with Monika Orski: Ordförande/Chairman, Mensa Sverige/Mensa Sweden
1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does collaboration work with the other Mensa chapters? What have been some of the collaborative projects worked on together?
Monika Orski: There is formal cooperation, to shape the rules that make Mensa chapters around the world all stay part of the federation. Then there is informal and semi-formal cooperation, mostly to create opportunities for members to meet.
Within Europe, there is a semi-formal cooperation around an annual common meeting, known as EMAG (European Mensa Annual Gathering). Formally, it is hosted by a different Mensa each year, but previous and future organizers cooperate closely for every event. I have attended every one since the start in 2008, and they have all been great fun. Also, I was the coordinator when we did one in Stockholm, in 2012.
Within the Nordics, we have a more recent common annual meeting, known as the Floating Mensans, as it is always a cruise between two of the countries. We have done two this far, had good success, and expect this meeting type to continue. We also cooperate to try and help create Mensa groups in neighbouring countries where Mensa is not yet present. In addition, I think all Nordic chairs are very happy about an annual chairs’ meeting, when we exchange experiences and best practices and offer each other support when needed.
2. Jacobsen: How have the other chapters been helpful in the development of Mensa Sweden?
Orski: The very first Mensa group in Sweden was founded in 1964 by a member of American Mensa, Jay Albrecht, who lived in Stockholm for a few years. Without that seed, who knows if we would have the thriving national group of today.
Then, there is always an exchange of ideas. For example, when Mensa Sweden had a large revision of our bylaws around 15 years ago, we got many good ideas from Mensa Norway, who had done a similar revision about a year earlier, but we also picked up some ideas from Mensa Hungary. More recently, we have been able to use experiences from Czech Mensa in discussions about paper publishing or e-publishing of our Mensa magazine, seen some interesting ideas from Australian Mensa regarding young members, etc. We are all part of an international organization, and that is among the key strengths of Mensa.
3. Jacobsen: Some individuals work to reduce the diversity of the possible programs for an individual student’s training. Some recent news items arose in the feed for me. With respect to the training and education earned in various disciplines including the typically higher-prestige and higher-paying jobs mentioned by you, what might shift the emphasis from the siloed education typified in some modern post-secondary education – for a teacher, a psychologist, or an engineer, and so on – to a broader base? An education for someone with the more plural, life-long intellectual interests rather than the singular professional ones.
Orski: There seems to be a continued development towards more streamlined, and siloed, education. My guess is that it’s mostly driven by short-term economic reasons, but it can also be perceived as making it easier to find the right education for a student with a purpose to pursue a specific profession. It would certainly not be easy to shift the other way, into a broader base.
One step towards such a broader base would be to allow students to start out with two, or even three, parallel courses from start. Let the multi-talented, and the multi-curious, try out several paths without a clear-cut switch between them. Then, let them continue – one path or several – and add more learning, some of which can be from entirely different disciplines.
While I think the general tracks for education into specific jobs also needs to remain there for those who know that one of those tracks is what they want, it should also be made easy to put together the required parts of such a track from the multi-course track, for those who start out there and then want to be qualified for a certain profession. Even within the specific job educational tracks, there should be room for, and time for, the possibility to also take some courses in other disciplines.
Not an easy change, of course. But in the long run, it would benefit all students.
4. Jacobsen: In personal and experience and knowing the data better than me, what differences exist between girls and boys, men and women, with respect to general intelligence? What similarities exist between them too? Do these considerations influence the provisions of Mensa Sweden?
Orski: In short, as far as we know there are no such differences. At least, I have not heard of any serious research that showed such differences and could be repeated.
There are many theories regarding this topic, usually spread along with claims of ”natural differences” that any quick examination will disprove as things that have differed over time and differ between cultures. These assertions are usually made by people with a clear political agenda, and do not merit anything but the quick examination that disproves them.
As far as I know, there has actually been one scientific study that showed a small difference between men and women regarding the spread of intelligence. According to this study, while the average intelligence of men and women is the same, there is a small but measurable predominance of men in the extremes of intelligence – very low intelligence as well as very high. However, the study has been criticized for not having enough subjects at these extremes to be statistically significant, and no one has yet been able to recreate the results.
As I mentioned before, we do see a small but clear difference among those who take our admission test, in that women are more likely to “pass”, i.e. score among the top 2%. But there is absolutely no proof that this shows a general difference in intelligence. After all, only a very small portion of the population take our test, and among those who do there are many more men than women. It seems probable the difference in ”pass” percentage simply exposes a difference in how sure of their own high intelligence women and men need to be to go take the test.
5. Jacobsen: If someone is a layperson and has an inkling someone in their life is gifted, what non-professional observational clue would indicate the various levels of the giftedness of this person in their life? The signifiers, maybe not universal but probably indicative, of the person being gifted, highly gifted, even profoundly and exceptionally gifted.
Orski: The highly gifted usually display some combination of the following traits: thinks fast, asks many questions, quickly infers more information from what they are told, has many ideas, has multiple interests, has more than one profession, likes in-depth discussions, likes to learn new things, has a well-developed sense of humour, learns easily. Many are also high achievers, and set extremely high standards for themselves. Sometimes impossibly high standards, that they would not dream of setting for anyone else.
In children, you can add that they are usually early in many things. Read early, pass intellectual milestones early, develop an interest in world events and adult conversations early. They also tend to be easily bored, and can have some trouble in interactions with other children. Regardless of whether they find other children they like to spend time with, they also tend to like solitary activities.
None of those traits are universal, of course. But if you see several of them in someone, they are likely to be highly gifted.
6. Jacobsen: Regarding punitive educational philosophies and methodologies, what seems like the more typical forms of punishing the gifted for being gifted?
Orski: Holding them back, is my short answer. I know many stories of young children who, when they showed their teachers they had done all the exercises in their textbook, were told to ”do them over again”. As if there could be nothing more for them to learn. And of course, they often get explicitly told to hold back, and try and adjust to the average pace of their classmates.
7. Jacobsen: We watch the unique flourishing of women in most areas of education, especially in undergraduate education in the developed nations. Girls and young women continue to opt into the world of education. Boys and young men seem to opt out more now. Girls and young women had various ceilings imposed on them for a long time, especially in the world of education. Boys and young men did not have the ceilings. Now, though, they seem to have the problem of a motivational ceiling – of sorts – imposed on themselves. Why the gap in education attendance, completion, and performance between girls and boys, and young women and young men?
Orski: I doubt that anyone really has a good answer to this question. As you say, there seems to be sort of motivational ceiling, or motivational deficit. Formal education is considered less important, partially as an effect of the growing importance within our whole society of personal characteristics and certain sets of social skills, at the expense of knowledge. And areas considered less important are usually left to women.
We also need to remember that the exact same behaviour will be assessed differently, depending on whether the person doing it is male or female. We all learn this so early, it is almost impossible to fully counteract it in our own reactions, even when we are aware of it. For some reason, judgements of boys not making an effort to take in the education they are offered seem to be much more tolerant than they are of girls with the same behaviour.
Many boys and young men seem to expect to get good jobs and incomes without having to make any sort of effort. There is such a tendency among some girls and young women too, but it is much less common. At the other end of the spectrum, more boys seem to give up early, and expect nothing more than to gain a kind of respect from their peers by the ability to use their fists, or at worst, the ability to procure and use weapons. But as to why this is so? I have no answer.
8. Jacobsen: What are the pitfalls and main difficulties of a life in writing?
Orski: The first difficulty is to actually sit down and write the text. I have met many persons who say ”I would like to write a book”, but what they really mean is ”I would like to have written a book”. Most of them never even try, of course. I guess someone with very strong character and determination could write a book only driven by the wish to have written it, but most of us need to like the writing itself to do it.
To like writing means to like hours by yourself with your text. There are sometimes good hours of progress, but sometimes also very slow hours when things simply will not work out, until you tried tens of different ways to put your words down. The ensuing frustration and criticism of your own work go with the territory.
Then, there is the obvious difficulty of having it published and, most crucially, read. Today, self-publication is easy, but to get readers without a publishing house to help is very difficult. I would strongly recommend to try and get the help of old-fashioned publishing house publication. Even then, as I mentioned before, only a few writers can make a living out of their writing, especially if you work within a small linguistic region.
9. Jacobsen: What have been some of the activities and memorable dialogues and decisions made through the EMAG?
Orski: Over the years, there have been workshops on improv theatre, math, dancing, geocaching, Wikipedia, singing, martial arts, meditation, creative writing and many other topics. Among the lectures, the topics range from business to science and from art to language studies. To mention a few, this year in Belgrade in August, I heard very good lectures on Behavioural Economics and on Nikola Tesla. I also gave a lecture this year, on leading intelligent people, with a bias towards the challenges and joys of leading Mensa volunteers.
There is also a tourist program every year, a great opportunity to see a town you might not have visited otherwise. But the most important part are the mensans, old friends you see every year and new ones you meet for the first time. I have had very interesting conversations on climate change, EU politics, complex computer systems, health issues, data protection, dating life, education of gifted children, midnight sun, and how to mix a drink – just to mention a few from this year.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/11/03
Dr. Evangelos Katsioulis, M.D., M.Sc., M.A., Ph.D., works as a consultant psychiatrist and psychotherapist through online psychotherapy and counseling for Psycall. He earned an M.D., Medical Doctor Diploma (2000), M.Sc., Medical Research Technology (2003), M.A., Philosophy (2012), and Ph.D., Psychopharmacology (2015).
Dr. Katsioulis earned the best performance in the Cerebrals international contest (2009), best performance in the Cerebrals NVCP-R international contest (2003), best performance in physics for the national final exams in Greece (1993), and third place in the Maths national contest in Thessaloniki, Greece (1989).
Dr. Katsioulis scored some of the highest intelligence test scores (SD16) on international record with an IQ score of 205 on the NVCP-R [Rasch equated raw 49/54] in 2002. Dr. Katsioulis remains a member in over 60 high IQ societies. In addition, he is the president and founder of Anadeixi Academy of Abilities Assessment and World Intelligence Network (WIN), and OLYMPIQ, HELLIQ, CIVIQ, GRIQ, QIQ, IQID, GREEK high IQ societies.
Dr. Katsioulis writes articles, novels, and quotes including screenplays – ELLHNAS.com (2008) and TI PEI(2009). Also, he contributed to the web advertisement-management of NAMANIC.com and the web development of Charing Cross Scheme in Psychiatry (2006), Charing Cross & St Mary’s Membership of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (2006), and Aristotle University of Thessaloniki – School of Medicine – General Biology Laboratory (2012). He lives in Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Greece.
Dr. Evangelos Katsioulis is a Greek friend and colleague through membership on the Advisory Board of In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. Here is an interview with him, just for you, part 2.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What global problems do you consider most important at the moment? How would you solve them?
Dr. Evangelos Katsioulis: Identity crisis is the main global problem. People lost their identity, their orientation, their life quality standards. They don’t care about who they are, they develop personalities based on the mainstream trends, they play roles and they waste their lives in their attempts to adjust to what some few others expect from them and their lives.
People have neither time nor any intention to realize what life is about. They are born and live to become consistent and excellent workers, minor pieces of a giant puzzle for some few strong people’s entertainment purposes and benefits. Therefore, they don’t care about the quality of their lives, about other lives, about relationships and the society in general, about our children’s future.
It is indeed a pity, however it is a fact. Education could be helpful towards self-realization, awareness, knowledge, mental maturity, overcoming any external restrictions and limitations. As I usually say to my psychotherapy clients, the solution to any problem is to make a stop and one step back.
Jacobsen: Generally, many interacting systems operate in societies: political, economic, religious, corporate, educational, and so on. If you could build and run a society, how would you do it?
Katsioulis: I would say no more than what a great ancestor said 25 centuries ago. Plato suggested an ideal society based on the special abilities of the citizens. The most capable ones should be leading the society functions, the strongest ones should help with their physical powers, a meritocracy should be in place.
We should all contribute to the society well-functioning, if we intend to live in the society and benefit out of it. The definition of one’s prosperity should be defined only in the context of the society prosperity. If we act against our nest, how should this nest be beneficial, protective and supportive for us.
We often see people who have no other than marketing skills or powerful backgrounds to guide societies, decide about millions of people, control people’s future, when many capable and talented others live in the shadow. The most important element in any society is the citizen and people should realize their power.
There is no society without citizens, there are no rules without people to follow them. People can claim their right to live their ideal society.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): WIN ONE/Phenomenon (World Intelligence Network)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/11/03
1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Some chess Grandmasters have all-around high-quality talents, gifts, and skills in chess. Others have specific talents, which they exploit, e.g. strengths in offensive or defensive strategies, or talents in Blitz Chess. In each major division of skills, gifts, and talents, what exemplars come to mind for generalized abilities, offensive strength, defensive strength, Blitz Chess strength, and so on?
Count & Grand Master Raymond Dennis Keene, O.B.E.: The great exponent of defensive chess was a man named Tigran Petrosian, who was World Champion from 1963 to 1969. He died in 1984. He was known to be unbeatable. For example, he went through the World Championship qualifying tournament in 1962, which he won without losing a single game. He represented the Soviet Union in many, many chess Olympics and Olympiads. He only lost one game out of about 80 that he played. He was an amazing example of someone who was an exponent of defensive play. His main talent was not losing. If you do not lose, it maximizes your chances of winning. In fact, he won the World Championship.
In modern chess, the World Champion is Carlsen. He is probably the greatest exponent of the end game. I think it was the sixth game of his 2013 World Championship game against Anand. The rooks and pawns, where computers were saying the position was completely drawn, but Carlsen found a way to win, and it was a way to win the computers hadn’t seen. I think one of his strengths is in the end game.
Until there is an attack, the ones that come to mind are Alekhine, Mikhail Tal, and Garry Kasparov. Mainly, they are known for attacks against the imposing king. This has become more difficult because with modern computer players. Defense techniques are becoming better. It is becoming rarer and more difficult to achieve, but these guys in their prime were able to do that, and it wasn’t just by the brilliance of their ideas, but by the charisma of their personalities. It is not a dry exercise. Charisma, personality, and psychology play a very large part in it.
2. Jacobsen: We spoke about chess prodigies. What about late-bloomers in chess? Those that made a tremendous impact on the mind sport’s trajectory throughout its history.
Keene: Nowadays, it is difficult to become a late bloomer. It’s really very difficult indeed. You have to start young. I think all of the top Grandmasters now started very young. If you go in back in history, you can find some people who were late bloomers. One was Akiba Rubinstein. A Polish grandmaster. He didn’t learn the moves of the game until he was 16, a teenager. Yet, he became one of the world’s greatest players, and that is very, very, very rare.
In the past, winning the World Championship, Alekhine won the World Championship in 1927. He was 35 years old. That wasn’t uncommon. Nowadays, people do not win the World Championship until in their 20s. Carlsen won it in his 20s; Kasparov won it in his 20s. You need to look into the past for late bloomers.
Rubinstein is one of the ones that come to mind. Most of the great players were really strong. Capablanca was World Champion from 1921-1927 and was playing since the age of 4 with his father. He started to observe his father play. I think there are activities like mathematics, chess, where there is some kind of cosmic harmony. A five-year-old or a six-year-old could not have possibly written a novel like War and Peace because it requires expertise, historical knowledge, and experience. I think mathematics and chess are quite different. They are purely an expression of harmony, universal harmonics. Very young people could pick up on those harmonics and pick up on it. Same thing with music. You can play the violin very young. You can do mathematics very young. You can play chess very young. That is because I think there is some kind of harmony in the universe, which is in certain people with certain gifts can actualize and interpret.
3. Jacobsen: What chess games remain the greatest in history to you – top 3?
Keene: Top three games, I think probably the first one would be the immortal game between Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky played in 1851. It was a game that made a huge impact on chess history. It is called the Immortal Game because of its impact.
I would say that the game between Botvinnik and Capablanca in 1938, where Botvinnik was the representative of the Soviet school of chess. Capablanca was the old champion and was defeated by Botvinnik in a game of an amazing series of sacrifices. It showed the shift from the domination of Western chess to the new domination of the U.S.S.R. It was a beautiful game.
The final game, I think, also very symbolic, it was the 24th game of the 1985 game between Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov. Garry became the youngest of the World Champions at the age of 24 as he beat Karpov in the final game. It was not only a fascinating game, very deep strategy and amazing ideas, but, again, it showed a transition, a historical transition, between the old Soviet Union and the passing of what must have been the Soviet state from 1917 and became the New Russia.
Although brilliant games in themselves, they were symbolic of political and social change. That’s why I’d think I’d choose those three. The 1851 game, 1938 game, and 1985 one between Kasparov and Karpov. It is interesting that in those three games two were won by white, but, Kasparov, as black, won the third game. I find it interesting that normally white has the advantage. It is a bit like having the serve in tennis. The kind of massive upheaval that overthrew the Soviet state also somehow symbolizes black, as the disadvantage, somehow won that last game.
4. Jacobsen: You have produced numerous media productions for the presentation and increased knowledge, and insight, into the professional strategy of chess – even inclusion of games with individuals such as GM Garry Kasparov. What responsibilities with the chess community, other chess Grandmasters, and the public comes with taking on this important activity of accurate and in-depth representation of chess to those with/without experience in it – and in an entertaining and respectable manner?
Keene: I think that with writing about chess or broadcasting about chess, there are different audiences to bear in mind. One audience is people who are expert chess players and understand a little about the game. This is a very small number of people compared to the rest of the world. I think the next group is those that have interest chess, play chess, but do not have expert knowledge. I think that the key thing is to appeal to both groups at once. I have always tried to do this.
You can do this in two ways. First thing, you can say something about a position, or a variation, or a possibility, it has to be analytically accurate. You should not give a variation that does not work. I think that if you say something that is analytically correct and will hold up to computer scrutiny.
Next thing, which is where I think most chess commentators fail miserably, is you’ve got to make it clear, and you’ve got to make it comprehensible, and you’ve got to make it exciting. It has got to be verbally expressed. If we think back to Homer’s epic, the Iliad, Homer made that series of battles around Troy exciting. He didn’t do it by listing the latest technical developments in the forging of Greek armor. He did it by making the thing into an epic adventure. By creating heroes, by stating the deeds of an amazing set of people, I think the duty of the chess commentator is to think of the chess board like Homer, and to extol the virtues, the strengths, and the winner. You don’t denigrate the loser in the Homeric battle. You have got to explain this. You have got to present this battle between two sides. Chess is thought incarnate. It is the battle between two systems of thought. Two characteristics of thought. Two charismas of thought. It is exciting and needs to be expressed verbally, rhythmically or cosmically bound by correct variation like a symphony or epic. You cannot lie about the variations to make it more exciting. The variation is correct, the analysis would be correct, but you must be seen as a sort of bard singing the virtues of these heroes of mental warfare to make it exciting and attractive to pull more people in and show them the beauty of the game.
5. Jacobsen: You noted the current state of computers versus human beings in chess. In reflection on the defeat of Garry Kasparov by Deep Blue, what seemed like the collective reaction of the chess community, and the set of chess Grandmasters at the time?
Keene: I think that there was a belief after that match that it was still possible for Grand Masters to beat computers, that is, not lose to them. The period of matches for the World Championship for the highest honors between human thinkers and computers in mind sports, which started in 1992 where I organized the Draughts World Championship. That was the first ever world title match between a human and a computer in any thinking sport. By the time that Kasparov played Deep Blue in 1997, for a few years after that, maybe four or five years after that, it was still possible for humans and machines in thinking sports – but now, we know the computers are going to win. It will be some time before a player can sensibly challenge a computer and still win. There was a window between 1992-2008, where there was an interest in these matches. Now, we know in time what is going to happen.
Because computers advance so quickly, we no longer see computers as opponents, but as tools to help us, help the leading Grand Masters, or anybody, to improve their own play.
I hadn’t realized that that set a record for the first mind sports competition between a human and a machine. I didn’t realize it at the time but should have written a book about it.
6. Jacobsen: Some chess players utilize their station and stature in the chess world, such as Garry Kasparov, for the purpose of political and social activism too. For instance, in protest over the Presidency of Putin in Russia at the moment, Kasparov protests the government. Of course, his formidable achievements in chess provide – as you noted with yourself with respect to a certain weight in intellectual and social status – the basis for people taking his opinions, even outside of chess, seriously and given quite a lot of gravitas. What other chess Grand Masters come to mind in terms of utilization of their stature in the chess world as a means towards another personal, social, or political end?
Keene: Dr. Max Euwe, who was the World Chess champion from 1939-1947, and he defeated Alekhine in 1945, but lost the title later. He was a Dutchmen. He became a giant figure, not as a Dutchman, but someone who won the World Champion. He became a gigantic figure in Dutch society. He influenced Dutch culture to take on chess in a very big way. He was a massive figure, highly respected. One of the greats. His presence turned chess into a passion in Holland. I think if you think in countries who have worshipped chess there is Russia, Iceland, and Holland, and these are the three that really stand out.
Now, other people who have utilized their chess ability to create a certain standing: Anand in India. He has won sportsman of the year twice. He has been recognized by either Indian sportsman or cricketeers, cricketman, in India as being sportsman of the year. Although, I don’t think he’s done much with it. I do not think many chess players have done that much to leverage their chess prowess.
7. Jacobsen: What philosophical system seems the most robust and accurate in its representation of reality to you? What argument(s) and evidence seem the most convincing for this philosophical system?
Keene: Cause and effect, and the possibility or impossibility of infinity or non-infinity. Here’s my answer to several questions at once:
I believe that the human brain cannot conceive of either infinity or non-infinity in either time or space because if you say, “This goes on forever.” There’s an urge to say, “You must stop at some point. What comes after it?” If you say, “Well, existence is infinity backwards,” the brain demands cause and effect. I do not think the universe, the physical universe as we can observe it, are subject to the laws of cause and effect. They break down at the beginning. There can’t be a beginning. Otherwise, what would have come before it? There can’t be a beginning. Cause and effect annihilate each other at the point of any beginning. How can something always exist?
I think it is also impossible for the human brain to conceive of nothing. The standard way of conceiving of nothing is a vacuum. A vacuum isn’t nothing. A vacuum is a space in which there is nothing, but that’s not nothing because the state which involves the vacuum is already something.
The space which can be emptied of everything that is conventionally viewed as nothingness isn’t nothingness at all because nothingness implies the absence of the space itself. Ergo, reality cannot be comprehended by the human brain. We can’t do it. It is not possible. Maybe, one day we can. Maybe, one of Manahel’s equations will do it. At the moment, we do not understand anything. We are like blind, deaf, and dumb. We do not know what the hell’s going on. The universe isn’t just weird; it’s weirder than we can possibly imagine, somebody said. We cannot conceive of a beginning without something before it, or space that’s empty. We cannot conceive of nothingness. We cannot conceive of infinity in time or space or non-infinity.
To be absolutely frank, the universe doesn’t make sense. Let’s live in it and do our best.
8. Jacobsen: You noted “gifts” for someone like Capablanca, as from something from God, possibly. Do you believe in gods or God?
Keene: Of course, I believe in God because, otherwise, it’s completely impossible to comprehend – I’m not a Christian. Technically, I am part of the Church of England, but I do not prescribe to Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism. I believe these are attempts to grasp the universal truth by different cultural and geographical methods. So I think there is a God, and we cannot comprehend him or her. I do not even know if God cares about us or not. I think God thinks in very grand designs. Individuals do not matter very much. I think our job in the universe is to help the universe become aware of itself and aware of God, and that is our job. The better the job we do, the better we are doing it. I think the origins of the universe are energy. Energy becomes gas; gas becomes liquid; liquid becomes solid; solid becomes matter; matter becomes sensate; sensation becomes intelligence; and the process, I see, is a driven process whereby the universe becomes aware of itself. It becomes aware of the divine. It becomes aware of the way it is, and we are currently beings capable of understanding what is it.
We are currently as far as we know the only beings remotely capable of understanding what it is. Maybe, somewhere it is something, and somewhere else it is something else. Whether it is some sixteen tentacle octopus on the moons of Alpha Centauri that is more intelligent than we are, but as far as we know we are doing the best job we can to understand it, comprehend it, and visualize it, to try and comprehend the complexity of beginnings and ends. But I’m not sure if any philosophical system or scientific system comes remotely close to explaining what the universe is, or what religion is, or what philosophy is. I think we just have to do the best we can, given our limited knowledge.
Maybe, Manahel’s 300+ page equation could solve it. So far, no one has anything. We are complete bloody beginners. When people say, “Well, I know this – I know there is no God.” Oh yea, really?! You know that for sure. Or people say, “Definitely there is a God.” Oh, yea, perhaps, my feeling is that there is so much that we cannot particularly comprehend, which is logically so completely beyond us that I think there must be some divine principle that is impelling us to understand. I think understanding, comprehension, is our job. Everything we do towards understanding, comprehending, is a good.
9. Jacobsen: Does this amount to a supreme spiritual or motivational principle?
Keene: Yes.
10. Jacobsen: In terms of this God, what attributes does this transcendental object/being/entity have to you?
Keene: The desire to be comprehended.
11. Jacobsen: What can be done to reduce cheating and scandals in the chess world?
Keene: [Laughing] That’s a jump.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Keene: Do not let people bring mobile phones into chess tournaments and make damn sure that they aren’t wired up to anything. It is all to do with electronic communication. There has to be some way of monitoring electronic communication. People, in any way, suspected of electronic communication, then you better figure out a way of dealing with it. It should be fairly simple, but one of the ways communication can ruin chess tournaments. It is as simple as that as far as I’m concerned.
12. Jacobsen: What political views seem the most efficacious in the world to you?
Keene: I think human beings are animals. I think animals are subject to the laws of evolution. And I think the laws of evolution have to honour in political systems. I think political systems, which distort human nature are doomed to failure. I think communism is a disaster, which tries to distort human nature.
13. Jacobsen: How so? Where does the conflict lie?
Keene: Because communism is too dirigiste, it tries to direct what human beings do. I think political systems that are successful are the ones that allow human beings the greatest freedom. I am pretty close to being a Libertarian. I think government is very suspicious. I think you need government to maintain order internally and defend the state against external aggression. Apart from that, I think governments, in general, try to take on too much. They try to legislate too many parts of people’s lives. I think the states that are most successful are the ones that allow citizens to get on with their lives. The government is simply there to be a last resort to make sure order does not break down and that the society isn’t threatened.
14. Jacobsen: Based on the principles of evolution by natural selection brought by Charles Darwin in 1859, what seems like the core of human nature to you?
Keene: I think the core of human nature is enlightened self-interest. I think that there are sizeable species like the preying mantis, which is promoted entirely by self-interest. It is not enlightened self-interest. A mantis will eat another mantis. I do not think human beings will do that. I think human beings are programmed to cooperate. A human being will not eat another human being. You will cooperate with another human being to grow crop to eat that, but a preying mantis with another preying mantis will simply eat it. Human beings are characterized by enlightened self-interest. Quite often, the most catastrophic events in human history have occurred when self-interest has been prevented. For example, the First World War, millions of people were interested in self-interest. They would not have dashed off to go and kill each other at all. There were other ways, but the First World War was the one where people were forced to fight in a way they were not in previous wars because of mass conscription. I think that human beings are naturally cooperative. They are naturally inclined to create. The destructive human beings are the exceptions rather than the rules. I think that if left to themselves human beings will create excellent systems. Governments bugger things up.
15. Jacobsen: In terms of the destructive human beings, in an evolutionary framework, they might perform a function. What seems like that function to you?
Keene: Napoleon was seen as good by the French and bad by the British. The British saw him as a continental despot trying to run the whole continent. The French saw him as some trying to restore French liberty, glory, and divinity. So, what is good? What is bad? A destructive human being, a really destructive human being, is often one who would be clinically insane. Even Adolf Hitler, the man was a criminal. If you read accounts of the way he rose to power, he rose to power by criminal methods. However, having gotten to power, if he hadn’t gone completely bonkers trying to conquer every other country in Europe, he would have restored Germany’s fortunes. It’s just that he was bonkers. He hit the Sudan, Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then Russia and France. I mean, this is insane behavior. I think even Hitler himself declared war on America.
The immediate denial of the Jews was insane. It was irrational. I think that where you get truly destructive individuals is because they are mentally unbalanced. Maybe, these people can be good. Yes, as a result of this terrible insanity, Europe has now stabilized itself, where I think European wars are a thing of the past. I do not think there will be another European war. Europe has had its differences, but there, I think, will never be another war between France and Germany. There may be another war thousands and thousands of years into the future, but as far as I can see, the traumas of the past caused by some very bad people have led to a better situation.
16. Jacobsen: Some things come to mind with respect to “relative ethics.” Some ethics include individuals such as Jeremy Bentham for Utilitarianism and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism splits into Act and Role Utilitarianism too. Other ethics come to mind such as Divine Command Theory, where the Good or the Just comes from the top-down from a transcendent object, being, or entity. What ethic do you take into account when considering relative values?
Keene: I think the key is to not harm other people. Do what you want to do and do not harm people in the process. I think there was a book written by Kingsley in the 19th century called The Water-Babies. It’s a kid’s book. He basically says, “Do not do to others what you wouldn’t wish to have done to yourself. Deal with others in the way you would wish to be dealt with.” I think that is the basic, simple rule, but I think it is a good one.
Jacobsen: It sounds as if it comes out of Matthew 7:12.
Keene: Everybody remembers it from Charles Kingsley’s The Water-Babies, which is a sentimental 19th century kid’s book from England. I think he invented characters like Mrs. Doasyouwouldbedoneby.
Jacobsen: Mr. Golden Rule. [Laughing]
Keene: Yes.
17. Jacobsen: What form of economic system seems the best for developed societies such as the United Kingdom?
Keene: Capitalism: I would say think when the government tries to interfere that is where things start to go wrong. Of course, I think there should be some checks and balances. I actually believe in the survival of the fittest. That if a company is successful, then they should not be hand strung by government regulations. In that context, I think all drugs should be legalised. I think that the government should sanction companies to make drugs available and people should be allowed to take allowed to take whatever they want to whether marijuana, or cocaine, or any other thing. They should be allowed to do so. It should be the same penalties when under the influence of drugs as when committing criminal behavior when under the influence of alcohol.
I think that billions and billions of dollars are wasted worldwide by trying to stop people taking drugs, where you can damage yourself by drinking or even overeating. People should be allowed to do what they want to do. If they commit a crime, it should be tickets. Billions are spent on trying to stop people taking drugs. If the state licenses drugs, they can be a source of revenue instead of a source of loss. The whole question of drug-taking is totally relativistic. In the 19th century, cocaine was completely legal. Opium was legal. Some sort of modern argument that these should be criminalized. I find that thing weird, illogical. I think in due course that more drugs will be legal. Not that I’ve ever done a drug in my life. I would never do anything that I think would impair my thinking process. If people want to take them, then so be it. Let them do it.
Jacobsen: That argument ties together the Libertarian leanings and the Capitalist framework for the United Kingdom for you.
Keene: Yes.
18. Jacobsen: In the modern, in an intellectual, context, for the left, far-left, even moderate or centre-left, the positions seem to have misgivings with respect to Capitalism. What seems like a reasonable response to you?
Keene: I think Socialism is a disease.
Jacobsen: How so?
Keene: I think that the idea that human beings can be controlled and that free thought can be contained, or crushed, as indeed under extreme right-wing regimes such as Nazism is completely wrong. I say it again, you must give people the freedom to act, unless people are doing harm to other people. Governments must let them be individuals and let the individual do what they want to do. This is how creativity flourishes. If you try to crush creativity, whether creative expression, or actions or performances, you limit the creative potential of the human race. I believe in free speech.
19. Jacobsen: What about developing, or poor, countries with the aim to become developed countries?
Keene: The system of government. Is that what you’re saying?
Jacobsen: Better system of government is part of it, but it would be derivative from that better system of government. In other words, the economic system that would be implemented to improve their lot at either a faster rate or in general.
Keene: It’s got to be Capitalism. I think the best system of government for a country, which is very difficult to achieve, is a benevolent dictatorship without corruption. It is almost impossible, but a lot of these countries, for example, South Africa. It went on a great course after Mandela, but with this current President corruption is rife. I think it’s going to go the same way as Zimbabwe if it’s not careful. Developing countries are in serious danger of being ran by corruption. Money is put into these ridiculous projects to be distributed fairly. I think Capitalism is a better way forward in all of these countries and freedom. I think when people start to tap out of Capitalism and press freedom these countries start to go off the rails.
20. Jacobsen: How important is women’s rights and the empowerment of women to the development of countries – even narrowed topics of cultural and sport import such as chess (which you indicated the future of chess with more women in it aside from the formidable Polgar sisters)?
Keene: I think it’s absolutely vital. You cannot leave out half of the population when you’re trying to develop creativity. It’s completely bonkers. Women should be encouraged to shine in every area of intellectual area of performance.
21. Jacobsen: You have deep association with Tony Buzan, the inventor of Mind Mapping, Dominic O’Brien, Eight Times World memory Champion, and Dr. Manahel Thabet. What instigated involvement with these prominent individuals?
Keene: I met Tony Buzan in 1991 when I went to one of his lectures. We have been working together closely ever since. Dominic O’Brien, I also met in 1991 because what had happened is that Tony suggested that we organize the first of the World Memory Championship. I went to the Guinness World Record to see who won the world records and invited all of those who got people who got memory awards to the meeting and Dominic turned up. So I started an association with him in 1991. He won the first ever World Memory Championship, which we organized. I’ve been working with Dominic ever since. We have another one coming up in China this year. Manahel, I think she met Buzan last year, and he mentioned here to me. I got in touch. I have been associated with her ever since. She’s a wonderful person.
22. Jacobsen: Each brings unique specialties and talents to the professional and public world.[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30] Various talents, skills, abilities, and initiatives of importance and influence in a national, and international, context. What makes each of them unique to you?
Keene: Tony Buzan invented mind-mapping. He is absolutely committed to everything involving the mind, the brain, and genius. Dominic is a great ambassador of mental qualities. He’s very presentable, very tall, always well-dressed, very immaculate, and with a suit and tie. He really represents mental qualities in a most impressive way. Manahel is the most extraordinary person. I have never met anyone with such an amazing intelligence and an incredibly high IQ. Highly presentable, very, very charismatic, tremendous powers of reflexive persuasion. She is really a unique individual. I have never met anyone like her.
Jacobsen: Could you elaborate a little more on each individual?
Keene: I could, in what way?
Jacobsen: A parsing of personality variables. What seems to make them succeed in their area of professional life?
Keene: With Dominic, it is the fact that he started off without any particular talent for memory. I think this is probably common to all three of them. When they are presented with a situation where they have to succeed, or want to succeed, they had to analyze the accentuation that would derive the algorithm of success. Dominic did not start off with a great memory. He was inspired by a man named Craig Carvello. He wanted to do it himself. He wanted to perform all of these memory feats. He studied the methods of improving memory. He won the World Memory Championships eight times.
Tony, in university, was facing a dead-end in his studies and he wanted to remember what he was taught and how to make it interesting, colorful, how to make it attractive, and how to make it stick. That’s how he came up with the mind maps system. It is a situation where somebody is not given a God-given gift needs to solve certain immediate problems. They find the algorithm to do it by a process of ratiocination, by a process of analysis. I think that’s very impressive.
I think too with Manahel. I mean she comes from a different culture. She comes from a Middle Eastern culture where women do not have the freedom in life that men have. She wanted to solve the problem of breaking in to areas of activity that have traditionally been masculine. She did it by creating a genius persona and by winning IQ competitions, genius competitions, and she studied the methods of how to break into this masculine circle. She did it. Now, she is a global superstar. All three of them.
23. Jacobsen: One woman with an interest in women’s rights, women in science, women in academia or the university system, and in the world in general is Dr. Manahel Thabet. How important are contributions, such as her own, to the increased equality and rights for women in the world and the aforementioned domains because these seem interconnected in this globalized world?
Keene: I think they are very important because she is a very prominent person in Middle Eastern society, they all know who she is. She is immediately recognizable. She has a very distinctive style of presentation and dressing. She stands out. I think she is very widely respected. I think that’s why she won Brain of the Year from the Brain Trust Charity. That has been going since 1990. I think she has helped a lot, the cause, throughout the world. I think she will continue to do so and will increase her profile.
24. Jacobsen: Any future plans in development with them?
Keene: Absolutely, I’m going to do the World Memory Championship with Tony Buzan in China later this year. It’ll be China again next year. I’ll be hoping to bring it to the Middle East in 2017 with, possibly, Dr. Manahel’s assistance. There is a definite scope of possibility there. Of course, Dominic O’Brien is very active in the World Memory Championships. I am seriously considering expanding the scope of the World Memory Championships. It is much bigger than it was than when we started. It started with 8 people. Now, it is at about 200 every year. I think that there is scope for making the World Memory Championship something truly exciting. Something televisual; something that becomes almost as the World Championship of the brain. I think all three of them will be involved in that.
25. Jacobsen: What about for you – individually – for near and far future plans?
Keene: I have a lot of things. I want to increase the range and scope of The Brain Trust Charity. I want to help Professor Michael Crawford in his aims to eliminate world mental ill-health with his Institute for Brain Chemistry and Human Nutrition. I want to increase the range and scope of the World Memory Championship. I want to create a real Olympic Games for the mind, which we started a few years ago but never quite made it. I am very interested in creating an Olympic Games for the mind that covers all the possible mental competitions. We’ve got The Gifted Academy with Dr. Manahel. I want to enhance the scope of it to bring our new mental training technique to as many people as possible. I want to help Tony Buzan bring mental literacy to the whole world. Everything is centered around increasing the power of people to think and help them make their own decisions to help the individual make up his or her own mind about the truth, and not be fed lies by governments or the press. And to help them decide for themselves what is the right path for themselves for comprehension.
26. Jacobsen: Thank you for your time, Mr. Keene.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2023/01/20
TitsTantreelatinglizing: Tethared Tuutoncumminrotundedtoowins Tafloutintoutout rubemens ruinimination; ploom.
See “Whynenh?…!”
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/10/10
Russian President Vladimir Putin after annexing Ukrainian land has signed treaties to make this ‘official’ in the virtual world. Western and Ukrainian officials claim the annexation violates international law. Putin has offered Ukraine an opportunity to talk seven months into the war.
Putin warned Ukrainians Russian authorities would never rescind claims to Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia regions. The two houses of the Russian parliament controlled by the Kremlin have endorsed these treaties next week and then send them to Putin for final approval within the Russian Federation.
Ukrainian officials have dismissed the commentaries by Putin stipulating the future of Ukraine will be decided on the battlefield. Andrii Yermak, the head of the Ukrainian president’s office, stated that continued want to “liberate Ukrainian territories.”
Putin and his lieutenants warned against any Ukrainian offensive in retaking the claimed regions – seeing the actions as acts of aggression. Hints were made with claims of “all means available” to nuclear armament use.
The various claimed regions since 2014 with votes held by Russian authorities are attempts to deter defeats. Russia controls most of Kherson and Luhansk, 6/10ths of Donetsk, and a large portion of the Zaporizhzhia region.
Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesperson, stated the aim is to “liberate” the Donetsk region. Some analysts warned Putin would dip more into precision weapons to escalate the Russo-Ukrainian war to eliminate Western support for Ukraine. These weapons, according to the Associated Press, are In shorter supply for Russia.
Abbas Gallyamov, former Kremlin speechwriter, stated, “It looks quite pathetic. Ukrainians are doing something, taking steps in the real material world, while the Kremlin is building some kind of a virtual reality, incapable of responding in the real world… People understand that the politics is now on the battlefield… What’s important is who advances and who retreats. In that sense, the Kremlin cannot offer anything сomforting to the Russians.”
Ukrainian in the seven month war has been depriving Russian military forces of complete mastery of the field.
Peskov noted a formalization of Donetsk and Luhansk into the Russian Federation in their entirety. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia have been prepared for annexation. At this point, it’s unknown whether the Russian Federation will declare complete or partial claim to the territories of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.
An emergency meeting of the National Security and Defense Council of the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy denounced the most recent Russian aggressive strikes. The United States of America and associated allies made promises of sanctions against Russia and billions of dollars in support of Ukraine.
With files from the Associated Press
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): News Intervention
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/09/06
Jeremy Boehm is a lover of music, art, and sports, and loves to spend time with his young family and animals on his hobby farm on Vancouver Island. Jeremy has a BA with theological and youth ministry emphasis from Calgary and furthered his education in counselling with focus on addiction for a second career in supporting those with substance use disorders. Here we talk about the concepts, and evolution of the concepts of God, in the context of recovery.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, here today with Jeremy Boehm, he is the son of Helmut Boehm. He (Helmut) is the founder, or father, of Wagner Hills. This is in Langley, British Columbia. I wrote an article with an addendum two or more years ago. You sent me the longest email I have ever received. A lot of it was quite vulnerable and confessional in a healthy way. I emailed back relatively rapidly within the last week.
So, you agreed to talk, specifically, the concepts of God that arise in the context of recovery for individuals. You come from, not personally but, knowing some of the communal aspects and individuals who have a theist belief; and they find it helpful in their process of recovering from forms of substance use and/or misuse. So, what concepts of God tend to arise? And how do these arise over time?
Jeremy Boehm: The concept of God, I see a lot goes by different names. If a person is comfortable, with religion, faith, Christianity, and comfortable with the particular religion they grew up with, they would call that concept God or the name they had been given for it by their religion. So often, in different places of substance use/abuse, there is a background of trauma. A person from trauma may not want to remember the source of that trauma and in that case may have some real discomfort with the names and the terminology they inherited that remind them of that trauma. Now, the construct, the theistic construct, may be the same. It may even be a good and benevolent construct.
Some who would report that they didn’t believe in God may still have, in the back of their head, a latent, benevolent, theistic construct. They believe in something or someone cares for them, loves them, made the universe a beautiful place, even if that God made the universe a place with both awful and good in it. They feel that there is something out there that’s kind. Some people will name that construct “the Universe.” For example, I often hear the phrase, “The Universe stepped in and intervened.” It really is a kind personification to say that. Some people will use the name “Creator.” Some people “God.” Some people will avoid the issue. I find that the construct is latent, though. What I mean by latent, is that when people are really in trouble, that’s when this construct comes out.
For example, what I’ve heard from some who would identify themselves as atheist, is that when they were in trouble they reached out. I remember someone saying, “I, actually, confessed that I did, in this deep, deep dark place, reach out. I didn’t even know who I was reaching out to.” Or somebody who had a near death experience at my current work, recently said “I didn’t grow up with this. I grew up with a form of First Nations belief. But actually, I had a vision of Jesus, but, I guess, that was the one in my near death experience who I gravitated towards, or reached out to.”
So this way of relating to God, or not, is also a way of dealing with the trauma. The ‘AA’ way to deal with this difficulty in ‘naming’ or identifying God for those who have had a negative experience that taints their view of God, either by their parents, or abuse, or abuse in the church, you name it, and there are so many reasons, to have negative feelings towards religion, whether it be the Residential Schools, yes, there is every conceivable reason to have something against religion, and to have negative feelings toward the people who claim to practice it, who hurt other people. The approach of AA is to allow the individual to give the deity their own name and definition. “You name your higher power. It can be your cat if you want. You can name it whatever you want. You call the shots” and this can disarm the experience of encountering the higher power, AA talks about. This approach, takes the pain and trauma that have been associated with God, and pushes that aside, and allows people to experience the higher power as they feel comfortable with it.
What I witness in the people I work with in my current work place and from before, is that a majority of them are open to pray, and even are very open about their belief in God, and even, to a certain degree, are evangelistic of each other. What I mean by open, is that they will say, “Let me pray for you,” or, “Here, let me tell you what this is about.” They will fight, occasionally, about the character of that God, or who goes to heaven, but the character of the god I mostly hear about, is benevolent. I also witness that over time, the people who had gone through step work, or who had gone through some kind of a healing process, start to lose the negative images, what I mean by that is, that I think there are incredibly negative images of religion out there of, maybe, a divine punisher.
I think this is what I wrote to you about. That as a teenager, I had a very negative of God as a divine punisher. And I don’t think this construct had anything to do with my parents, or anything else, maybe just teenage rebellion contributed to me forming this construct of a divine punisher. The interesting this I’ve witnessed, is, this image of a divine bad guy out to punish us, slowly melts away as people heal, open their hearts, or open their minds, or whatever you call it, in prayer, and they allow this higher power to just reveal Himself or Itself. They find the openness to allow this being to being to reveal the character, apart from all the religion and negative imagery that was attached with that construct.
As a person finds more revelation or experience with God, I find that they’re experience is a lot like my experience was, and they will come to the conclusion that, “Oh, this isn’t a bad guy. This person cares. There’s love. There’s healing. There’s something really good here.” They get more and more comfortable with more of the terminology, which, before, maybe they didn’t like. They might even feel comfortable enough to explore doctrine and theology and other things they avoided at first because of the painful associations.
Jacobsen: I’m seeing two core concepts here of a god, which, on the surface if not at a deeper level, are diametrically opposed. On the one hand, as you phrased it, a “divine punisher,” on the other hand, a god who cares and loves for you, created a world of good and evil, but there’s a certain redemptive quality within that world as well. So, it’s less a divine punisher, and more a divine carer and nurturer.
Boehm: Benevolent, yes, something good.
Jacobsen: Are there any other manifestations, apart from those two, which you have seen arise in others? For instance, you alluded to one individual who comes from a First Nations background with an unnamed band who, in their own experience – religious experience, had Jesus as the imagery and experience. Are there other ones outside of the image of Christ, a sort of First Nations spirituality as a transition into the image of Christ, or the ones mentioned earlier between a malevolent or a benevolent monotheistic god?
Boehm: If I understand what you’re asking here, certainly what I encountered, especially from First Nations people who had been in a recovery centre where I worked experienced spiritual experiences differently than I had. For example, a bald eagle would fly over and they would report that this was a deeply significant and spiritual experience that came from their culture. So the timing of that eagle flying at that particular moment signified something important about that timing. Certainly, the significance of smudges and of ritual, I think ritual plays a very big part in religion and, to a certain degree, spirituality. But I don’t see religion and spirituality as the same thing. I make a divide.
I’m not the one who came up with this definition of the difference. I don’t know if I can put it very clearly at this time of day. But how I would differentiate these two, is that religion is something humans do, as a ritual to influence god or the forces of nature to work to their desired goal, so that might look, for example like the sacrifice of an animal, or a certain kind of dance to influence the gods to bring rain, or something. Whereas, spirituality is connecting in relationship to the deity, and sometimes this is in a posture of powerlessness, but of intimacy. So that’s how I would define Spirituality and religion differently. Spirituality is connecting; religion is practicing a ritual with the motive of trying to achieve something. Yes, I differentiate religion versus spirituality.
I think, getting back to your question, ‘Are there other forms there?’ Yes, I think what we receive as our ‘early programming’, from our parents, creates an image in those early formative years that has a profound impact on the whether we later think of God as benevolent or evil. Maybe, our parents communicate that God is good, while, on the other hand, abusing us. Or, the reverse might be true. To answer your question, there’s all kinds of things that we develop in our brains at an early age, that later form our expectations of what we will find in God. Those early years, build the brain’s framework of what spirituality and religion is, and then we populate that framework through our experiences.
I think this book that I was describing to you, Finding God in the Waves (Finding God in the Waves: How I Lost My Faith and Found It Again Through Science), really describes that well in terms of the neurology of it. I am really interested in the brain, which I’m sure is obvious, through the correspondence we’ve had so far. But, as is probably also obvious, based on how I have expressed my beliefs to you, I take a step further than the biological formations of frameworks of beliefs that are planted in a child, because I actually believe in a discoverable reality of God. I see a measurable reality in spiritual things, just like I think you can measure the realities of math, physics, and science and so on. In the same way I think you can find ultimate reality about our origin and Creator, and the all the rest. That is if you are, open to the higher power, and warm up to the idea, and let down the guard, set aside the negativity, relax the resolve, or whatever you want to call it, that pushes back against the idea or construct of God. The biggest part of this process is to allow that deity to separate itself from all of the human experiences of evil that have populated our brain with a bad impression or a bad feeling towards that deity, then the deity’s true colours will come through.
You have to be open to it, and let that experience happen. But in the instance that a person is open, I believe a person can uncover the reality of the true deity, the Truth that I understand. That’s what I see in my experiences of working with those is substance use disorder, in the work place. I see that there are lots of names, and lots of understandings and experiences of God. It’s easy to forget that Jesus is already a name that has been translated to English. The term Christ is a Greek word. All of these names, are names that people adopt from themselves to refer to the deity. The way that I see Jesus, as we have named him in English, is that God came down to help us understand who He really is. Back then, people were incredibly confused about what religion just as they are today. Jesus served people and that confused them. He lived in a culture that expressed racism toward its neighbours. His main opponents were ‘Pharisees’. These were people who held a concept of religious law that raised their own social status and provided them with power. When God presents Himself in the world, He’s not rich. He doesn’t hold the stereotypical kingship that people expected him too, in how they interpreted prophecy. He role-modeled this, this serving, this washing of feet, this dying on a cross, this love.
He says, ‘This is what deity is like. Eventually, all the world will know my name.” They won’t know my name because I had the fastest meme or the most powerful seat of rulership in the world in a major empire. Of course, there are much more powerful kings and famous people. It is because over time, people will come to know that the way Jesus lived was the character of the deity. That character is what, I think, will come out to someone who is searching. And those who are in substance use disorder are often searching very deeply for God and using substances or alcohol to medicate or soothe the pain that they wish God could heal. I think what I’ve said about Jesus isn’t a politically-correct thing to say. When I speak this way, some will only hear it said that everyone else is wrong. It will sound intolerant to say that there is a singular reality in spirituality as there is in chemistry for example. It can be offensive to say that only one thing is true. Could it say that someone’s spirituality isn’t true? It’s much easier politically to be subjective, and even to relegate the whole topic to one that can only be considered subjective. I don’t spend time arguing that one religion is right. I say that religions may point to truth. Instead I look for Spirituality that connects us with God, and the way that I derive the character of that God, is that He visited us and showed us. It may be hard to accept for many people that Jesus was God visiting us. To be fair, there have been many charlatans over time who have made false claims and deceived people. How a person like me, or like a recovering substance user, comes to these conclusions about God, has a lot to do with personal experience, learning history, and taking their time as they ease into the ideas. I don’t assume that everybody will come to the same conclusions that I have because everyone has their own experiences that influence their views. I understand that not all people will find the truth, because their experiences or desires, may not lead them to truth. They may choose to deceive themselves. A refusal to believe in climate change might be a good example of that. It can be comfortable to remain ambiguous about certain realities in an effort to dodge responsibility. Or they may have been deceived on a mass scale, or by simply not having the experience to discover the truth.
Jacobsen: Does anyone come to a recovery program with a sense of a belief in a god, but an indifferent god?
Boehm: I’ve asked people that. I am interested in the character of God people perceive. I am particularly interested in the perception of God people have when they come from abuse. Some of my personal experience in counselling people from abuse is just felt impossibly tragic.
Particularly in some of the most horrific abuse, I was interested in what people’s view of the deity was. Is their view of deity affected? Well of course, yes. But the strange thing was, that for some reason, some of those with the most tragic abuse could still imagine a benevolence creator. I don’t know why. For whatever reason, it seems that tragic abuse from a parent can somehow co-exist with a benevolent view of God. I suppose, in the same way that people believe that good and evil both exist, people can believe in a good god even while their neighbours are burned alive. They are able to see how evil and good can be at war, and can both exist. So yes, some people who come to a recovery centre, and who are deeply wounded from trauma, have a view of a God who doesn’t care. What is so interesting to me, is those who despite their experiences believe in a benevolent one. It’s really puzzling.
Jacobsen: At the outset of the recorded conversation, at least, you mentioned trauma as the foundation for individuals coming to a lot of centres for recovery or programs for recovery? What are the common patterns of trauma experiences and – let’s say – symptomatology around it, even qualitative symptomatology?
Boehm: That’s a good question, Scott. I don’t feel qualified to answer it, to tell you the truth. I think my experience is too limited. I could tell you what I saw, but I feel like that is much too big a question – as are all of these questions really. I’d be arrogant [Laughing] to say I am qualified to answer anything your asking, other than to speak from my experiences. I feel like my counselling and my clinical experiences were much too brief to say what the common experience is for trauma. Only that, “Yes,” trauma was present in so many cases and was a root pain that was medicated through substances and through other behaviours too. It feels like just about every story included trauma. Here is an interesting part of the symptomatology. The consequences of using substances and alcohol to numb the pain, is that the use of these substances and the behaviour and consequences from the use create more consequences. So over time, the consequences of the medicating behaviour may be much greater than that of the trauma that lead to the behaviour. And in a few exceptions, I’ve heard that the addiction was the main problem-causer … in this person’s recollection, they didn’t have a painful beginning, but simply started drinking a lot at a very young age with their siblings and friends. Now of course, the neglect that could allow that to happen is a sort of abuse in itself, but this person perceived that they hadn’t begun to drink to cover pain, but that it was the alcohol from an early age that caused so many problems and so much pain. As I heard them, I wondered if it wasn’t both. A lot of people have a hard time remembering memories of trauma. They might blank out whole years or sections of life in their memory. But using alcohol and substances to numb pain is a very common means of dealing with pain, and in the perceived experience of a substance user, it is reported as a very effective way. There are other ways of course too.
The trauma story occurs generationally. The substance-use provides enough consequences in the family to cause disturbance, I think, in the oxytocin systems in a baby’s developing brain, so that rather than developing a sense of safety, of being soothed by the parent, the baby adapts with the instinct to self-soothe when the cycles of attachment with the parent are interrupted. Those basic cycles in the first 7 months, as I understand it, are so disturbed when a mother and father, are involved in substance use disorder. And this has the effect of passing this trauma from generation to generation. I think I am repeating myself, so I think I should finish with that.
Jacobsen: When an individual has an indifferentist experience of a god or a malevolent experience of a god, both grounded in a sense of trauma in personal history, or collective, how are they making that spirituality, as defined before as connecting to something, rather than human beings trying to get something, manifest itself in a recovery setting? How are they making that connection when it happens in their own words?
Boehm: Yeah! I think it’s a brilliant question. I think it starts with, “What do I got to do? How do I have to bargain to get out of here, out of trouble, out of my addiction, out of whatever? I’ll do whatever to get out of this misery.” It almost always starts with “Help. How can I bargain?” That might progress to “I don’t have anything to bargain with. I don’t have any currency that God or the deity needs. There’s nothing I can bargain with. Why should He be particularly put out, if I hurt myself, or if I do what he wants or not, or anything? Is there anything I can do that would effect the deity anyway? There’s nothing I can do, or not do, that is bargaining material.”
Once they realize their “bankruptcy,” I think, this is the AA term for this, where they might express, “I don’t have anything I can manipulate or control God with. I am not an equal player in this relationship.” Then when they come to this conclusion, there are a lot of uncomfortable feelings that go on. I think the discovery of benevolence happens in that moment. And it feels like being wrapped up in your parents loving arms, and forgiven [Laughing]. You’ve done something really naughty and can’t undo it. They forgive you and love you, only because you’re you and because they’re them, and because of love, not because you are able to fix the situation, or make it up to them, or do anything to bargain with them for forgiveness. You can’t argue your way into being forgiven.
I think the transition from the religious side of it – “I am doing this to get something” – to the spiritual connection side occurs when the person hits that point of bankruptcy or surrender where they admit “I am hopeless. I can’t do this. I have no traction.” Following this, they arrive at, as I described in my letter to you, the identity of considering themselves as a “child of God”. They gain the sense that they are worth something, simply because God made them and loves them, and not because they do anything, or perform anything, or become moral, or have the ability to flawlessly follow all the religious rules. They transition from wondering, “Am I moral enough?” to recognizing, “I am loved.” At that point, they experience the benevolence of God and I think, they make a deep connection.
Some people hear the voice of God or have visions, and gain a sense of communion, and connection with God, just like people might do with their closest human lovers or family. They’re like, “Wow, I am present with God. I feel His presence.”
Jacobsen: Is this transition from malevolence or indifference to benevolence a fulcrum grounded on, basically, conditionality to unconditionality of a sense of love?
Boehm: Yes, I think that’s it, Scott. That’s exactly what I was trying to say. When you find out, you can’t meet the conditions. What could you do anyway? Especially, you feel helpless with substance abuse disorder and the hopelessness of being unable to change. There is such a vivid picture of helplessness, especially there. I believe that the transition to a belief in God’s malevolence occurs just at that point when a person realizes that God’s love is unconditional, it’s the love, that’s the ticket. Well put.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/11/02
Human trafficking represents one of the gravest global issues in the treatment of human beings by other human beings. What people do, at the end of the day, that’s ethics. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, human trafficking can be defined as “the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of people through force, fraud or deception, with the aim of exploiting them for profit.” Men, women, and children, regardless of age, are subject to the crime of human trafficking. Commonly, there is the use of violence, fraud, and fake promises of education and work, to coerce and/or trick victims into human trafficking. This representation of human deception and cruelty demarcates one facet of respect for an ethic of human rights versus a violation of human rights.
International documents have been developed and adopted by the United Nations to set a moral direction – compass if you will – for legally binding documents. The first, entitled the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons or The Protocol, was adopted by the United Nations in 2000 as a part of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. 178 Members States (countries/nations) of the United Nations are “party” to The Protocol, whether destination or transit with an emphasis on children and women.
The emphasis on children, particularly girls, and women comes with good reason within the formal language of The Protocol. 71% of victims are women and girls (51% and 20%, respectively), while 21% are men. 8% are boys. This comes from the United Nations in an article entitled “Report: Majority of trafficking victims are women and girls; one-third children”. The article emphasizes individuals fleeing war torn circumstances as particularly vulnerable to human trafficking. Girls and women get forced into marriages and sexual slavery, boys and men into combatant roles and slave labour.
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime claims, “Through the services we provide, authorities are better equipped to prevent human trafficking, identify and protect victims, and prosecute the perpetrators. Countries are able to dismantle the criminal networks behind human trafficking and seize the illegal proceeds.”
The United Nations (Organization on Drugs and Crimes) defines three aspects of trafficking as the act, the means, and the purpose. The act is the trafficker recruiting, transporting, transferring, harbouring, and/or receiving. The methods of threat or use of force, coercion, fraud, deception, abuse of position vulnerability, giving payments or benefits, and/or abduction. The sole purpose of exploitation.
Within human trafficking, as already alluded, there exists one particularly tragic avenue of exploitation in the form of sexual trafficking. “UNODC report on human trafficking exposes modern form of slavery” states the majority of sexual trafficking victims are women and girls, globally, based on a report from 155 countries. Secular international human rights come into focus here, as theory in praxis or human rights as moral ideas into realities for women and girls. Are the rights respected or violated?
Antonio Maria Costa, Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes, stated, “Many governments are still in denial. There is even neglect when it comes to either reporting on, or prosecuting cases of human trafficking.” Non-governmental organizations, advocacy groups, religious organizations, human right defenders, and so on, have been integral to combatting human trafficking with sexual exploitation as a major component of this human rights violation. Your country doesn’t have to be one of those in denial.
The American Psychological Association describes the consequences for individuals involved in human trafficking (including sexual trafficking), as stated in “Facts About Trafficking of Women and Girls”:
- Trafficked women and girls encounter high rates of physical and sexual violence, including homicide and torture, psychological abuse, horrific work and living conditions, and extreme deprivation while in transit.
- Serious mental health problems result from trafficking, including anxiety, depression, self-injurious behavior, suicidal ideation and suicide, drug and alcohol addiction, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dissociative disorders and complex PTSD.
- Physical symptoms among trafficking victims include neurological issues, gastrointestinal disturbances, respiratory distress, chronic pain, sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV), uro-genital problems, dental problems, fractures and traumatic brain injuries.
The damages to the girls and women in most cases can be temporary or permanent depending on care, context, and individual factors. Canadian citizens are subject to the same human rights violation in Canada. Between 2010 and 2020, 2,977 individual reports existed of human trafficking. 86% of the incidences happened in census metropolitan areas. 96% of the victims were women and girls. 25% were under age 18. 20% were aged 25 to 34. 81% of those accused were boys and men. 41% of the accused were aged 18 to 24. 36% of the accused were aged 25 to 34. The legal cases take, at least, twice as long as violent adult criminal court cases.
To make this more immediate to a personal locale, the perennial context in Canadian society is the Township of Langley, for me. A socially conservative municipality of the nation and a place upon which religious evangelism, oft Evangelical Christian or Roman Catholic Christian, can be a mainstay. I became aware of some efforts within Christian Life Assembly (Christian Life Assembly Church) lead by Pastor Derrick Hamre through some local contacts working directly on this issue of human trafficking. The presentations to Christian community have been audiovisual in nature, such as “Andrew Hawkes | Break the Cycles | Christian Life Assembly” and “God’s Purpose & Plan for the World | Andrew Hawkes | Christian Life Assembly” – worth a gander.
There are a number of organizations of a secular, religious, or political, nature working towards the same general good goal. The idea is, in fact, a protection of human rights through an implementation of the ideals into practice. Some will speak in working in the name of Christ or another holy figure, the Kingdom of God, and God’s plan, and so on; others within a (secular) international human rights framework will speak to the respect for human rights – rarely both. The important part of the protection from human trafficking in practice, in the end – what people do.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2023/01/20
Tiltriller Youndgodis: Broseyegross brethersinawe warspitdogphase kneedingcatsnipsdogspis onpreyarefruitlash; brosonbrose.
See “Exitranc”.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2023/01/18
Scott Doulas Jacobsen: Trauma is a terrible consequence of war and conflict zones. As noted by numerous human rights documents, in war and conflict zones, the major non-combatant victims are women and children. Those can come with long-term trauma, PTSD, CPTSD, etc. Your specialty is in child and adolescent psychiatry. What issues arise for children who undergo the trauma of conflict zones and war?
Bishoy Goubran, MD: The brain is born with neural algorithms optimized for learning. However, in a war zone, the child’s brain quickly learns that the world is full of threats. The basic safety needs are not met. Physiological, metabolic, and circadian necessities are disrupted. Under these precarious circumstances, the neural program switches to a survival mode, descending to the lowest tier of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. This shift in focus negates the children’s innate proclivity towards creativity, collaboration, and self-actualization, and instead, they are left in a state of defense. This can become incapacitating as the child’s cognition becomes hypercautious in an attempt to avoid further trauma, pain, or betrayal.
Trauma directs the child’s ontology moving forwards towards hypervigilance, paranoia, and anxiety. The world is no longer seen as a safe place. In a war zone, children may experience trauma by witnessing the violent death or injury of loved ones, being attacked, or sexually assaulted themselves, or their homes being destroyed. Not to mention that in some conflict areas, children themselves are recruited to fight. All of which creates an increased risk of experiencing traumatic events of different thresholds. Trauma transcends time and space, taking hold over bodily functions for many years and sometimes a lifetime after its inception. It affects the brain, hormones, and has a multisystemic effect on bodily functions. It not only acts on neurological and psychological levels. it also becomes so embedded in the system that it acts epigenetically to shape, unmask, and instigate other Psychosomatic and psychiatric illnesses.
Trauma not only leads to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) but also mood disorders such as depression and bipolar disorder can be instigated by trauma, as can psychotic disorders like schizophrenia. Traumatized children may engage in self-harming behaviors in an attempt to alleviate psychological pain and bring it under their control. When faced with chaos, a phobia of disempowerment and a phobia of unpredictability may become central in their sense-making. Other maladaptive coping mechanisms may include substance abuse and dissociation from reality.
The consequences of trauma on children can be severe and can affect Children’s development, learning, and general functioning in the long term. There is a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, that shows that adults who experienced trauma during childhood are more prone to developing chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Also when it comes to academic performance, a study conducted in war-affected regions of Afghanistan elucidated that children who experienced trauma had lower academic achievement and were more likely to repeat grades compared to non-traumatized peers.
Also, direct trauma aside, the sensory experience of war — the loudness of war machinery, sounds of gunshots, explosions, demolitions, bombardment — can be very overwhelming for children and drastically worsen their mental well-being. Especially children with sensory integration and processing difficulties where their senses often exaggerate vibrations and acoustic frequencies. We see that often in patients within the Autism Spectrum and those with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
Jacobsen: Can you tell us more about dissociative experiences?
Goubran: Well, dissociative experiences involve a disconnection between a person’s thoughts, emotions, and sense of self. You can think about it as a defense mechanism, if the brain feels that the pain is too much, and escape is difficult, it “ejects” the sense of self like a pilot ejects themselves from a fighter jet when its destruction seems inevitable. Dissociation can appear as depersonalization, where the child no longer feels they exist within their body. It can also appear as Derealization, where the conscious experience of reality as real diminishes or changes.
Rarely following chronic, early trauma, a complete disruption of the identity can happen. A disorder known as Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), colloquially known as multiple personalities or split personalities. It is a disorder characterized by the disruption of identity into more than two distinct personality states. Memories of the trauma are compartmentalized and repressed. One of these “alters” or “identities” may be the “trauma holder,” hiding in the recesses of the subconscious, holding the pain of the trauma and emerging only at certain times to deal with perceived threats. The other identities may serve different functions and allow the individual to adapt to life despite the trauma they have experienced. The result is a disruption of a sense of continuity and agency over the self, as each personality state seems to take over the individual.
Jacobsen: How does PTSD appear in children?
Goubran: There is something very somatic and visceral about PTSD and its responses. It affects the limbic system which is the system responsible for emotional processing. It also creates ripples affecting multiple brain networks. We know it alters the hippocampus, amygdala, and fear-processing centers in the brain. Disrupting the emotional and reflex pathways and creating micro behaviors that short-circuit the volitional part of the brain. It also affects the insula, changing the way the body calibrates its responses to the external environment.
PTSD can occur immediately following the trauma or may be delayed. It presents with a constellation of symptoms and a set of criteria. One of the darkest PTSD symptoms in my opinion is avoidance. Victims may avoid talking about or recalling the trauma. As well as avoiding anything that reminds them of the traumatic event, such as a specific location, type of noise, scent, picture, or a visual reminder. This avoidance can become almost addictive, as it provides temporary relief from triggers. The alleviation of tensions by avoiding potential triggers lights up the brain’s reward system. If a brain gets conditioned and addicted to avoidance, imagine the debilitating repercussions this can have on a child. At times, avoidance grows more pathological, and the child’s avoidance list starts to become broader, more symbolic, and encompassing more elements as it becomes more generalized. Triggers expand to include even innocuous stimuli with a very distant association with the actual trauma, almost to the point of avoiding life itself. At best, avoidance drastically hinders the Child’s ability to explore and engage with the world.
PTSD also comes with “intrusion symptoms” such as distressing intrusive memories of the traumatic event. Children often call them “sticky thoughts” because they are difficult to get rid of once they arise. Other symptoms could be recurrent nightmares, which may render going to sleep a dreadful event for some of our patients. Sometimes children experience dissociative flashbacks, where they almost relive the trauma, acting and feeling as if it is actually happening again. We also know that children may sometimes try to re-enact the trauma during play which can give us clues about the nature of the trauma. Sometimes we use that as a tool during play therapy to explore, understand and treat the child’s perspective of the traumatic event. PTSD can be so elusive, and aside from typical symptoms, it can also appear as distractibility, and mood disturbances. It can present with fatigue and low motivation. Children may struggle to go to school, and their brains may grow resistant to the process of learning.
Jacobsen: What are the types of treatments that help with Children suffering PTSD in conflict zones?
Goubran: Systems have been put in place to provide targeted support to children in conflict zones. These programs focus on increasing the resilience and adaptive capabilities of children, as well as providing community and family support. Global health approach to the problem can be preventative and also curative by mitigating the risk factors as well. However, the effectiveness of these programs is contingent on funding, logistics, and accessibility. All of which, can be greatly affected in conflict zones.
When it comes to individual treatment however, the two main pillars are therapy and psychopharmacology. Therapy plays a central role in treating PTSD. Two of the highly effective, evidence-based form of therapy are Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT) and trauma-focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). These approaches generally aim to help patients understand and process their trauma and to change the way they think about and perceive the event. It also involves cognitive restructuring by guiding the child to re-experience safety and trust in everyday life. Learning how to activate fear extinction and regain control over the memories stored in the body. By doing so, individuals can begin to untangle the effects of trauma and create a new narrative for their lives post-conflict. Other therapeutic tools include prolonged exposure therapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, psychodynamic and psychoanalytic therapy, and biofeedback techniques such as breathing exercises can also be utilized. Also, another therapeutic aspect is that parents can act as an external container to hold, process, and sort of transmute their children’s fears, and instill a sense of safety, structure, and predictability. Therefore, family and parental therapy is an important angle when designing the treatment.
As for medication, there are psychopharmacological tools that target PTSD symptoms depending on the presentation. We often use medications from the antidepressant class as it seems that Serotonin disruption plays a major role in PTSD psychopathology. We can also help mitigate symptoms such as sympathetic hypervigilance by medications that help soothe the autonomic hyperarousal or treat nightmares using psychopharmacological tools that alter the sleep architecture thus interfering with the sleep phases conducive to nightmares. Medications can be utilized to treat the underlying depression or mood disorder. It is definitely very individual presentation based and there is no one size fits all treatment. Depending on the severity of the case, typically, a combined approach comprised of therapy and a tailored medication regimen is effective.
Ultimately It is in the art of psychiatry to really absorb the multifaceted experience of the patient’s reality and craft an approach to treatment based on that very nuanced impression. Hence, it’s personalized medicine, while, of course, adhering to evidence-based guidelines. I also want to end this interview, on a positive note, that with treatment and therapy, there is big hope. Traumatized children can gradually heal, be liberated from the effects of trauma, and lead beautiful, healthy, and fulfilling lives. Finally, if you or anyone you know have been a victim of any type of trauma, I definitely recommend you seek medical attention and connect with a psychiatrist and a therapist so you can accelerate your recovery and healing journey.
Bishoy Goubran, MD, is a board-certified psychiatrist specializing in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. He received postdoctoral research training in Behavioral and Cardiovascular medicine. Dr. Goubran’s research interest is in psychosomatic medicine.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2023/01/19
Sillvurn Lilieacs: Trauced lainabcs outvainmen forresq guilden sheerhide runtde burnzeboys; bleghdtrust encircumling flow-era.
See “Rose”.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2023/01/18
TentsTattherung: Errdinarry cralluppityownme badbunchedappleon Sprungringspringrunginup; Lather-Lay Lusters Spanks.
See “Livloversly”.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2023/01/17
Quadskreelitterall Byeangel: Deafinitudenough heardwrangeleer addaboytwoduds burntootwinwhether; turn’d assdundeer.
See “Transliberate”.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
In-Sight Publishing 