Decline of the Empire

Bullshit Du Jour (Russia Did It)

We are well past the point of no return here in the United States. To understand this, we needn't look beyond the bullshit du jour, which is that Russia determines what happens in the U.S. (and see here).

Understanding Flatland requires a capacity to discover and posit plausible unconscious motivations underlying surface events (like "Russia did it").

I'm throwing you a softball today in the hopes you can hit a home run. Ask yourself this simple question—

For those who lost the recent election, why would the Russia hacking story be plausible and appealing?

Keywords or phrases to keep in mind — blaming, filtering (denial, avoidance, etc.), imaginary but all-powerful human agents (bad actors), rationalizing, tribalism.

This unsubstantiated "Russia did it" bullshit could not be easier to understand psychologically. Basically we're dealing with a near-total inability to deal with reality.

If you understand that, you've got a handle on the best diagnosis of what is happening in the United States (not to mention everywhere else on Earth).

No Babysitting

Humans in the general case require babysitting. Otherwise there is a tendency to shit the bed or make a mess of things. You know, get careless in the sandbox, get sand all over everything outside it. Food fights. High School. What a mess.

Now, I could do what Morris Berman does at Dark Ages America. As Jim suggested to me privately, Morris (among others) has a better business model than I do. He's selling himself. Indeed, my "problem" is that I have no business model at all.

At Berman's blog, his readers, who he calls "wafers" (Why America Failed-ers), must follow certain rules (e.g., you can't criticize Morris, you can't post twice within the same day, etc.). And comments are of course moderated by Berman to enforce the rules.

I call that babysitting. 

Ironically, Berman says America failed because from its very beginning it has been a nation of money-grubbing hustlers. In fact, Berman is hustling his books, whereas here at DOTE I am promoting nothing. You either get something from what I write or you don't. You get exactly as much out of it as you bring to it.

It is clear that some DOTE readers bring nothing of value here. But some of those readers comment here anyway because humans always make a mess a things. That's what they do.

And of course if you want to say something, you've got to actually read and think about what I write. It is clear that some of you don't do that, but are also compelled to throw food around anyway. Food fight! High School!

I am not going to adopt the Morris Berman business model. I am not going to babysit. I am not going to moderate comments, or make up rules for you to follow. I am not asking you to worship me and the ground I stand on, as Berman does. You can be critical of me here, but only if you actually have something to offer. I am going to treat you like an adult until you demonstrate otherwise. Sadly, actual adults are rare on Earth.

I am angry right now, I admit it. But not so much at specific people in Flatland, people who comment here to no purpose. I am angry about having to live on this planet. I am angry that I can't write this blog without being dragged through the mud like everybody else in this fucked up thing called the Human Condition.

Comments on this post are closed.

Delusional Beliefs

I was reading through Idiot Brain by neuroscientist Dean Burnett. In the last chapter, on page 301, the next to last page of the book, Burnett said an interesting thing.

Pay attention. This is important. (I added the links.)

Our brains determine what's real or not based on our experiences, and if we grow up in a context where objectively impossible things are seen as normal, then our brains conclude they are normal, and judge everything else accordingly. Even people not brought up in [a] more extreme belief system are susceptible—the "just world" bias described in Chapter 7 is incredibly common, and often leads to conclusions, beliefs and assumptions about people experiencing hardships that aren't correct.

This is why unrealistic beliefs are classed as delusions only if they're not consistent with the person's existing belief system and views. The experience of a devout evangelist from the American Bible Belt saying he can hear the voice of God is not considered a delusion. An agnostic trainee accountant from Sunderland saying she can hear the voice of God? Yes, she'll probably be classed as delusional.

With a presumably normally functioning brain, delusional beliefs are not considered pathological. Only in a brain which has gone haywire in some way are delusional beliefs considered pathological.

Thus Burnett's book ends where the Flatland model begins, for delusional is delusional independent of brain state.

In fact, I would argue that the agnostic trainee is saner than the evangelist in the sense that at least she has an excuse for her atypical departure from reality in this case; apparently something has gone wrong in her mind.

From outside Flatland, and in so far as any of us have the capacity to get there, the human condition is pathological (i.e., humans routinely have belief systems which depart from reality to various extents and effects).

So whenever I use the words "crazy" or "insane" (or some such) on this blog, that's the sense of those words which I intend.

My friend Krystyna's mother died shortly before 2:00 AM on Thanksgiving Day. I had mentioned her the other day.

Feel free to post irrelevant or silly context-free YouTube videos in response to this post.

Have a nice weekend.

Happy Thanksgiving?

As the terrifying Trump transition continues, with dimwitted humans demonstrating every day that there's no bottom in Flatland, it's hard to get excited about the holiday. In the public sphere, this is the single worst year I've seen in my 63 years on Earth. 2017 promises to be worse. Next year we may long for the good 'ole days of 2016. All the evils of this world are loose. This will not end well.

The only thing that might save us, at least for a while, is inertia.

To all those story-telling social animals who invest this empty world with "meaning" within various echo-chambers, I have only thing to say and I think you know what it is — Thanks for playing!

I stopped taking Flatland behavior seriously a long time ago, although I still write about it for the benefit of others. It also passes the time. Let's face it, this human nonsense is the only game in town. Sigh.

And for the record, I do not worry about the stuff I write about. Like the crazy conditions in the Arctic right now, for instance. I stick to personal things and hope that our insane public world will not spillover into my private life. A vain hope, I know, if things go the way I think they will. I worry about my friend Krystyna, whose mother is dying and who has no doubts about her decision not to bring a child into a world as fucked up as this one.

To my readers, I wish the best for you. I hope you find some peace and contentment.

Why Did Trump Win? — The Bubble

Why did Trump win?

Well, there was 35 years of elite corruption, neglect and malfeasance.

And finally, after all that, there was The Bubble.

This great fake ad from SNL tells you everything you need to know in a little over 2 minutes.

The video portrays the "progressive" bubble, but remember, most Americans live in one bubble or another.

"...a planned community of like-minded free thinkers—and no one else"

Nothing To See Here, Folks, Move On...

Hmm...

Wasn't going to mention it because there's nothing to see here, folks...

...but parts of the Arctic are 36°F and 20°C above normal right now.

That purple area is an equally anomalous cold spot in Siberia.

Looks like that wavy persistent Jet Stream is to blame ... and it's polar night now.

Move on, move on, move on...

Are We In The "Post-Truth" Era?

It's time for some plain talk.

Humans have no natural affinity for truth (reality) and therefore can not have a deteriorating relationship with truth (reality) now. Therefore, we are not in some new "post-truth" era (and here).

Humans are not truth-seekers, and never were. For our purposes here, humans are story-telling social animals. There is no relationship between telling stories and having an affinity for "objective" truth in so far was we can determine it. Story-telling is subjective by definition.

By the way, I have no evolutionary "just-so" story to tell which purports to explain why humans are story-telling social animals. Close and repeated observation tells us so. (See 2016 in America.) The fact that humans are deluded about what they are does not change those observations.

In particular, and in the cases I'm interested in, humans have no natural affinity for truth (reality) when when there is something important at stake. First, what does "important" mean in this context?

Something important is at stake when instinctual drives are in play, especially when there are conflicts with instinctual drives. For example, there may threats to group or individual psychological coherence (existential threats). Or the social distribution of status and power is on the line (These two examples are not mutually exclusive).

It is clear that there is always something important at stake in politics (in-group cooperation, elites versus out-groups, inter-group conflict). Politics is far more pervasive in human social interaction than you might think.

When something important is at stake, you get bullshit. You get self-serving stories. I will quote from the third Flatland essay, which I wrote in 2014. Bullshit is ubiquitous in human life. I wrote that essay in part to answer the question why is there so much bullshit? 

In the Flatland model, bullshitting is not some random phenomenon; it is characteristic human behavior. There is more bullshit now (at least in absolute terms) than there used to be because there are so many more people than there used to be. Moreover, thanks to huge advances in communications technology, all these people have a much greater ability to express themselves in public and find an audience for their nonsense. Spin is ubiquitous in modern life because there are far more bullshitting opportunities clamoring for our attention...

In individuals or social groups, bullshit, or spin, is a self-serving post-hoc rationalization of some unconscious motivation. Bullshit arises when there is an unconscious need to—

(1) maintain a positive self-image or manage positive impressions of the self by others;
(2) deflect existential threats to the self or group; or
(3) advance the agenda of the bullshitter (representing himself or the group).

This list is not meant to be exhaustive, nor are these needs mutually exclusive.

Bullshit stands opposed to a reasoned, objective search for truth. Spin often departs from reality in a serious way, or, more commonly, contains "half-truths" which advance the agenda of the bullshitter. Otherwise, if speech or writing does not depart from reality by the 1) assertion of falsehoods or 2) omission of crucial facts, even when unconscious motivations exist—unconscious motivations always exist—the discourse in question is not bullshit.

Of course, not everything humans say or write is bullshit. It is clear that humans do sometimes reason without an ax to grind or some easily identifiable agenda, although it is also clear that unfettered rationality is far rarer than commonly assumed. In short, bullshit arises when there is something important at stake, just as "bad news" filtering does...

Repeating myself, if this model is correct, we can not be in the "post-truth" era because there was never a time when humans had a positive relationship with truth which can deteriorate at critical times in human history (like now in the United States).

David Archer Tells It Like It Is

I check in at Real Climate once and awhile, but most of the posts there are of little interest to me.

However, David Archer just posted Trump carbon and the Paris agreement, which backs up everything I've said recently (and here) on about the trivial effect of Trump's election on the climate outlook. David is too polite to say "fucked", so he says "fracked."

The recent US election has prompted cries that the decision on Earth’s climate has now been irrevocably made, that the US has unilaterally decided to scrap the peak warming target from the Paris agreement of 1.5 ^oC. What do the numbers say? Is Earth’s climate now irrevocably fracked?

The short answer is that, strictly speaking, the future of global climate would have been fracked even had the election gone the other way, unless stronger action to cut CO₂ emissions is taken, very soon.

To get the longer answer, read Archer's post.

Interestingly, and coincident with the post's appearance, comments seem to be broken at Real Climate. So I submitted a comment reaffirming what Archer wrote. It has not appeared. I contacted Real Climate about the problem. The post was up yesterday morning when I went over there.

24 hours and there are zero comments on Archer's post. And nobody noticed??? Hmmm... Could be a case of Head-up-your-ass Syndrome, which affects 99.99% of humanity.

Archer concludes his post with this paragraph.

If you are in a new-found panic about the future of Earth’s climate, know that what you’re feeling now would still have been almost as appropriate had the election gone the other way. The fight to defend Earth’s climate would still be just beginning.

Have a nice weekend.

My Sarah Palin Problem

You all know who Sarah Palin is, so let's skip that. She's been among the names floated for Secretary of the Interior. But this post is not about Sarah Palin per se. She is merely a stand-in for lots of primitive humans who will be put in powerful positions when real things start to happen in the coming months and years.

For example, Steven Mnuchin, "a 17-year-veteran of Goldman Sachs who now works as the chairman and chief executive of the private investment firm, Dune Capital Management," is a candidate for Secretary of the Treasury. He may not be as outrageous as Sarah is but from my point of view, he's just as primitive, though in different ways. After all, Donald really likes him!

I will define "primitive" in a future post, or series of posts. Take that as read for now.

So, what is my Sarah Palin Problem?

It is easy state but from my point of view not easy to deal with

The problem is what the hell do I write about humans as primitive as Sarah Palin?

The more "reasonable" people whose Flatland characteristics I describe here engage in sophisticated forms of filtering. Their biases are well concealed, especially from themselves. Etc. From my point of view, there's something to sink your teeth into. There are hidden agendas (instincts, biases, defenses, etc.) to uncover.

But with Sarah Palin, there's virtually nothing to say along these lines. With her and other primitives just like her, it is literally true that what you see is what you get. On the environment, for example, she is in a state of pure denial, which is the most primitive form of Flatland filtering. 

In this and other similar cases the words "truth" and "reality" have no meaning. So-called "reality" is what Sarah Palin says it is, and that's it. End of discussion. When I called out climate journalist Dave Roberts, as I did the other day, it's because he's willing to look at some aspects of reality but not others.

But with Sarah Palin, human-caused global warming simply does not exist. What can you say about that? There's nothing subtle about it. Yes, we get bullshit (motivated reasoning). We get various post-hoc rationalizations, but they exist at several removes from reality. 

Insane? Sure! But deconstructable? No.

As I told DOTE reader Jim in private communication lately, I write about mammals on this blog. About reptiles, I have nothing to say. That's my Sarah Palin problem.

Finally — Someone Else Gets Real About Climate Change

It is with great pleasure that I reprint in full the text of Paul Watson's Why Fighting Donald Trump On Climate Change Is A Waste Of Time. Watson is the founder of The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

It is astonishing to think that many of the things Watson says here have appeared only on this blog during the entire time I've written it. That part is like a breath of fresh air.

But as you will see, after getting real about what humans will do about climate change, Watson gives us the hope which made it possible for this article to appear in The Huffington Post.

Before everyone gets overly upset about Donald Trump and Climate Change consider this one thing: Donald Trump’s denial of Climate Change is irrelevant.

Climate Change is a scientific reality and the denial of Climate Change as a problem does not make the threat go away. The reality cannot be changed by the personal beliefs of the President of the United States. This is akin to King Canute demanding that the tide cease to rise. When he failed to force the Ocean to his will, he proclaimed, “let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings.”

Presidents, like kings, have no authority over Nature.

And when you really think about, just what is the difference between a President that denies Climate Change and a Prime Minister who acknowledges it, yet acts as if he is denying it?

There is no difference, practically speaking.