I picked Dr L up from the airport on Monday, and on the way home I discussed the Sotomayor/empathy issue, figuring a psychologist would have an interesting take on the subject.
Dr L didn’t disappoint. The first thing she pointed out was that, on average, women display greater degrees of empathy, and are less likely to adhere to the strict letter of a system of rules when determining how to deal with infractions. I asked the obvious question: is there a causal link between the two, and she (tentatively) answered in the affirmative.
It was this exchange that crystallised my problem with the whole situation [1], and with American conservatives in general [2]. The hasty conclusion to draw here is “Well, maybe empathy is a bad idea in judges”. No-one wants the law to be made up on the spot, right? [3]
This is the kind of conclusion that drives me mad, though. It’s the sound byte comeback, the postage-stamp response designed to act as a roadblock in your head, that stops you having to consider wider implications.
Bad arguers excel at this sort of thing. They take a tiny sliver of the overall situation, find an easy counter to it, and consider the case closed (this is sort of like building a straw man, but not entirely the same). The fact that there are surrounding concerns, important contexts, knock-on effects, are all ignored for the sake of a quick conclusion.
In this case, for example, you have to ignore the fact that Obama mentioned empathy as one of a number of qualities a good judge should have. Empathy might lead you to throw away the rulebook, huh? What might stop that? Significant experience? Wisdom? Gosh, Obama said he wanted those too! It’s almost as though he has a whole package in mind, and any individual part of it wouldn‘t be enough!
This is an old GOP trick, of course. Remember when McCain lambasted Obama for days [4] during the Presidential campaign because he’d said inflating your tyres more regularly would help the environment? Obama had offered it as one small and immediate example, but that didn’t stop McCain portraying him as a man who thinks tyre pressure causes environmental catastrophe. Take a sliver, find a counter, move on.
Aside from the fact that it’s a poor tactic logically, and that it can be employed (probably subconsciously) to justify opinions and behaviour that any holistic, dispassionate view would deem unacceptable, the main danger with this procedure is that it allows mutually exclusive views to be held, because no attempt is ever made to connect them. Again, there is a perfect example in the Sotomayor debate (and it annoys me someone else had to point it out to me). There are conservatives in America simultaneously arguing that empathy is bad because it will lead to a judge ignoring (or bending) the strict letter of the law, but also that Sotomayor is a bad judge because during the Ricci case she made a ruling that was almost certainly technically correct but was arguably quite unfair to a white plaintiff. So you take one sliver of the discussion over Sotomayor’s nomination: is empathy bad, and conclude yes, because the law is not to be ignored just because a judge feels applying it would be unfair. Then you take another sliver: is Sotomayor biased towards Hispanics/against white people? Yes, you conclude, because in Ricci (a case in which the plaintiff claimed he was being discriminated against on the basis of race) she applied the law impartially in a way that many consider unfair.
If we were being cruel, we could suggest that this is proof that these people are fine with empathy, as long as white people are the beneficiaries, [5] but I don’t think that’s what’s happening. These people simply don’t see the need to consider anything but what’s right in front of them, so the contradictions are never made clear to them. It’s how you can claim it’s critical an investigation is unleashed to uncover the nature of Nancy Pelosi’s briefings on torture, but claim investigating the torture itself would be the behaviour of a “Banana Republic”.
In short, it’s an enabler for hypocrisy. And I hate hypocrisy. I loathe it, it makes my skin crawl. Naturally, since I am a hypocrite, that means I hate myself a good deal of the time (I refuse to be hypocritical about hating hypocrites). Despite being one myself, though (and someone once wrote “A hypocrite is a person who - but who isn’t?”), I think it’s fairly uncontroversial to suggest it’s something we should work to excise from our behaviour. The “sliver” tactic, on the other hand, may not have been designed to allow hypocrisy to as hard for the individual thinker to detect as possible, but it certainly fulfils that role very, very well.
[1] Actually, I have multiple problems;why it's OK to assume that a Latina judge must have been unfairly advantaged by positive discrimination; how someone can argue a woman shouldn’t be allowed to be a judge in case she adjudicates an important case whilst on her period without them being cast out of national politics; where people get off suggesting pronouncing "Sotomayor" the way the woman herself does is somehow an unacceptable assault on the English language, etc. etc. etc.
[2] In fairness, my problem is with a specific arguing style, the fact that I observe it so much more frequently in American conservatives than anywhere else is probably selection bias.
[3] With regard to this point, I should mention Dr L also reminded me that our justice system is somewhat more tolerant of judicial interpretation than is the American one (to what extent this is due to their reliance on the Constitution is an interesting question that I am thoroughly unqualified to discuss, not that that usually stops me), and so the argument that empathy may lead to “judicial activism” has an extra hurdle to overcome for me anyway, in that I‘m not sure how bothered I am by the idea of that happening in any case. I like Dr L. Arguing with her is fun.
[4] Clinton joined in, admittedly, because Clinton (or Mark Penn, depending on how you look at it) ran a very poor and at times despicable campaign.
[5] While we’re on this subject (again, and I‘m presenting this bit separately because it doesn‘t involve the sliver method), though, even on it’s own narrow terms, the argument that empathy is bad because it might lead people to not follow the law seems insane. The only way that argument can hold is if every legal decision is logically obvious. If that were true, we wouldn’t need appeals courts. Moreover, if it were true, then it wouldn’t matter one little bit what the ideological bent of the judge in question was. And it follows from that that all the effort Bush went through to stack courts with conservatives was a waste of time, and trying to block liberals from the bench is a waste of time. Since Bush did go through the effort, and the GOP are still trying to keep liberals out of the judiciary, we can assume that they know that isn’t the case. This argument about empathy being a reason to assume a judge will ignore the law is a smoke-screen for a much more interesting argument about what criteria should be used when the law is ambiguous. And wouldn’t you know it, conservatives want conservatives making that decision. Rather than admit this, of course, they pretend the decision doesn’t exist at all. If anything, this is worse than the sliver method, because the contradiction is obvious within the argument, rather than between two arguments on the same subject.
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Shake #9
Today's shake: Toblerone
Taste 7
Texture 6
Scorn 4
Synergy 8
Total Score 6.75
General Comments: Not nearly up to the standards of the After Eight shake, this chocolate beverage is nevertheless entirely acceptable. The honey is subtle but noticeable, and the chocolate mixes well with the ice-cream in a manner suprising to no-one. Even the nuts manage to be acceptable, I had been worried that the thickness of the shake would require levels of suction great enough to turn the chunks of nut into deadly missiles, ready to lacerate my palate (a similar problem occurred with the Jaffa Cake shake; turns out combining Jaffa Cake cake with vanilla ice-cream forms armour-piercing rounds, who knew?), but this proved not to be the case. In fact, the only downside was the large chunks of Toblerone that occasionally blocked the straw, forcing straw relocation in direct violation of the experimental conditions as laid out last week; this cost the shake a Texture point.
Taste 7
Texture 6
Scorn 4
Synergy 8
Total Score 6.75
General Comments: Not nearly up to the standards of the After Eight shake, this chocolate beverage is nevertheless entirely acceptable. The honey is subtle but noticeable, and the chocolate mixes well with the ice-cream in a manner suprising to no-one. Even the nuts manage to be acceptable, I had been worried that the thickness of the shake would require levels of suction great enough to turn the chunks of nut into deadly missiles, ready to lacerate my palate (a similar problem occurred with the Jaffa Cake shake; turns out combining Jaffa Cake cake with vanilla ice-cream forms armour-piercing rounds, who knew?), but this proved not to be the case. In fact, the only downside was the large chunks of Toblerone that occasionally blocked the straw, forcing straw relocation in direct violation of the experimental conditions as laid out last week; this cost the shake a Texture point.
Monday, 1 June 2009
Important Annoucement
After deep discussion with our keyboard player/chief dreamweaver, I have concluded that our EPIC power-metal band will be named The Desolation of Smaug. Music journalists attempting to refer to us as merely "Desolation of Smaug" will not be acknowledged; the "The" is a vital part of our band identity. Definite articles are more EPIC.
The advantage of this name, beyond the fact it is unquestionably EPIC beyond measure, is that "desolation" is a word that brings to mind a great deal of whining and unhealthy introspection, which means my plan to form the world's first power-metal-emocore fusion unit can proceed apace.
If anyone has a problem with my unilateral naming strategy, they are free to quit the band at any time. Splitting over creative differences before the first album is recorded, or indeed the first rehearsal has occurred, or been arranged, or even contemplated, is highly EPIC.
The advantage of this name, beyond the fact it is unquestionably EPIC beyond measure, is that "desolation" is a word that brings to mind a great deal of whining and unhealthy introspection, which means my plan to form the world's first power-metal-emocore fusion unit can proceed apace.
If anyone has a problem with my unilateral naming strategy, they are free to quit the band at any time. Splitting over creative differences before the first album is recorded, or indeed the first rehearsal has occurred, or been arranged, or even contemplated, is highly EPIC.
Sunday, 31 May 2009
More Struggling With Empathy
I can't get hold of David Brooks latest op-ed because I'm not a subscriber to the NYT. This is a shame, because he's talking about the empathy subject again, which is always interesting. The only extract I have (h/t Attaturk) makes him seem somewhat disingenuous, but it would be nice to see it in context.
Here it, for what it's worth.
Once again we find ourselves presented with a classic Conservative trick. Emotion and empathy aren't the same thing. Arguing against empathy per se is harder to do, though, so Brook assumes that empathic judgement leads to emotional judgement, and then says that's bad. [1]
Without access to the whole piece, I obviously have to be careful in drawing conclusions. What I feel comfortable saying is that Brook will, almost certainly, be trying one of two things. Either he will be hoping no-one notices his rather shoddy sleight of hand (which is both dishonest and insulting to his readers), or he earlier (or later) in the column will have conceded that "No-one is saying empathic judgements are or must lead to emotional judgments, but" which is a fairly common tactic amongst journalists and commentators and essentially means "I can't object to the current situation A, so I'll object to B, a situation that hasn't occurred, and then point out that B is not unreachable from A". Which is more honest, of course, but also renders the whole thing kind of pointless.
My main problem with this paragraph, though, is the suggestion that it's right-leaning thinkers who are aware that emotion can cloud reason. It isn't. Smart people across the board that are aware of that, thank you very much. Anyone who thinks that the right has clear-headed thinking sewn up really hasn't been paying attention.
Update: Thanks to Tom, I've finally read the entire text of Brook's column. It's actually very strong in a lot of places, but I stand by my original conclusion that he's conflated empathy and emotion and gone on from there.
[1] Which is often true, but it's worth noting that a combination of emotional and empathic judging would be superior to emotional judging on its own, since the former means letting ones sympathy get in the way, and the latter substitutes that sympathy for naked self-interest. It's also fun to listen to a man who supported John McCain (who ran a campaign that, whatever else it was, was pretty unambiguously aimed at persuading people to vote emotionally) suggest that cool-headed logic is a good thing. Or maybe I'm being unfair. Brooks notes the right understands how emotion can lead to bad decisions, but he doesn't actually suggest it's wrong to manipulate that truth to one's own ends.
Here it, for what it's worth.
Right-leaning thinkers from Edmund Burke to Friedrich Hayek understood that emotion is prone to overshadow reason. They understood that emotion can be a wise guide in some circumstances and a dangerous deceiver in others. It’s not whether judges rely on emotion and empathy, it’s how they educate their sentiments within the discipline of manners and morals, tradition and practice.Uh huh.
Once again we find ourselves presented with a classic Conservative trick. Emotion and empathy aren't the same thing. Arguing against empathy per se is harder to do, though, so Brook assumes that empathic judgement leads to emotional judgement, and then says that's bad. [1]
Without access to the whole piece, I obviously have to be careful in drawing conclusions. What I feel comfortable saying is that Brook will, almost certainly, be trying one of two things. Either he will be hoping no-one notices his rather shoddy sleight of hand (which is both dishonest and insulting to his readers), or he earlier (or later) in the column will have conceded that "No-one is saying empathic judgements are or must lead to emotional judgments, but" which is a fairly common tactic amongst journalists and commentators and essentially means "I can't object to the current situation A, so I'll object to B, a situation that hasn't occurred, and then point out that B is not unreachable from A". Which is more honest, of course, but also renders the whole thing kind of pointless.
My main problem with this paragraph, though, is the suggestion that it's right-leaning thinkers who are aware that emotion can cloud reason. It isn't. Smart people across the board that are aware of that, thank you very much. Anyone who thinks that the right has clear-headed thinking sewn up really hasn't been paying attention.
Update: Thanks to Tom, I've finally read the entire text of Brook's column. It's actually very strong in a lot of places, but I stand by my original conclusion that he's conflated empathy and emotion and gone on from there.
[1] Which is often true, but it's worth noting that a combination of emotional and empathic judging would be superior to emotional judging on its own, since the former means letting ones sympathy get in the way, and the latter substitutes that sympathy for naked self-interest. It's also fun to listen to a man who supported John McCain (who ran a campaign that, whatever else it was, was pretty unambiguously aimed at persuading people to vote emotionally) suggest that cool-headed logic is a good thing. Or maybe I'm being unfair. Brooks notes the right understands how emotion can lead to bad decisions, but he doesn't actually suggest it's wrong to manipulate that truth to one's own ends.
Saturday, 30 May 2009
10%
Right, so, musicians. Generally speaking, the vast majority of those that reach a level that can be described as "famous" can be broken into two categories. Type 1 insists on childish whining about the fact that just because one has money and fame and drugs and adoring fans and blow-jobs on tap doesn't automatically make one happy [1]. The easiest way to recognise one of these people is to listen to the first album they write after they've hit the big time, and count the number of songs called "No-One Really Knows Me", or "She's Best Friends With My Overstuffed Wallet", or "My Blow-Job Tap Has Started Running Cold", or some other variation on the solipsistic bitching song.
The second kind are entirely aware of this phenomenon, and take steps to avoid it. Ben Folds springs immediately to mind, he says in "One Down":
So, whilst a lot of famous singers are miserable, whinging douche-bags, I do have sympathy with the line that it's a job with its own set of drawbacks.
If it is just another job, then, how about people do it fucking properly?
I remember watching an interview with Gomez during the six months they were the next best thing, and one of their three lead singers (I can't remember, but I think it was the one who sounded like a leopard singing through a suede balaclava whilst being wanked to climax) was whining about how they don't like playing their songs the same way they recorded them. "That's boring; who wants to do that?" Well, maybe no-one. But if this is a job, then I couldn't give a flying fuck if you're bored, do your job. Sing the fucking song I paid to hear.
The Rolling Stones have the same problem, insisting on peppering their set-lists with their newer, far crappier songs. "We get more of a buzz playing the new stuff", they claimed at one point. I don't care. People paid seventy-odd quid for your gig, and it wasn't to listen to Mick Jagger play guitar. Sing "You Can't Always Get What You Want". Do your job. [2]
The 10% of Wednesday's Crows gig that pissed me off was an off-shoot of the same problem. The Crows have always had a habit of reworking their songs, adding sections, mixing them together. I tend to be OK with that in this case, mainly because they tend to work really well (and if I like songs X and Y I’m generally going to be OK with the song (X-a)+(Y-b), where a is a verse and b is a chorus, or sometimes a middle eight). What doesn't work, and will carry the death penalty as soon as I finally work out how to rule the world (or at least the music industry) , is just randomly making up tempos and melodies for each line. Mr Duritz; you are not Alanis Morissette. Also: Alanis Morissette is shite. And, whilst Duritz is choosing his pitch according to an arcane and baffling stochastic process, the rest of the band are playing the song the same way they always do. I paid forty squids to attend a fucking karaoke competition. With only one contestant. Who was retarded.
This nonsense must cease. I came to a gig to hear songs I like. Or songs I don't like, but might change my mind on, or even songs I haven't heard before. Not to hear songs that are structurally similar to ones I like, but have then been re-scored by a tin-eared idiot. You're trying to persuade people to buy your records; how is that going to work if you make all your songs shittier?
Stop fucking around. Do your job.
[1] I once heard Richard Burton point out "I've been rich and miserable, and I've been poor and miserable. Rich is better." Anyone who ever finds themselves with a bank balance in seven figures should be forced to have that tattooed to the insides of their eyelids.
[2] A qualification here. If a band in its declining years insists on playing their pathetic imitations of past glories in order to shift more albums, then I'm fine with that (disappointed, but fine). Even superstars need to put bread on the table (or cocaine on the silky thighs of a hooker). But whilst most bands make losses on a tour and thus need to shift units, the Rolling Stones make a profit on their tour. They could just play their best songs each time, and never sell another album, and still continue to swell their already massive coffers. Once you get to that stage, if your fans (read "customers") are telling you to get your head out of your arse, then maybe you should live the fantasy that you're still talented exclusively in the recording studio, and spend your tours just actually being good.
The second kind are entirely aware of this phenomenon, and take steps to avoid it. Ben Folds springs immediately to mind, he says in "One Down":
I'm really not complainingCounting Crows, in theory, are of that second grouping too, at least to some extent. Recovering The Satellites might have been mainly about Duritz's post-fame breakdown, and "Have You Seen Me Lately" might just as well have been entitled "Just Because You Buy My Music Doesn't Mean I Want To Make Eye Contact", but Duritz at least had the grace to apologise for his dabbling in Second Album Syndrome, and point out that the rock star life style does genuinely have attendant problems. Ones that have to be considered alongside the obvious advantages, yes, but problems nonetheless.
I realise it's just a job
I hate hearing bellyaching rock stars
Whine and sob
'Cos I could be busting tables
I could well be pumping gas
But I get paid much finer
Playing piano and kissing ass.
So, whilst a lot of famous singers are miserable, whinging douche-bags, I do have sympathy with the line that it's a job with its own set of drawbacks.
If it is just another job, then, how about people do it fucking properly?
I remember watching an interview with Gomez during the six months they were the next best thing, and one of their three lead singers (I can't remember, but I think it was the one who sounded like a leopard singing through a suede balaclava whilst being wanked to climax) was whining about how they don't like playing their songs the same way they recorded them. "That's boring; who wants to do that?" Well, maybe no-one. But if this is a job, then I couldn't give a flying fuck if you're bored, do your job. Sing the fucking song I paid to hear.
The Rolling Stones have the same problem, insisting on peppering their set-lists with their newer, far crappier songs. "We get more of a buzz playing the new stuff", they claimed at one point. I don't care. People paid seventy-odd quid for your gig, and it wasn't to listen to Mick Jagger play guitar. Sing "You Can't Always Get What You Want". Do your job. [2]
The 10% of Wednesday's Crows gig that pissed me off was an off-shoot of the same problem. The Crows have always had a habit of reworking their songs, adding sections, mixing them together. I tend to be OK with that in this case, mainly because they tend to work really well (and if I like songs X and Y I’m generally going to be OK with the song (X-a)+(Y-b), where a is a verse and b is a chorus, or sometimes a middle eight). What doesn't work, and will carry the death penalty as soon as I finally work out how to rule the world (or at least the music industry) , is just randomly making up tempos and melodies for each line. Mr Duritz; you are not Alanis Morissette. Also: Alanis Morissette is shite. And, whilst Duritz is choosing his pitch according to an arcane and baffling stochastic process, the rest of the band are playing the song the same way they always do. I paid forty squids to attend a fucking karaoke competition. With only one contestant. Who was retarded.
This nonsense must cease. I came to a gig to hear songs I like. Or songs I don't like, but might change my mind on, or even songs I haven't heard before. Not to hear songs that are structurally similar to ones I like, but have then been re-scored by a tin-eared idiot. You're trying to persuade people to buy your records; how is that going to work if you make all your songs shittier?
Stop fucking around. Do your job.
[1] I once heard Richard Burton point out "I've been rich and miserable, and I've been poor and miserable. Rich is better." Anyone who ever finds themselves with a bank balance in seven figures should be forced to have that tattooed to the insides of their eyelids.
[2] A qualification here. If a band in its declining years insists on playing their pathetic imitations of past glories in order to shift more albums, then I'm fine with that (disappointed, but fine). Even superstars need to put bread on the table (or cocaine on the silky thighs of a hooker). But whilst most bands make losses on a tour and thus need to shift units, the Rolling Stones make a profit on their tour. They could just play their best songs each time, and never sell another album, and still continue to swell their already massive coffers. Once you get to that stage, if your fans (read "customers") are telling you to get your head out of your arse, then maybe you should live the fantasy that you're still talented exclusively in the recording studio, and spend your tours just actually being good.
Friday, 29 May 2009
But... What? Seriously, What?
Another update for the "Watch the GOP go Motherfucking Crazy" file. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Rush Limbaugh:
1) How is accusing a Supreme Court nominee of being racist "shut[ting] up"? Or continuing to threaten to filibuster bills with majority support, for that matter? Or arguing carbon dioxide can't be harmful because we breathe it out? People might not be listening, but that's very different to the GOP not talking.
2) Who exactly are the Bull Connors of the "Democrat" Party, and why didn't I hear about it when they turned riot hoses and dogs on Republicans?
3) How great must your problem with cognitive dissonance become when you suggest your political party requires a civil rights movement, whilst ignoring the fact that your party opposed the civil rights movement?
4) On a similar note, is there any clearer indication of Limbaugh's total absence critical faculties than the fact he cannot distinguish between a white person complying to a defeated mindset and a black person complying to actual fucking laws?
5) Does Limbaugh actually have any idea what the word "complacent" means? It's not often that the word is combined with "afraid", "compliant", and "oppressed".
Let's not forget that high-profile Republicans who question the world according to Limbaugh (despite his obvious problems with history, analogy, and also adjectives) are forced to publicly apologise. Were he not so powerful, he would just be one more small-minded, vicious clown for right-thinking people to ignore. That's not where we are, though. As I've said before, the GOP can recover from their current position, but it can't happen without some fairly major rebelling against the current "leadership".
h/t to Hilzoy.
(Edited for clarity)
If ever a civil rights movement was needed in America, it is for the Republican Party. If ever we needed to start marching for freedom and Constitutional rights, it's for the Republican Party. The Republican Party is today's oppressed minority. It knows how to behave as one. It shuts up. It doesn't cross bridges, it doesn't run into the Bull Connors of the Democrat Party. It is afraid of the firehouses and the dogs, it's compliant. The Republican Party today has become totally complacent. They are an oppressed minority, they know their position, they know their place. They go to the back of the bus, they don't use the right restroom and the right drinking fountain, and they shut up. I don't think this way, I don't think of myself as an oppressed minority. Or as a member of an oppressed minority. And I hope I never do think of myself as one.A number of immediate points spring to mind:
1) How is accusing a Supreme Court nominee of being racist "shut[ting] up"? Or continuing to threaten to filibuster bills with majority support, for that matter? Or arguing carbon dioxide can't be harmful because we breathe it out? People might not be listening, but that's very different to the GOP not talking.
2) Who exactly are the Bull Connors of the "Democrat" Party, and why didn't I hear about it when they turned riot hoses and dogs on Republicans?
3) How great must your problem with cognitive dissonance become when you suggest your political party requires a civil rights movement, whilst ignoring the fact that your party opposed the civil rights movement?
4) On a similar note, is there any clearer indication of Limbaugh's total absence critical faculties than the fact he cannot distinguish between a white person complying to a defeated mindset and a black person complying to actual fucking laws?
5) Does Limbaugh actually have any idea what the word "complacent" means? It's not often that the word is combined with "afraid", "compliant", and "oppressed".
Let's not forget that high-profile Republicans who question the world according to Limbaugh (despite his obvious problems with history, analogy, and also adjectives) are forced to publicly apologise. Were he not so powerful, he would just be one more small-minded, vicious clown for right-thinking people to ignore. That's not where we are, though. As I've said before, the GOP can recover from their current position, but it can't happen without some fairly major rebelling against the current "leadership".
h/t to Hilzoy.
(Edited for clarity)
Friday Comedy: Bill Bailey (feat. Billy Bragg)
Bill Bailey and Billy Bragg sing a song written by the former as a tribute to the latter. Nice.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)