There. That wasn’t so bad.

This isn’t a topical piece. I’m not reacting to some shocking announcement made in the recent State of the Union address, like that the economy needs to be better or that education is good. He hasn’t done anything new to alienate or upset me.

I’m just doing my best to judge him by his track record. And, right now, I cannot support the guy in any meaningful capacity. Maybe after a bit more time spent at Less Wrong I’ll be able to go further than that, and with less temerity.

What’s prompted me to try writing this is a distressing incongruity I’ve been noticing within my squishy pink skull-contents lately. I value rationality a great deal, and am attempting to practise it more skilfully as an art, and one big honkin’ source of bias is lingering so resolutely that I really need to address it:

To a non-trivial degree, I still personally identify with the “liberal” or “Democrat” in-group.

In practice, what this means is that I have a distinct bias favouring the left and its members in US politics, regardless of any relevant facts I may be asked to consider. While I’m not above praising an individual Republican for something worthwhile, or condemning certain Democrats’ activities, I’ve definitely noticed my opinions starting to form simply based on the subject of a news story, or its source if their political stance is known to me. I feel myself getting either outraged or defensive, based solely on a headline summary, before analysing any of the facts. I seem inclined to presume either that those awful Republicans are being called out for doing something terrible again, or the Democrats are once more being unfairly smeared by some bastard Republicans, and I feel myself taking it personally.

It’s not that I’m a moron (I hope). I’m better once I have a chance to do some actual thinking, but this is about how my brain reacts before I’ve had that chance. And on some level, it still considers the Democrats somehow “my team”.

Which means that it’s easier to maintain and bolster the conceptions I have of what “my team” and “their team” are like. Republicans are homophobic and racist, Democrats are tolerant and progressive. Republicans are war-mongers, Democrats are against unnecessary military action. Republicans want to tax the poor more than the rich, Democrats have much more socialist policies that favour equality.

And while there may be some truth to all this in both their rhetoric and their policies, you have to cherry-pick very selectively if you want to conclude that it’s as easily divided as that.

And once you’ve pledged your allegiance on one side or the other, cherry-picking the data to confirm what you prefer to believe becomes a natural thing to do.

The overall state of US politics lends itself really, really well to this kind of black-and-white thinking and tribalism.

I’m mostly referring to the domination of these two camps, Republican and Democrat, who seem to be constantly at each other’s throats on just about everything, insist on aggressively competing against each other at every opportunity, and of which it’s assumed you must choose one to side with (although more people do seem to be rejecting that idea recently.)

But it’s also true that a lot of Republicans make it really easy to confirm my prejudices against them, and – if I’m not careful – reinforce my allegiance to their opposition.

I mean, Newt Gingrich is an obnoxious ass, whose cruelty and self-serving hypocrisy makes it very easy not to like him. That’s not just my anti-Republican bias talking. He’s terrible. He’s cheated on at least two of his three wives and how dare anyone bring it up when discussing his suitability to lead the country. Ugh. He is an awful man.

Mind you, how bad was it when George Bush was President? That guy who could barely string a sentence together, got the country entrenched in ludicrously extensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and stripped away an unprecedented number of civil liberties with the Patriot Act? He was horrendous.

And then you’ve got Obama, who ran on a platform of change from what went before, who seems like a good guy, a smart guy, who says a lot of the right things, and who I really wanted to win in 2008. And who has reauthorised and expanded on most of Bush’s policies, signed the massively authoritarian National Defense Authorization Act into law, is keeping up the country’s traditions of selling billions of dollars of weapons to Saudi Arabia, has done nothing to prevent the indefinite detention of who knows how many innocent people in Gitmo, has had more innocent people killed in Pakistan by unmanned drone attacks than Bush ever did…

But, y’know. At least he’s not a Republican.

And it has been noted that a Presidential track record like Obama’s is exactly the sort of thing Democrats would leap on to argue the atrocious consequences of having a Republican in the White House.

If I try to ignore the labelling distinction between the two teams, and just look at what Obama’s done, matched up with how I’d want politicians to behave, there’s really nothing to justify maintaining any further support, allegiance, or tribal team spirit for Barack Obama or the Democratic Party in the USA. The only reason I feel inclined to do so is that their outward appearance, viewed through my established set of preconceptions, doesn’t make the bile rise in my throat the way it does when I hear the Republicans talk.

But I’m starting to think that it should.

– Citation badly needed.

– People who want abortion to be illegal aren’t even opposed to abortion, if you actually look at the practical effects of their policies. They’re neither pro-life nor anti-abortion. Anti-choice is perhaps the only remaining label that fits.

– The state of “science” TV in the States isn’t looking so hot.

I think I’ve vacillated about Valentine’s in the past, some years being kinda grumpy about it, others being more supportive of people who are trying to enjoy it. I was never moved to any particularly strong emotions about it, one way or the other.

This year, I’ve got someone to spend it with, and with whom I’m also in the middle of planning a wedding next year. This is entirely new to me, and completely wonderful.

But I feel more compelled than ever to pronounce some sort of stance against the accepted traditions, even while I whole-heartedly go along with them.

This is from the “About” page of the Occupy Valentine’s Day tumblr:

The yearly celebration of Valentine’s Day — defended as an innocent and harmless tribute to love — often serves to remind us that either our romantic situation is not good enough or our single status is a tragedy.

Most people, coupled or otherwise, can’t stand Valentine’s Day. It puts pressure on couples to be a certain way, it privileges one type of love (think heteronormativity!) and it makes single people feel incomplete.

Celebrating love and romance is a wonderful thing, but it shouldn’t depend on buying certain products for the perfect experience (hello, romantic industrial complex) or on your gender, sexuality, race, class status or marital status.

I don’t agree with everything these Occupiers might stand for; as much as domestic violence and sexual assault are important issues that deserve our attention, making it some kind of alternative approach to a day when many people are trying to be romantic doesn’t really seem necessary. But as far as undermining traditional stereotypes of gender and sexuality? Hell yes.

I’m all for people using Valentine’s Day as a prompt to celebrate any positive thing in their life, and I don’t think OVD is opposed to that either, however traditional you want to be about it. The problem is with expectations. Any expectations. Expectations that you should be in a relationship, with a given number of people, of any particular gender. Expectations that your present situation should make you happy, or sad, or that you should be seeking to change it, or not.

Men should be fawning over their (female) partners and hoping they flatter them with enough flowers and shiny things not to find themselves sleeping on the couch tonight. Single men should be either drinking alone and sad, or revelling in the freedom of not being tied down and having to waste money on what the greeting card industry thinks you should be buying. Single women will obviously either be even more desperate to snag a man than usual, or decide bitterly and resentfully that none of the opposite sex is any longer worth their time.

Argh. Let’s grow up a little, homo sapiens.

I mean, if that’s how you want to play it, by all means go ahead. My own V-Day isn’t likely to shatter any preconceptions with its free-thinking independence. There’ll just be flowers and food and love, and that’s fine. But the idea that this is the way it’s supposed to be, which everyone should aspire to if they’re not doing it wrong, entirely fails to understand what love is and appreciate how diverse and wonderful it can be.

So, if you’re in a romantic relationship, I hope it’s everything you want it to be. If you’re single, I hope you nevertheless have love in your life. If you want a new kind of relationship with someone, I hope you find it. If you’re happy, laugh at the illogic of anyone who tells you that you shouldn’t be.

Also, zombies.

– I still haven’t seen The Passion Of The Christ. Even though I’ve heard Penn Jillette repeatedly describe it as a very sexy movie, and now I find out it’s hilarious too!

– According to one prominent Christian spokesman, God is in favour of capital punishment, even though he knows it’ll mean some innocent people get murdered.

– Here’s a useful one to be brought out on any future occasion when they’re harangued for defending atheists’ rights: a list of instances of the ACLU defending the rights of Christians.

She’s done alright for herself, you could say. But she’s also established herself in the eyes of much of the public as a certain kind of person. The kind who… well, this sums up the attitude pretty well. She’s not very bright, is the popular view, and her sex life is of continual fascination to people who don’t seem to like her very much.

Anyway, her Twitter account took a turn for the interesting yesterday:

Great news about China’s latest GDP figures!!

Chinese leaders now likely to loosen monetary policy to stimulate growth. Yay!!

OMG!! Eurozone debt problems can only be properly solved by true fiscal union!!! #comeonguys

Large scale quantitative easing in 2012 could distort liquidity of govt. bond market. #justsayin

A number of people noticed this, and considered it so out of character that they concluded her account must have been hacked. Others took an opposing view, and declared it offensive and patronising to assume that someone such as Katie Price couldn’t possibly have opinions on things like global economics simply because she has famously large breasts.

To me, the above tweets looked more like the Pricey was lightly making fun of her own image, and was deliberately playing up the contrast between global economic policy and her usual style of discourse, possibly just because it amused her. Even her detractors might credit her with enough self-awareness as to crack such a joke.

But the claim that this was just a savvy businesswoman sharing her views, and that if people can’t believe it then they’re just unfairly judging her intelligence based on her physical appearance, seems naïve.

For a start, we don’t just have her physical appearance on which to base an assessment of her mental acuity; we also have everything else she’s ever said or done, over the course of numerous books, reality TV shows, interviews, and far more down-to-earth tweets than those quoted above. It’s not degrading to Katie – as a woman or in any other sense – to have noticed that expounding on the Eurozone debt crisis is a long way from her usual style.

But it’s also a mistake to assume that someone’s capacity or inclination for using complex-sounding terminology like “fiscal union” is a useful signifier for intelligence. I consider myself a fairly intelligent person, but I have trouble operating a fucking can-opener, let alone formulating any useful opinions about the GDP of China. (I’m not even kidding. The bastards just don’t want to grip the metal in the right place and so nothing happens when I turn the twisty bit.)

(I was talking about can-openers in those last parentheses, not the Chinese.)

And finally, even if you are (I would say over-generously) willing to credit Katie Price with both intelligence and sincere, passionate opinions on this complex subject, the tweets above are a poor example of how she would demonstrate such qualities.

I mean, who’s so excited about China’s GDP that they’d use two exclamation marks and mean it? Who suffixes a comment about growth stimulation with “Yay!!” when it’s not an innuendo? Why would anyone choose to sandwich such an erudite-sounding soundbite between “OMG” and a flippant hashtag?

That’s a deliberately humourous incongruity, not someone intelligent talking straight-forwardly about the European economy. It’s much closer to how someone who’s known for their physicality but has half a brain might take the piss out of the assumption that anyone with big tits couldn’t possibly have insightful opinions.

As it turns out, it’s not even quite that. Her following tweet revealed the whole business to be an advertising stunt for a chocolate bar.

In a sense, it was tremendously successful, and rather cleverly concocted. It’s even possible that Ms Price herself was involved in crafting this scheme, which got thousands of people looking at and talking about her Twitter feed who wouldn’t usually be the slightest bit interested. She’s not an idiot, that girl.

Anyway, I’m only stopping in quickly before dinner. The exciting news is that we now have two guinea pigs who need names. Hurrah! Here they are:

Suggestions so far for what they could be called include: Leibniz & Newton, Bret & Jemaine, and Higgs & Boson.

Any thoughts?

But I’m wondering about something. Critical thinking blogger Crispian Jago recently recounted a thing on Twitter which, without his kind permission, I’m going to share with you now:

The tale of science communicator and the fortean in 4 short tweets…

Despite liking astronomy my father-in-law believes we never landed on the moon and the world will end in 2012

On Monday he tuned into to BBC Stargazing live just as Brian was talking about moon landing denial

Brian said something to the effect of all the idiots who believe we never landed on the moon will be watching ITV

Apparently my father-in-law muttered “fuck you Cox” and promptly switched to ITV.

So Brian was completely right

Now, first of all, the theory that the NASA Moon landings were faked is utterly ridiculous. The reasons people cite for doubting the accepted story cannot possibly be grounded in a thorough and intellectually honest assessment of the evidence. There’s a lot of idiocy surrounding the conspiracy theories, without a doubt.

Brian’s antipathy to such piffle while he’s trying to talk about real and interesting science is understandable. There are countless fascinating things awaiting to be learnt about the Moon and mankind’s efforts to visit it, without being distracted by such fatuous and implacably recurrent drivel.

On a similar note, Stephen Fry once went so far as to ban anyone who believes in astrology from watching his interesting-factoid-based quiz show QI. Once again, I can entirely sympathise with the frustration.

And yet…

And yet while it undoubtedly does succinctly communicate an important scientific point to dismiss astrology or Moon-landing hoaxery as worthless bullshit, it’s not the only thing we need to do to fix the problem that millions of people still believe it.

In the case of Crispian’s father-in-law, I don’t know whether he’d be open to learning more about why he’s so badly wrong about everything, or whether he’s so firmly committed to his preferred nonsense that no approach, however diplomatic, will ever shake him from it. But insofar as Brian was absolutely right about him, it feels like a fairly hollow victory.

Some people will cite a few individual bits of trivia about the flag on the Moon waving even though there’s no wind to blow it. Some people will point to the time their horoscope told them to expect a financial windfall, and they found a fiver on the pavement. Some people will laud a homeopathic preparation for curing their headache, after about the length of time during which headaches will normally go away.

And although it might not always be possible, I don’t want these people to switch over to another channel and be wrong somewhere else nearly as much as I want them to understand why these are terrible and unconvincing arguments.

I don’t want to sound too censorious here. Brian Cox really is great at talking about important stuff in a way that’s engaging and makes sense, and part of that should sometimes involve calling out irrelevant bollocks that doesn’t deserve any further attention.

But it’s worth remembering what the real victories of science communication are, when considering people who believe the wrong things. Maybe they’re just not right yet.

– At this moment the UK Economy is listing. Hehe. (Context, if you need it.)

– The futility of prayer, demonstrated in one simple chart.

– Asexual and aromantic. Just another way to be.

Although there’s some variety in the tone they set, there’s a greater preponderance of deliberate antipathy toward religion than simply apologetic or uninterested disbelief. Even Germaine Greer is on particularly good form.

But Christopher Hitchens is still an obvious stand-out, for me. As problematic as his legacy may have been in various other areas, what he says right at the end of the above clip is perhaps the greatest elevator pitch against Christianity that I’ve heard.

In case you’re in a rush and don’t want to spend a half-hour watching the whole thing through, here’s what Hitch had to say:

In order to be a Christian, you have to believe that for ninety-eight thousand years, our species suffered and died – most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about twenty-five, famine, struggle, war, suffering, misery – all of that for ninety-eight thousand years, Heaven watches it with complete indifference…

And then two thousand years ago thinks: that’s enough of that, it’s time to intervene, and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don’t let’s appear to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilisation, let’s go to the desert and have another revelation there.

This is nonsense, it can’t be believed by a thinking person.

Why am I glad this is the case? To get to the point of the wrongness, in the other sense, of Christianity. Because I think the teachings of Christianity are immoral, and the central one is the most immoral of all, that is the one of vicarious redemption: you can throw your sins onto somebody else, vulgarly known as scapegoating – in fact originating as scapegoating in the same area, the same desert.

I can pay your debt, if I love you. I can serve your term in prison, if I love you very much, I can volunteer to do that. I can’t take your sins away, because I can’t abolish your responsibility and I shouldn’t offer to do so. Your responsibility has to stay with you. There is no vicarious redemption. There very probably, in fact, is no redemption at all, it’s just a part of wish-thinking, and I don’t think wish-thinking is good for people either.

It even manages to pollute the central question, the word I just employed, the most important word of all, the word “love”, by making love compulsory, by saying you must love. You must love your neighbour as yourself, something you can’t actually do, but will always fall short, so you will always be found guilty. By saying you must love someone who you also must fear, that is to say a supreme being, an eternal father, someone of whom you must be afraid but you must love him too, and if you fail in this duty you are, again, a wretched sinner. This is not mentally or morally or intellectually healthy, and that brings me to the final objection, and I’ll condense it, which is that this is a totalitarian system.

If there was a god who could do these things and demand these things of us, and was eternal and unchanging, we would be living under a dictatorship from which there was no appeal, and one that could never change, and one that knows our thoughts and can convict us of thought-crime and condemn us to eternal punishment for actions that we are condemned in advance to be taking.

All this in the round – and I could say more – it’s an excellent thing that there is absolutely no reason to believe any of it to be true.