Tête-à-Tête-Tête

Someone… maybe the Tennessean himself… should collect stuff like this… Keep it around the office for laughs… and leave it for posterity … to be enshrined in some sort of museum. As a cautionary tale for future science critics.

I remember when the “will of the people” was 51 votes in the Senate. Now, of course, it’s 41 votes in the Senate. But vote counting is quite possibly the least problematic issue associated with the notion of political representatives conveying the “will of the people”.

It goes without saying that representatives from both parties commonly represent the will of their corporate sponsors – those who can pay for their re-election campaigns – far more often than the will of the people, who themselves will vote largely based on name recognition and the vibes they get from those well-financed re-election campaigns. But this issue is also secondary.

The primary issue is that the “will of the people” is a myth. A joke about Jewish people (and sometimes Unitarians, or Democrats, or whoever) is that when any two of them are present there are at least three opinions. That’s the joke. The reality is that “will” is an individual asset, not a group one. Even so, theoretically, one could construct some estimation of a collective representation of “will” using some sort of averaging system. But in practice such a construct would never work. Just like the light you see from the stars, by the time it gets here, it no longer tells you what the will of the people is now. Opinions are ephemeral critters. Even if an individual’s opinion survives for a decade on average, with a population of less than 4000 people, an opinion will change every day and skew that average. With a population of 40,000, this happens several times a day – so that by the time you compute the “average”, it has changed significantly.

All of this before considering the role of persuasion in the political process, or that of any of its synonyms – leadership if you like it, propaganda if you don’t. All of this before considering the role of individual psychology – of the tendency for the same programs to be popular with republicans and unpopular with democrats when republicans advance them, and popular with democrats and unpopular with republicans when republicans advance them. Despite our certainty that it “isn’t me” who is subject to this tribal psychology (justified in some cases, you find somewhat less of this among those who study public policy very closely – yet it still exists even among that set: consider that individual insurance “mandates” were once championed by Congressional Republicans and resisted by Congressional Democrats), such psychology is strongly reflected in the composite “will of the people”.

But let’s go back to persuasion for a moment, and the notion of leadership. Because all of this was sparked by this little story of a man who found himself in a plight that our political system, premised as it is on incorrect notions of how representative government should work, created: He had to compromise – in the starkest terms – his own principles in order to get re-elected. Or, in friendlier terms, he had to do so in order to represent “the will of the people”. And, as with most politicians, he did it rather than let someone else have the job – someone who would wind up doing a lot of the same thing. The story. In the process, not only did he represent the will of the people, but he mis-represented himself and more importantly, played a role in bolstering the narrative (“anti-gay” is the same as “pro-family values”) that helps to persuade people to be anti-gay.

I am presenting this story in a way that highlights the dysfunctionality of the system that purports to represent the “will of the people”, and which consequently casts Ashburn in a less unfavorable light – depicting him as painted into a corner… elected to office to represent the people in matters unrelated to “family values”… and forced to betray himself in order to accommodate the “will of the people” on that issue. In fact, I see him in an unambiguously negative light. For one, he was arrested for DUI – something which earns him heaps of opprobrium all on its own. For another – he went much further than any argument from principle on grounds of “representing his constituents” could support – styling himself as “family values” while promoting anti-gay positions, and going so far as to marry (and divorce) presumably without disclosing his sexual orientation to his wife (this itself an unfortunate trend among homosexuals closeted because of social or religious pressure – a trend that is often devastating to families).

But the fact remains – a prinicipled gay person who identifies with, and believes he or she can most responsibly represent on all issues but one – the “will” of a body politic that is rabidly anti-gay – faces a real dilemma of principle. This is an institutionalized sort of dilemma that extends far beyond the politics of sexual identity. It can happen to any otherwise principled politician who supports the majority, but not all, of the positions of his or her constituency.

What should such a person do? Campaign openly on their own positions and principles and let the chips fall where they may, even if it means losing to a challenger who actually represents the populace less well, or less effectively? Hide their own positions – or even identity – and try to estimate and represent the people even in ways their own conscience cannot abide?

There isn’t a good answer. And that’s because the notion of a politician as representative of the will of the people is a flawed one, and needs to be re-thought.

At the same time, the role of politicians as “leaders” – or as “propagandizers” or “demagogues” needs some scrutiny. Should it be the role of a politician to lead? To persuade his or her constituents of the righteousness of a cause, and to work toward making reality of their own visions? And, if so, how does one allow for this without opening the door to demagoguery?

I don’t have the answers. But in times of political turmoil (as they say on the TeeVee), hyper-partisanship, and after decades of poor governance and promises of more of the same after every election in the foreseeable future, these are the issues more people should try to spend some time on.

I guess this gives new meaning to potpourri

And forty bucks for 3 grams? Holy free-market Batman!

Ain’t it amazing how much folks are willing to spend in order to hallucinate and puke?

My personal favorite is Oolong (which is not a type of leaf, but refers to a type of fermentation process)… But after reading this, I’m tempted to try some Green Tea.

… and it’s called the Tree Lobster Game. I had no idea, but it kind of makes sense now.

Adam Sewer, via Obsidian Wings:

The Senate is holding a hearing today where several current and former Blackwater employees will be testifying, but honestly the only way Congress would stop giving Blackwater money is if it started registering black people to vote.

Heh. Indeed.

I ran across this looking for something to watch. So, John A Arkansawyer, & other fans…

Truth be known, I don’t know if John Cook is a real skeptic or not – or rather, to what degree and in what situations he is a skeptic. I follow his blog on Google Reader, but my schedule has allowed me very little time for reading since I subscribed to him. So, I don’t know much about him. Yet, he advertises himself as “Skeptical Scientist”. Redundant as that may be, I suspect it is the case, and I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now. The post I link does not portray any particular failing in the skepticism department.

The reason I say he is a “real” climate change skeptic is because I think that the term “skeptic” should be reserved for people who apply a skeptical view methodically and with the purpose of increasing knowledge. I think that this its greatest value. Most people who are suspicious of climate change are not suspicious for reasons of rigorous skepticism.

Some, and I think this includes my dear Buck… and maybe RW… are skeptical in the sense of “I don’t know what to think. Too many claims and counterclaims, and I just can’t keep track of them.” This is commendable, and a good example of folk skepticism. The truth is that the world is too big & complex for each person to establish for him or her self, with reasonable certainty, the truth of a lot of issues – including a lot of important ones. This type of skepticism is a hedge against wrong belief, and it makes sense for people who find it important to avoid poorly justified beliefs. In other words, it often seems more valuable to have a few true and well justified beliefs along with very few wrong beliefs than to have many true but poorly justified beliefs along with very many wrong ones.

I am a folk skeptic myself, but feel I have been able to navigate the claims and counterclaims of climate science and and have justified for myself a belief in the general conclusions of the vast majority of scientists who study climate.

I don’t think that folk skepticism should designate one a “skeptic” where it concerns climate change. This skepticism is a passive one, a choice for agnosticism on one issue in favor of spending the energy of unraveling questions for another group of tasks. It is not the active skepticism that does take the time to truly analyze the claims and require justification of them. I would rather style this type of folk skeptic who does not accept climate change science “agnostic.”

Some people who are suspicious of climate change (and I think this includes many political operatives) are suspicious because they are incapable of thinking of any issue except in terms of partisan advantage and gamesmanship – or at least in terms of partisan trust. This is not skepticism in any positive sense of the word. So, I don’t think the term should be applied to the bloggers, media personalities and political think-tanks that try to undermine popular understanding of climate science. I have a similar view toward those who are active in the climate science debate in order to preserve an economic interest in a polluting industry.

There are a few are old-guard climate researchers who are just tough to budge when it comes to a new result, especially one they didn’t see coming. Perhaps these individuals include real, rigorous, scientific skeptics. The modern-day classic example of a skeptic of this sort – from another field – is that of Alan Feduccia. While folks like Dr. Feduccia deserve respect for their contributions to science, and deserve to have their view heard in the academic debate, they are extremely few in number where it comes to birds and dinosaurs (for instance) or climate science. So, while I count them among climate change “skeptics”, I count them as a trifling minority thereof.

I think that most people who are suspicious of climate change are victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect, perhaps combined with a political or religious bias. This is based on observation. In my younger days, I trolled the halls of internet Creationism, and I there observed two things in great quantity – 1) large numbers of internet Creationists are victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect (almost always in tandem with religious bias), and 2) self-styled climate change skeptics on the internet today exist in large numbers and exhibit behavior very similar to that of internet Creationists (and not a few of them are Creationists). And, by the way – that link is the one that goes to the “real climate change skeptic”.

Skepticism is a key element in science. This is so much the case that I don’t believe science would be possible without it. So the real champions of scientific skepticism are the scientists themselves. It is climate scientists: both the large majority who accept AGW and the vanishingly small minority who reject it or hedge their acceptance dramatically, who have truly earned the term “climate change skeptic”.

I also think there is room for us folk skeptics in the mix. Folk skeptics, relying largely on the efforts of scientists, who go to an effort of critical justification for their views on climate science, might also deserve a junior badge of “climate change skeptic”.

I say all of this, and deny the term “skeptic” to the majority of disbelievers of climate change – to preserve the integrity of the word “skeptic”. The rest should be designated as worthy agnostics or as pestilent contrarians, depending on their respective beliefs and activities.

An e-mail I sent to my COO:

I think this fellow is right, and what he says applies to many of the things we do. I wish he would have talked about mastery and purpose more, because I think they are even more important than autonomy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y&feature=player_embedded

Yes “I wish he would have” is a southern colloquialism. Times past, I was a grammar snob. But 1) I realized that good grammar doesn’t make good people, and 2) I heard a VP in this same organization calling us “you’uns” repetitively in a meeting. So, I don’t think the COO will mind. The CEO isn’t as involved in the day-to-day as he used to be, or I would have remembered to cut him in on the e-mail. And, I guess if #2 thinks it’s worth it, he’ll show it to #1, huh?