Evil Thoughts

still alive

Fri, 23 May 2008 05:32:46 GMT

fallen way behind on LJ
Need to try & catch up
lousy job is eating my soul

lizblackdog, you've been especially on my mind luv. I hope you're well.

New pics

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:50:21 GMT

I need to do more updating, and I am WAY behind (like over a week) on everyone's LJ :-(
BAD James :-(

I DID get a lot of photo editing done today.
You can see it at my photo LJ:
http://slephoto.livejournal.com/11110.html
or over at my photo blog:
http://www.slephoto.com/blog/2008/04/new-edits-of-older-work.html

(More & more of my pic work is going to be posted there, mainly 'cause I'm concerned LJ may not allow it much longer. I post via Blogspot/Blogger: http://www.blogger.com/profile/07389543929830366341)

ARRRRRRRRRRRHHHHHHHHJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:59:34 GMT

So, last week my laptop crashes.
I'd installed iTunes (I know, big mistake to use ANYTHING from Apple) so I could reformat my iPod before lending it to someone.
I took care of it & uninstalled that garbagey software, but later that night the system crashed. I use this thing CONSTANTLY and have for a year and have never had an issue. I'm running a well-tweaked version of XP, so I figured something had happened with iTunes, since iTunes has previously corrupted my desktop.

So I run a Systems Restore to go back a day before I installed iTunes.
It boots up, and I get a message that McAfee is corrupt.
Now, that can happen when you roll the system back more than a few days because the updates don't match any more.
No biggie, I run a virus check then uninstall McAfee. But then it won't let me reinstall... that's odd.

So I check my System restore... and I can't access it. Windows won't start it at all. ARRRGGHHH.
Then another BSD. And another. So I boot in safe mode & run chkdsk and get it to reload long enough to back up all my files and run the Settings & Transfer wizard so I can go for the last resort.

I boot again & hit the "Restore with backup" option to re-load Windows while saving my files. It boots to the restore partition and starts to run, but generates a bunch of errors. Windows tries to load & fails.
So I boot to "Restore" again, and this time do a full destructive restore.
Same failures.
Ok. Time to do it the hard way... systems restore disk!

Pop the disk in & run and... WTF?? "No Hard Drive Found, recovery cannot continue"????
Restart, try again... "No CPU Fan Installed, System Is Shutting Down."
*headesk*
So it was never a software issue. One of the main internal fans has failed, and the system overheating has caused a cascading hardware failure.

*sigh*
LUCKILY I pad for the uber 4-year extended warranty PLUS the accidental damage insurance.
So they're expressing me a shipping box and I'll send it off. If too many components are fried, they're sending me a brand new system. And since I have the extra insurance they can't weasel out of it by trying to say it's my fault.
But I'll still be without my laptop for probably 2 weeks which just SUCKS.

Thankfully I have a net-capable phone. But anyway, I feel a little better now.

Now back to shaving the cat. (No, seriously, the long haired cat has mats.)

Quickie update on $uicideScum

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 05:09:30 GMT

So, as referenced in these entries:
http://james-the-evil1.livejournal.com/168434.html
http://james-the-evil1.livejournal.com/168488.html

Those bottom feeding shit suckers at $uicideGirls made a community & added my photo profile a while back, linking me to them.

SixApart wouldn't do jack shit about it (fuckers) and I didn't even think about asking when the new owners took over.

But a couple of days ago some bunch of porno webcam jerks added me to promote their shitty company & I made a complaint and they were removed from my list in under 2 hours.

So I made a similar complaint about $G and damn if they're not finally gone too.

YAYYYYYYYY!

Autisim and false thinking

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 04:35:03 GMT

tacit and joreth have both mentioned the vaccine issue in a few posts lately. Both of them have also brought it up in context of peoples' inability to think critically.
In this USA Today Op-Ed piece Sam Wang, an associate professor of molecular biology and neuroscience at Princeton University and sibling of an autistic woman, discusses the falsehoods of the controversy & why he's vaccinating his kids.
I found this bit particularly interesting:
"Although her concept of evidence is flawed, I don't blame her. The error highlights how our brains are wired to think. Like the authors of the 1998 study, she concluded that two events happening around the same time must be linked. They used the principle that coincidence implies a causal link. But there was no coincidence for her son: He was born in 2002, after thimerosal was removed from vaccines.

The problem is compounded by "source amnesia," in which people are prone to remember a statement without recalling where they heard it or whether the source was reliable. Presidential candidate John McCain might have fallen prey to source amnesia when he repeated the vaccine-autism myth last month. Recollection is more likely when the "fact" fits previously held views; parents might already dislike vaccinations based on their kids' reaction to shots. But when it comes to a complex issue such as autism, such errors of reasoning hinder us from distinguishing real causes from coincidences. "

Autism myth lives on
Why people continue to blame vaccines, despite evidence to the contrary.

By Sam Wang

As the brother of an autistic person and a brain scientist, I have been hoping that the increased focus on autism in the news would lead to a greater public understanding of this disorder. Instead, I am angry that this coverage is spreading dangerous myths.

My sister, Karen, is autistic. In the 1970s, my parents wondered why she behaved so differently. At the time, a prevalent idea was that an emotionally distant mother could somehow prevent a child from understanding emotions or relating normally to others. Our parents had a simpler idea, that they might have hurt Karen's head during a bath.

Both these ideas are wrong. Autism is a neurological disorder, and its signs appear by the age of 1 or even earlier. It is highly inheritable. In identical twins where one is autistic, the chance that both are autistic is greater than 50-50. Even non-identical twins and siblings are at increased risk. In short, I dodged a genetic bullet. Now I worry about my daughter.

A link that isn't there

Recently, celebrities such as Jenny McCarthy and other activists have taken to the airwaves to repeat the myth that autism is linked to vaccination. Although peer-reviewed scientific evidence overwhelmingly opposes their views, they have attracted attention. In a recent discussion on Larry King Live, three pediatricians invited to make the case for science were no match for McCarthy's star power. Situations like this could mistakenly persuade parents to leave their children unvaccinated and vulnerable to contagious diseases.

Speculation about a vaccine-autism link began with a 1998 uncontrolled study of a few autistic children. But the conclusions were later retracted. Subsequent speculation focused on the compound thimerosal. But removing it from all routine childhood vaccines in the USA, Denmark, Sweden and Canada has not decreased autism rates.

What are McCarthy's credentials? She is an actress and comedienne — with an autistic son. Her career took on new life after she wrote a best-selling pregnancy guide. Like all parents of autistic children, she wrestled with the question of what caused his disorder. She recalled that her son was vaccinated about the time his symptoms first appeared. Aha! That's it. Here is an example of her reasoning: "I believe that parents' anecdotal information is science-based information."

How we're wired

Although her concept of evidence is flawed, I don't blame her. The error highlights how our brains are wired to think. Like the authors of the 1998 study, she concluded that two events happening around the same time must be linked. They used the principle that coincidence implies a causal link. But there was no coincidence for her son: He was born in 2002, after thimerosal was removed from vaccines.

The problem is compounded by "source amnesia," in which people are prone to remember a statement without recalling where they heard it or whether the source was reliable. Presidential candidate John McCain might have fallen prey to source amnesia when he repeated the vaccine-autism myth last month. Recollection is more likely when the "fact" fits previously held views; parents might already dislike vaccinations based on their kids' reaction to shots. But when it comes to a complex issue such as autism, such errors of reasoning hinder us from distinguishing real causes from coincidences.

Out of sight of the cameras, increased research funding is spurring efforts to find autism's causes. Scientists are vitally interested in possible environmental influences. But the vaccine story is a dry well. Working on it further wastes valuable time and resources. It's time to dig elsewhere.

As I watch my beautiful 10-month-old daughter grow, I wish that preventing autism were as simple as withholding a few injections. But along with my wife, a physician, I understand the vital importance of vaccination, not only for maintaining our baby's health but also protecting our community from infectious diseases. Our daughter's next shots are in two months.

Sam Wang is an associate professor of molecular biology and neuroscience at Princeton University. He is a co-author of Welcome to Your Brain: Why You Lose Your Car Keys But Never Forget How to Drive and Other Puzzles of Everyday Life.

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:43:59 GMT

Why Beautiful Women Marry Less Attractive Men - Yahoo! News

Better link:
http://www.livescience.com/health/080410-couples-beauty.html

Still need to add to this

Sun, 13 Apr 2008 04:54:24 GMT

I'm alive
I should actually make updates at some pint :-(

Just a quick check in

Sun, 06 Apr 2008 18:26:14 GMT

New job is consuming my life, soul, and energy.
I can't handle retail jobs & still do life very well. :-(
I'm still doing some pics, and SERIOUSLY need to update slephoto.

I DO need to post a better update (after I get some video edited and posted to YouTube) of my adventure yesterday seeing filkertom's house concert here in Orlando.

I'll try & do more later.
Just soooo lacking in energy.

An interesting commentary on kids.

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:12:55 GMT

Some of you may have seen the humor piece circulating around on the 'net about a judge ruling that black women, especially low income ones, were no longer going to be allowed to name their children without the approval of a panel of white people to stop the proliferation of silly names.
It was taken from a site similar to "The Onion" and the attribution was stripped when it was released in to the wild.

What I found VERY interesting was that in About.Com's debunking of it (Judge Forbids Black Mothers from Naming Own Children) they give a wrap up at the end of how many parents are naming their kids after luxury goods (Lexus, Armani, Canon, etc... no Nikon tho. Hmmm...)
Take a peek at the article & see what their commentary on WHY these luxury good names is.
It explains an awful lot of problem parents & kids.

What the FUCK??????????

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:55:57 GMT

tacit, slouchinphysics, you two should especially enjoy this bit of bullshit.

I was just reading a news story about the new hominid fossils they've found in Europe that predate all previous finds by a half million years.
I get to the bottom and see the comments have been spammed by Bible-thumpers promoting their "evolution is a lie" websites.
I click on Evolution Facts, which I had not seen before.

The site's a typical pile of shit & lies and quotes from "experts" like that dipshit apologist Lee Strobel who makes his career writing lies.

And suddenly I see one of the most RIDICULOUS things I have ever seen:
ALL MATTER IS MADE UP OF SOUND WAVES
Yep, this guy claims all matter is made of up SOUND WAVES.
No, I'm NOT joking.
He goes on to say:
"All physical substances in the universe are made up of atoms. An atom is made up of electrons, and a nucleus which contains protons and neutrons. Matter is merely the collection of electrons, protons and neutrons. Between the electrons and the nucleus of the atom there is empty space. If a person removed all the space out of an atom and just calculated the amount of matter (Electrons, protons, and Neutrons) that really makes up one human - the matter in one human could be reduced to one hundred, millionth of a cubit of space. In fact, the condensed matter of entire state population of Oklahoma could fit into one cubit inch! What is more interesting is that all matter is made up of sound waves. CLICK HERE FOR PROOF Matter also travels as a wave and there is experimental data which verifies the wave aspects of matter even at the subatomic level. Learn why modern day physicists say that matter are actual waves and sound waves are a vibration of matter. "
As if this wasn't WTF enough, he goes on to say:
"Therefore that which makes up matter is quite insignificant as compared to the One and only Being (Creator) who is credited for speaking it into existence and designed the g-forces that it would take hold it together on purpose, only to create a universe and earth built with the purpose of supporting life. The fact that an electrons mass is fine-tuned at 9.10938188 × 10 to the minus 31 kilograms throughout the entire universe implies that only one and the same Creator designed it all. It is NOT realistic to assume that random chemical reactions produced preprogrammed molecules (DNA) and that chromosomes which contain the genes for organisms were the result of mutations. A mutations effect on an organism is proven to be harmful not helpful. Therefore, world-views based on the evolution of life from one common ancestor(s) or from the "molecule to man theory" - are not credible. (More about biology and genetics below)"

(I guess God "speaking it in to existence" is where the sound wave idea comes from?)

The "CLICK HERE FOR PROOF" goes here:
Matter is made of waves
What THIS fruitcake has to say is even BETTER:
"This web site explains that there is nothing else but the aether, and that matter is made solely of waves. Yes, I realize that this may sound ridiculous. However I know a lot about optics, waves and physics, and I maintain that this is true.

One may ask any well known scientist how a photon works. He will not be able to provide an acceptable explanation. Even worse, he will also answer that light is made of electric and magnetic fields, but he still will be unable to explain how such fields work. This means that he simply ignores the true nature of light.

We are standing in front of the Unknown. The goal is to find the truth. So our first step should be to propose hypotheses and examine them.

Actually, I can explain light and I am the only one who can. Nobody else ever proposed an acceptable hypothesis.

I will propose many assumptions throughout these pages. If you are a scientist, and you are unable to propose some of your own, please do not reject my ideas simply because they sound ridiculous. You should examine them first. And if you disagree with them, you need an acceptable reason.

Remember Galileo."

Funnily enough I DO remember Galileo. He was forced to recant his ideas and died under house arrest by the authority of religious nuts like the ones that cite this guy to back up their idiocy.

He goes on to say "The next page on electrons especially has been entirely rewritten and translated into an acceptable English*. I challenge anybody to examine it and find errors which are in conflict with fundamental physics." *(the author is French).

So yeah. Layers & LAYERS of idiocy. Links on the first page go on to even more craziness.
I figured some of you might have fun with this. slouchinphysics, I thought you might want to take our French friend up on his challenge.

Ugh.

I have a headache now from teh stoopid.

Male/female communication and the MOST SPOILED GIRL IN THE WORLD

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:58:23 GMT

So, the other day joreth makes this post: 9 words women use.
It's your pretty standard humor piece lampooning womens' use of words like "fine" and "nothing" when they really are harboring deep thoughts and emotions usually directed at clueless males.
joreth does a pretty good job of picking apart why this isn't really funny, and why the behaviors that create the stereotype are bad for us all.
That was in my mind when I read this article:
Clueless Guys Can't Read Women
First of all, I want to know WHERE I go to get $$ for clueless freaking OBVIOUS studies of issues like "Guys, especially younger ones, don't understand women and tend to misinterpret things like friendly smiles as sexual interest." Seriously, DUH.
Second, there're a few references in there to women not making things clear enough to guys. I found it interesting that the second comment on the article says
"Based on the article above - the facts presented clearly point out that the problem isn't guys at all. The proper title of the piece should be "Clueless Women Can't Communicate Non-Verbally"
If you are sending a message in such a way that 70% of your target never receives the message or receives the opposite message - clearly the sender is at fault. What's next; an article on archery entitled "Clueless targets can't catch arrows"?"
It's also interesting to see in that article's comments the number of people calling out gender bias for a female author writing an article about males not following female communication and representing that as "men BAD." There're also a few interesting points there about bias in women who're forward about what they want being called bitches or whores. All in all, some things to think about.
Now, I am NOT saying this's all the fault of women or that all communication is their responsibility. What I AM saying is that, given the widely known issue of guys (as a generalization)being obtuse it would behoove the women who created the stereotype in joreth's post to STOP IT and communicate BETTER.

Clueless Guys Can't Read Women
By Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer

More often than not, guys interpret even friendly cues, such as a subtle smile from a gal, as a sexual come-on, and a new study discovers why: Guys are clueless.

More precisely, they are somewhat oblivious to the emotional subtleties of non-verbal cues, according to a new study of college students.

"Young men just find it difficult to tell the difference between women who are being friendly and women who are interested in something more," said lead researcher Coreen Farris of Indiana University's Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences.

This "lost in translation" phenomenon plays out in the real world, with about 70 percent of college women reporting an experience in which a guy mistook her friendliness for a sexual come-on, Farris said.

Some might think the results come down to "boys being boys," and so even the slightest female interest sparks sexual fantasy. But the study, to be detailed in the April issue of the journal Psychological Science, also found that it goes both ways for guys — they mistake females' sexual signals as friendly ones. The researchers suggest guys have trouble noticing and interpreting the subtleties of non-verbal cues, in either direction.

The study's funding came from the National Institutes of Mental Health and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

Flirting or not?

To unravel it all, Farris and her colleagues examined non-verbal communication in a group of 280 undergraduates, both men and women with an average age of 20 years old.

The students viewed images of women on a computer screen and had to categorize each as friendly, sexually interested, sad or rejecting. Each student reported on 280 photographs, which had been sorted previously into one of the categories based on surveys completed by different groups of students.

Overall, women categorized more images correctly than men did. When it came to friendly gestures, men were more likely than women to interpret these to mean sexual interest.

More surprising, the researchers found guys were also confused by sexual cues. When images of gals meant to show allure flashed onto the screen, male students mistook the allure as amicable signals.

So ladies trying to brush off a guy at work or the gym may need to be, uh, more direct. Men in the study also had more trouble than women distinguishing between sadness and rejection.

Programmed for sex

The results help to tease out the underlying causes of guys' flirt-or-not mistakes. One common explanation for reports of men taking a friendly gesture as "she wants me," is based on men's inherent interest in sex, which is thought to result from their biology as well as their upbringing.

Following this idea, men and women would be aware of the same behavioral cues, but men would have a lower threshold for what qualifies as sexual interest. In contrast, women would wait for compelling evidence before labeling a behavior as sexual interest.

However, Farris and her colleagues didn't find this to be the case. Rather than seeing the world through sex-colored glasses, men seemed just to have blurry vision of sorts, overall. For instance, the college guys sometimes mistook sexual advances as pal-like gestures.

"I would say that there are many factors that could relate to men demonstrating insensitivity to women's subtle non-verbal cues," said Pamela McAuslan, associate professor of psychology at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, who was not involved in the current study. These factors would include socialization, gender roles and gender stereotypes, she said.

For instance, "women are supposed to be the communicators, concerned with relationships and others ... men are supposed to be less concerned with communication and to be constantly alert for sexual opportunities," McAuslan said. "This could mean that men in general may be less sensitive to subtle non-verbal behavior than women."

That doesn't mean such men can't learn to read cues or that all men are clueless decoders of women's gestures.

"These are average differences. Some men are very skilled at reading affective cues," Farris told LiveScience, "and some women find the task challenging."

I also found some of the commentary about a female author writing the article from the perspective of "men are dopes" as gender bias interesting, along with the observations on how women who DO speak up risk being labeled bitches or whores.

And now, for some comic relief (in a very schadenfreude kind of way), courtesy of cambler I bring you The Most Spoiled Girl In the World!!!.
Life's bringing her a rude kick in the mouth one of these days.

Some sex news

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:07:58 GMT

(poly friends & other non-traditional relationship folk might find the note at the end interesting)

Some interesting news from Australia about porn (where it's mostly illegal):
Unveiling the myths of porn:IT'S not just perverts and lonely old men who use pornography. In fact, it probably never was.

Unveiling the myths of porn
Fran Metcalf
March 05, 2008 11:00pm

IT'S not just perverts and lonely old men who use pornography.

In fact, it probably never was.

A new reveal-all book about the adult industry in Australia has smashed many of the myths and moralistic misconceptions about pornography and its consumers.

Not only does research reveal most X-rated material is consumed by men under the age of 35 but it has also discovered women are the biggest growth sector of the porn market in Australia.

Queensland University of Technology film and television associate professor Alan McKee co-authored the book, The Porn Report, with two colleagues from the University of New South Wales.

The material in their 190-page book was compiled after a three-year, federal government-funded study which involved surveying and interviewing more than 1000 porn consumers over 2003 and 2004.

Even though 82 per cent of the respondents were male, McKee and co-authors Katherine Albury and Catharine Lumby say the female market is on the rise.

"Seventeen per cent of the respondents were female which is still a big gender bias but this compares with a 1996 survey which found 10 per cent of porn users were women so there's been a definite increase," McKee says.

And this rise in female interest is affecting the way X-rated movies are being made. "We looked at 50 of the best-selling X-rated DVDs and videos and what was interesting was how many of them – 16 – were marketed to women or couples," McKee says.

He says two strands of porn have now developed.

"Naturalistic pornography shows men-and-women-next door, normal looking people with normal bodies having sex in everyday places like motel rooms, cheaply shot, mainly without stories or characters," McKee explains.

"Fantasy pornography is very up-market with stereotypically attractive men and women, better lighting, camerawork and sound and with characters and plots. It tends to be aimed at the female or couples market. Think of Harlequin and Mills and Boon novels and transform that into a film with explicit sex scenes and that's what women like."

Lumby says younger women are not only becoming more open to visual material but some are even producing their own amateur porn and posting it on the web.

Contrary to popular beliefs that women are coerced or portrayed as sexual objects in porn, Lumby and her co-authors found women were active subjects in porn and initiated more of the sex than men did.

But their research has been condemned by some commentators and family groups who say it's misleading and naive to suggest women have equal power in the making and consumption of porn films.

They say violence and coercion go hand in hand with pornography but McKee and his co-authors reported little evidence of violence or women being treated as sexual objects in their content analysis of top-selling DVDs and videos.

In their research, users reported more positive than negative effects from pornography.

"We found only 7 per cent of consumers of pornography felt it had a negative effect," he says.

"Most people said it helps them be more relaxed and comfortable about sex. They reported it made them more open-minded and willing to experiment and more tolerant of other people's sexual pleasures.

"It also provides education about the basic mechanics of sex and helps keep sex lives spiced up in long-term relationships. They also said it made them more attentive to their partner's pleasure."

Despite a 1999 Roy Morgan survey which found 33 per cent of Australian adults use sexually explicit material – that's five million people – X-rated material remains banned from sale or rental in all Australian states (though it can be legally ordered by mail from the ACT).

The Porn Report is the first book-length, evidence-based account on pornography in Australia and McKee hopes it serves to educate more people about the facts and to stimulate more productive, less moralistic debate within the community.

The book also covers feminist responses to X-rated material and provides advice to parents on how to protect their children from cyberstalkers and from viewing online material.

Profile of a typical user:

Male, under the age of 35 years, heterosexual.

He could come from any part of Australia although Queensland and Western Australia consume more pornography per head than any other state or territory.

He is an average income earner, bringing home about $40,000 a year, and probably lives in the suburbs.

He votes for major parties and is just as likely to back Labor as the Coalition but he's also religious, probably Christian.

He has a good social life with friends, family and work colleagues and he's in a monogamous relationship.

And 2 tidbits from our cousins across the pond:

How long do YOU like to go???
Best sex is '7 to 13 minutes long'
"Intercourse lasting between three and seven minutes was "adequate", but anything less was "too short" and beyond 13 minutes was "too long"."
It's important to note they're referring to the PENETRATIVE portion of sex ONLY, not fore & after play. They do note that the 7-13 minutes can be after an hour or more of lead-up. So the premise & description's a bit misleading.

Best sex is '7 to 13 minutes long'
Wednesday, March 5, 2008

'Should I set the timer?!' Seven minutes of good lovin' is enough to hit the spot.

Forget steamy nights of passion - all you need for some great sex is seven to 13 minutes, according to a US survey.

Even three minutes is deemed "adequate" in the study, which looks at the ideal length of time to have penetrative sex.

Americans and Canadians interviewed said seven to 13 minutes was the most "desirable", said the report published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine.

Intercourse lasting between three and seven minutes was "adequate", but anything less was "too short" and beyond 13 minutes was "too long".

The study aims to dispel unrealistic beliefs among couples that good sex should go on for a long time.

"In the fantasy model of male sexuality, men have large penises, rock-hard erections, and can sustain sexual activity all night long," researcher Dr Eric Corty was quoted as saying in an The Australian newspaper.

"It appears that many men and women hold this fantasy. The results from the present study, by providing a realistic not a fantasy model of sexuality, are useful both in treating people with sexual concerns and dysfunctions, and, with wider circulation, in preventing the onset of sexual dysfunctions."

Americans expect penetrative sex to last between 15 and 20 minutes, according to US studies, even though reports suggest it is over in less than half this time.

And we'll close with a "sisters are doing it for themselves" kind of moment:
1 in 3 women seeking sex with strangers
What do you think ladies? Is it empowering to behave like men often have? What do you think of their reasons?
1 in 3 women seeking sex with strangers
Kellie Gillespie - Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Sex with strangers: More than one in three women admitted to having a no-strings sexual experience

'Hi, I have tomorrow off but have nothing planned for the afternoon and could do with a bit of fun. Anyone around for some? If so, get in touch and let's see what we can come up with…' says a woman's post on a casual encounter website. We suspect she's not looking for a pub quiz.

A study released last week by internet site Dating Direct found that more than one in three single women confessed meeting someone for no strings attached (NSA) sex. It's been called a form of liberation and hailed as a sign that women are becoming more like men. But will it end in tears?

Author Suzanne Portnoy is a 46-year-old mother of two famous for her erotic memoir, The Butcher, The Baker, The Candlestick Maker, which described her sexual awakening after a ten-year marriage. Her second book, The Not So Invisible Woman, has just been published and reveals more about her encounters with strangers, including sex in swinging clubs, car parks and saunas.

'Time is an issue for me because I have two children and a busy career,' Portnoy says. 'But I want sex, so I can either have none at all or I can meet someone casually and get what I want. It's a practical thing.' Women, she says, can be guilty of first-date addiction. 'We love that first kiss, first touch and first [sexual experience with a new partner]. We dress up, our body feels heightened and we're excited. You just don't get that in a long- term relationship.'

Indulging in role play

Portnoy's favourite stranger encounter was with a man she fondly refers to as 'Doctor Donny'. 'I was chatting online to a guy and told him I had a thing for doctors,' she recalls. 'He told me he had a white coat and stethoscope and asked if he could come to my house. I agreed and he turned up as promised. I could have broken the spell but pretended to be a patient in need of an exam. We had sex and he left.'

Would she recommend that behaviour to other women? 'That was a one-off and I would advise all women against inviting a stranger to their home. Using condoms goes without saying.'

PR exec Julie, 29, has been using Craigslist, the classified adverts website that features an NSA section, for two years. The fastest-growing category of users on these sites is women in their 30s and 40s.

'The first stranger I met was so handsome, we didn't even finish our drinks before heading back to my flat,' Julie says. 'I felt liberated because we were both clear about what we wanted. When he left, I didn't mind at all and am completely happy that we haven't been in contact since. I don't have a partner because I don't like the responsibilities that come with being in a relationship.'

Satisfying desires

According to Dr Pam Spurr, psychologist and author of Sensational Sex, the women fall into two camps. 'On the one hand, you have the younger women, the Ibiza generation, for whom sex is a pastime,' says Spurr. 'Then there are the slightly older, career-oriented women. It is a way for them to command what actually happens – to say to someone: “I have to be stimulated for an hour otherwise I won't orgasm.” It's a way to satisfy their desires when perhaps they don't have the time to nurture a relationship.'

Time may be an issue, but what about happiness? A recent survey found that 75 per cent of women are cheered up by having sex with a loving partner. Can a quick, soulless shag really do the same? Portnoy insists she's happy. 'Women have experiencea habit of thinking sex should always lead to a relationship, otherwise there's no point in having sex. But a lot of men we have sex with just aren't good boyfriend material.'

However, she concedes: 'I do miss the companionship and it would be nice to have someone I could introduce to my children. But I feel I would just be ticking a box.'

Lonely Hearts?

H ere's a selection of postings where women are looking for NSAsa sex…

Lunchtime sex – 33, attractive, professional woman looking for lunchtime/evening adult fun in Llondon. NSA.

I am looking for regular release. No baggage, no drama!!! We can meet, drink, laugh and then do what adults do – then YOU LEAVE with no obligations. If we meet again then so be it; if not, GET OVER IT!

I'm young, petite and blonde and looking for a good time with a willing and available guy. Ii'd prefer no beer bellies or bad breath, and definitely no husbands or boyfriends but other than that I am open to offers.
As someone interested in ideas about how traditional monogamous relationships often function solely as part of an archaic mindset, I found the comment from the one lady about how she felt like getting in to a relationship would mainly be "something she was checking off on a box."

AHAHAHAHAHA!

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:32:23 GMT

Swiped from filkertom.

I can't even BEGIN to explain it.
Just watch it, and make sure you wait for the vocals.

Moses was HIGH? That explains a lot.

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:19:48 GMT

Well, I guess this answers the questions "What KIND of 'bush' was Moses burning" and "How did he stay lost in a dessert THAT small for THAT many years?"

Seems Moses was rocking the Frop of his day.
Moses was high on drugs: Israeli researcher

Moses was high on drugs: Israeli researcher

Tue Mar 4, 7:02 AM ET

High on Mount Sinai, Moses was on psychedelic drugs when he heard God deliver the Ten Commandments, an Israeli researcher claimed in a study published this week.

Such mind-altering substances formed an integral part of the religious rites of Israelites in biblical times, Benny Shanon, a professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote in the Time and Mind journal of philosophy.

"As far Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don't believe, or a legend, which I don't believe either, or finally, and this is very probable, an event that joined Moses and the people of Israel under the effect of narcotics," Shanon told Israeli public radio on Tuesday.

Moses was probably also on drugs when he saw the "burning bush," suggested Shanon, who said he himself has dabbled with such substances.

"The Bible says people see sounds, and that is a clasic phenomenon," he said citing the example of religious ceremonies in the Amazon in which drugs are used that induce people to "see music."

He mentioned his own experience when he used ayahuasca, a powerful psychotropic plant, during a religious ceremony in Brazil's Amazon forest in 1991. "I experienced visions that had spiritual-religious connotations," Shanon said.

He said the psychedelic effects of ayahuasca were comparable to those produced by concoctions based on bark of the acacia tree, that is frequently mentioned in the Bible.

So who wants to have some acaia bark tea & talk to JEEEEEEEEEEEEZUS?

Not bad!

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 02:59:28 GMT

I only have to come up with $200 for beltainelady LOL

Something for datan0de, and something for lizblackdog & mladypain

Mon, 03 Mar 2008 22:45:55 GMT

First, for datan0de:
Japan Looks to a Robot Future
Or, as I like to call it, "LOOK! THEY'RE BUILDING A TERMINATOR!!!!!!!"

Japan looks to a robot future

By HIROKO TABUCHI, Associated Press WriterSun Mar 2, 7:25 AM ET

At a university lab in a Tokyo suburb, engineering students are wiring a rubbery robot face to simulate six basic expressions: anger, fear, sadness, happiness, surprise and disgust.

Hooked up to a database of words clustered by association, the robot — dubbed Kansei, or "sensibility" — responds to the word "war" by quivering in what looks like disgust and fear. It hears "love," and its pink lips smile.

"To live among people, robots need to handle complex social tasks," said project leader Junichi Takeno of Meiji University. "Robots will need to work with emotions, to understand and eventually feel them.

While robots are a long way from matching human emotional complexity, the country is perhaps the closest to a future — once the stuff of science fiction — where humans and intelligent robots routinely live side by side and interact socially.

Robots are already taken for granted in Japanese factories, so much so that they are sometimes welcomed on their first day at work with Shinto religious ceremonies. Robots make sushi. Robots plant rice and tend paddies.

There are robots serving as receptionists, vacuuming office corridors, spoon-feeding the elderly. They serve tea, greet company guests and chatter away at public technology displays. Now startups are marching out robotic home helpers.

They aren't all humanoid. The Paro is a furry robot seal fitted with sensors beneath its fur and whiskers, designed to comfort the lonely, opening and closing its eyes and moving its flippers.

For Japan, the robotics revolution is an imperative. With more than a fifth of the population 65 or older, the country is banking on robots to replenish the work force and care for the elderly.

In the past several years, the government has funded a plethora of robotics-related efforts, including some $42 million for the first phase of a humanoid robotics project, and $10 million a year between 2006 and 2010 to develop key robot technologies.

The government estimates the industry could surge from about $5.2 billion in 2006 to $26 billion in 2010 and nearly $70 billion by 2025.

Besides financial and technological power, the robot wave is favored by the Japanese mind-set as well.

Robots have long been portrayed as friendly helpers in Japanese popular culture, a far cry from the often rebellious and violent machines that often inhabit Western science fiction.

This is, after all, the country that invented Tamagotchi, the hand-held mechanical pets that captivated the children of the world.

Japanese are also more accepting of robots because the native Shinto religion often blurs boundaries between the animate and inanimate, experts say. To the Japanese psyche, the idea of a humanoid robot with feelings doesn't feel as creepy — or as threatening — as it might do in other cultures.

Still, Japan faces a vast challenge in making the leap — commercially and culturally — from toys, gimmicks and the experimental robots churned out by labs like Takeno's to full-blown human replacements that ordinary people can afford and use safely.

"People are still asking whether people really want robots running around their homes, and folding their clothes," said Damian Thong, senior technology analyst at Macquarie Bank in Tokyo.

"But then again, Japan's the only country in the world where everyone has an electric toilet," he said. "We could be looking at a robotics revolution."

That revolution has been going on quietly for some time.

Japan is already an industrial robot powerhouse. Over 370,000 robots worked at factories across Japan in 2005, about 40 percent of the global total and 32 robots for every 1,000 Japanese manufacturing employees, according to a recent report by Macquarie, which had no numbers from subsequent years.

And they won't be claiming overtime or drawing pensions when they're retired.

"The cost of machinery is going down, while labor costs are rising," said Eimei Onaga, CEO of Innovation Matrix Inc., a company that distributes Japanese robotics technology in the U.S. "Soon, robots could even replace low-cost workers at small firms, greatly boosting productivity."

That's just what the Japanese government has been counting on. A 2007 national technology roadmap by the Trade Ministry calls for 1 million industrial robots to be installed throughout the country by 2025.

A single robot can replace about 10 employees, the roadmap assumes — meaning Japan's future million-robot army of workers could take the place of 10 million humans. That's about 15 percent of the current work force.

"Robots are the cornerstone of Japan's international competitiveness," Shunichi Uchiyama, the Trade Ministry's chief of manufacturing industry policy, said at a recent seminar. "We expect robotics technology to enter even more sectors going forward."

Meanwhile, localities looking to boost regional industry clusters have seized on robotics technology as a way to spur advances in other fields.

Robotic technology is used to build more complex cars, for instance, and surgical equipment.

The logical next step is robots in everyday life.

At a hospital in Aizu Wakamatsu, 190 miles north of Tokyo, a child-sized white and blue robot wheels across the floor, guiding patients to and from the outpatients' surgery area.

The robot, made by startup Tmsk, sports perky catlike ears, recites simple greetings, and uses sensors to detect and warn people in the way. It helpfully prints out maps of the hospital, and even checks the state of patients' arteries.

The Aizu Chuo Hospital spent about some $557,000 installing three of the robots in its waiting rooms to test patients' reactions. The response has been overwhelmingly positive, said spokesman Naoya Narita.

"We feel this is a good division of labor. Robots won't ever become doctors, but they can be guides and receptionists," Narita said.

Still, the wheeled machines hadn't won over all seniors crowding the hospital waiting room on a weekday morning.

"It just told us to get out of the way!" huffed wheelchair-bound Hiroshi Asami, 81. "It's a robot. It's the one who should get out my way."

"I prefer dealing with real people," he said.

Another roadblock is money.

For all its research, Japan has yet to come up with a commercially successful consumer robot. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. failed to sell even one of its pricey toddler-sized Wakamaru robots, launched in 2003 as domestic helpers.

Though initially popular, Sony Corp. pulled the plug on its robot dog, Aibo, in 2006, just seven years after its launch. With a price tag of a whopping $2,000, Aibo never managed to break into the mass market.

One of the only commercially successful consumer robots so far is made by an American company, iRobot Corp. The Roomba vacuum cleaner robot is self-propelled and can clean rooms without supervision.

"We can pretty much make anything, but we have to ask, what are people actually going to buy?" said iRobot CEO Helen Greiner. The company has sold 2.5 million Roombas — which retail for as little as $120 — since the line was launched in 2002.

Still, with the correct approach, robots could provide a wealth of consumer goods, Greiner stressed at a recent convention.

Sure enough, Japanese makers are catching on, launching low-cost robots like Tomy's $300 i-Sobot, a toy-like hobby robot that comes with 17 motors, can recognize spoken words and can be remote-controlled.

Sony is also trying to learn from past mistakes, launching a much cheaper $350 rolling speaker robot last year that built on its robotics technology.

"What we need now isn't the ultimate humanoid robot," said Kyoji Takenaka, the head of the industry-wide Robot Business Promotion Council.

"Engineers need to remember that the key to developing robots isn't in the lab, but in everyday life."

Still, some of the most eye-catching developments in robotics are coming out of Japan's labs.

Researchers at Osaka University, for instance, are developing a robot to better understand child development.

The "Child-Robot with Biomimetic Body" is designed to mimic the motions of a toddler. It responds to sounds, and sensors in its eyes can see and react to people. It wiggles, changes facial expressions, and makes gurgling sounds.

The team leader, Minoru Asada, is working on artificial intelligence software that would allow the child to "learn" as it progresses.

"Right now, it only goes, 'Ah, ah.' But as we develop its learning function, we hope it can start saying more complex sentences and moving on its own will," Asada said. "Next-generation robots need to be able to learn and develop themselves."

For Hiroshi Ishiguro, also at Osaka University, the key is to make robots that look like human beings. His Geminoid robot looks uncannily like himself — down to the black, wiry hair and slight tan.

"In the end, we don't want to interact with machines or computers. We want to interact with technology in a human way so it's natural and valid to try to make robots look like us," he said.

"One day, they will live among us," Ishiguro said. "Then you'd have to ask me: 'Are you human? Or a robot?'"

And for lizblackdog and mladypain, one of my favorite fandoms takes on one of your favorite fandoms in today's episode of Sluggy Freelance (worship the comic!).
It seems that in today's episode our heroes are feeling the need for a DOCTOR.

What do you call a group of polyamorists??

Mon, 03 Mar 2008 03:13:13 GMT

topbit has a poll in this post where people can vote on it.
Some of my readers will recognize one of the therms. I suggested it in an earlier post.

Go & vote ;-)

The dangers of anti-intellectualism

Sat, 01 Mar 2008 01:58:18 GMT

"Dumbness, to paraphrase the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has been steadily defined downward for several decades, by a combination of heretofore irresistible forces. These include the triumph of video culture over print culture (and by video, I mean every form of digital media, as well as older electronic ones); a disjunction between Americans' rising level of formal education and their shaky grasp of basic geography, science and history; and the fusion of anti-intellectualism with anti-rationalism ... not lack of knowledge per se but arrogance about that lack of knowledge."
- Susan Jacoby

When I was about 12, I realized that my mind really did work differently than those of most of the people around me, and that for many of them it was a function of how they were taught & raised.
I did a great deal of reading & discovered that thinkers have traditionally been outcasts & that very few of them ever succeed in society.

As I've gotten older I've noticed an increasing level of prejudice against intelligence. It seems at times the only acceptable group to attack are those who use thinking. In the 2000 & 2004 elections, Kerry & Gore, who're clearly far more intelligent men than Bush, were criticized for seeming "robotic" or "condescending" for speaking thoughtfully about the issues. Political commentators have decried that trend versus the great debates of the past. My father, a die-hard Republican who'd NEVER have voted for Kerry or Gore, even bemoaned the huge number of people who said they voted for Bush because "he seems like the kind of guy you'd want to have a beer with." The article below goes in to some VERY interesting comparisons of Roosevelt's communication with the public during WWII and Bush's with us during the current war.

In the news, in personal conversations, and in online debates I see how BLATANT emotional appeals with no basis are thrown out as a challenge to facts, how people who argue with reason are attacked & ridiculed personally, and how confronting people with EVIDENCE that their premise is wrong will be met with cries of "I won't look" or "I don't care."

tacit wrote a fantastic post on how the tide of anti-intellectualism, lack of respect for science, and failure to engage in critical thinking endangers people in terms of poor medical & consumer choices as well as political decisions. This has been echoed in this article from the Washington Post:
The Dumbing Of America: Call Me a Snob, but Really, We're a Nation of Dunces.
The article cites a peculiarly American tendency, documented here as far back as the 1960's, to go through waves and phases of this rabid anti-intellectualism, and discusses why we're in such a deep pool of it now.

Unfortunately with the the way this trend has pervaded our educational system & given that smarter, better educated people tend to have fewer children it's probably too late to reverse this trend for the next generation of two, or even to convince many members of those groups that there IS a problem, since it's been proven that people who're ignorant of something often are not only incapable of recognizing their own ignorance but often THINK they know better.

Our only hope is probably that a) this DOES seem to be cyclical, b) the problems will become apparent enough that needed changes will be made, or c) when things crumble too badly here people outside the US where this's less of an issue will step in to pick up the pieces.

The Dumbing Of America
Call Me a Snob, but Really, We're a Nation of Dunces

By Susan Jacoby
Sunday, February 17, 2008; Page B01

"The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself." Ralph Waldo Emerson offered that observation in 1837, but his words echo with painful prescience in today's very different United States. Americans are in serious intellectual trouble -- in danger of losing our hard-won cultural capital to a virulent mixture of anti-intellectualism, anti-rationalism and low expectations.

This is the last subject that any candidate would dare raise on the long and winding road to the White House. It is almost impossible to talk about the manner in which public ignorance contributes to grave national problems without being labeled an "elitist," one of the most powerful pejoratives that can be applied to anyone aspiring to high office. Instead, our politicians repeatedly assure Americans that they are just "folks," a patronizing term that you will search for in vain in important presidential speeches before 1980. (Just imagine: "We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain . . . and that government of the folks, by the folks, for the folks, shall not perish from the earth.") Such exaltations of ordinariness are among the distinguishing traits of anti-intellectualism in any era.

The classic work on this subject by Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter, "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," was published in early 1963, between the anti-communist crusades of the McCarthy era and the social convulsions of the late 1960s. Hofstadter saw American anti-intellectualism as a basically cyclical phenomenon that often manifested itself as the dark side of the country's democratic impulses in religion and education. But today's brand of anti-intellectualism is less a cycle than a flood. If Hofstadter (who died of leukemia in 1970 at age 54) had lived long enough to write a modern-day sequel, he would have found that our era of 24/7 infotainment has outstripped his most apocalyptic predictions about the future of American culture.

Dumbness, to paraphrase the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has been steadily defined downward for several decades, by a combination of heretofore irresistible forces. These include the triumph of video culture over print culture (and by video, I mean every form of digital media, as well as older electronic ones); a disjunction between Americans' rising level of formal education and their shaky grasp of basic geography, science and history; and the fusion of anti-rationalism with anti-intellectualism.

First and foremost among the vectors of the new anti-intellectualism is video. The decline of book, newspaper and magazine reading is by now an old story. The drop-off is most pronounced among the young, but it continues to accelerate and afflict Americans of all ages and education levels.

Reading has declined not only among the poorly educated, according to a report last year by the National Endowment for the Arts. In 1982, 82 percent of college graduates read novels or poems for pleasure; two decades later, only 67 percent did. And more than 40 percent of Americans under 44 did not read a single book -- fiction or nonfiction -- over the course of a year. The proportion of 17-year-olds who read nothing (unless required to do so for school) more than doubled between 1984 and 2004. This time period, of course, encompasses the rise of personal computers, Web surfing and video games.

Does all this matter? Technophiles pooh-pooh jeremiads about the end of print culture as the navel-gazing of (what else?) elitists. In his book "Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter," the science writer Steven Johnson assures us that we have nothing to worry about. Sure, parents may see their "vibrant and active children gazing silently, mouths agape, at the screen." But these zombie-like characteristics "are not signs of mental atrophy. They're signs of focus." Balderdash. The real question is what toddlers are screening out, not what they are focusing on, while they sit mesmerized by videos they have seen dozens of times.

Despite an aggressive marketing campaign aimed at encouraging babies as young as 6 months to watch videos, there is no evidence that focusing on a screen is anything but bad for infants and toddlers. In a study released last August, University of Washington researchers found that babies between 8 and 16 months recognized an average of six to eight fewer words for every hour spent watching videos.

I cannot prove that reading for hours in a treehouse (which is what I was doing when I was 13) creates more informed citizens than hammering away at a Microsoft Xbox or obsessing about Facebook profiles. But the inability to concentrate for long periods of time -- as distinct from brief reading hits for information on the Web -- seems to me intimately related to the inability of the public to remember even recent news events. It is not surprising, for example, that less has been heard from the presidential candidates about the Iraq war in the later stages of the primary campaign than in the earlier ones, simply because there have been fewer video reports of violence in Iraq. Candidates, like voters, emphasize the latest news, not necessarily the most important news.

No wonder negative political ads work. "With text, it is even easy to keep track of differing levels of authority behind different pieces of information," the cultural critic Caleb Crain noted recently in the New Yorker. "A comparison of two video reports, on the other hand, is cumbersome. Forced to choose between conflicting stories on television, the viewer falls back on hunches, or on what he believed before he started watching."

As video consumers become progressively more impatient with the process of acquiring information through written language, all politicians find themselves under great pressure to deliver their messages as quickly as possible -- and quickness today is much quicker than it used to be. Harvard University's Kiku Adatto found that between 1968 and 1988, the average sound bite on the news for a presidential candidate -- featuring the candidate's own voice -- dropped from 42.3 seconds to 9.8 seconds. By 2000, according to another Harvard study, the daily candidate bite was down to just 7.8 seconds.

The shrinking public attention span fostered by video is closely tied to the second important anti-intellectual force in American culture: the erosion of general knowledge.

People accustomed to hearing their president explain complicated policy choices by snapping "I'm the decider" may find it almost impossible to imagine the pains that Franklin D. Roosevelt took, in the grim months after Pearl Harbor, to explain why U.S. armed forces were suffering one defeat after another in the Pacific. In February 1942, Roosevelt urged Americans to spread out a map during his radio "fireside chat" so that they might better understand the geography of battle. In stores throughout the country, maps sold out; about 80 percent of American adults tuned in to hear the president. FDR had told his speechwriters that he was certain that if Americans understood the immensity of the distances over which supplies had to travel to the armed forces, "they can take any kind of bad news right on the chin."

This is a portrait not only of a different presidency and president but also of a different country and citizenry, one that lacked access to satellite-enhanced Google maps but was far more receptive to learning and complexity than today's public. According to a 2006 survey by National Geographic-Roper, nearly half of Americans between ages 18 and 24 do not think it necessary to know the location of other countries in which important news is being made. More than a third consider it "not at all important" to know a foreign language, and only 14 percent consider it "very important."

That leads us to the third and final factor behind the new American dumbness: not lack of knowledge per se but arrogance about that lack of knowledge. The problem is not just the things we do not know (consider the one in five American adults who, according to the National Science Foundation, thinks the sun revolves around the Earth); it's the alarming number of Americans who have smugly concluded that they do not need to know such things in the first place. Call this anti-rationalism -- a syndrome that is particularly dangerous to our public institutions and discourse. Not knowing a foreign language or the location of an important country is a manifestation of ignorance; denying that such knowledge matters is pure anti-rationalism. The toxic brew of anti-rationalism and ignorance hurts discussions of U.S. public policy on topics from health care to taxation.

There is no quick cure for this epidemic of arrogant anti-rationalism and anti-intellectualism; rote efforts to raise standardized test scores by stuffing students with specific answers to specific questions on specific tests will not do the job. Moreover, the people who exemplify the problem are usually oblivious to it. ("Hardly anyone believes himself to be against thought and culture," Hofstadter noted.) It is past time for a serious national discussion about whether, as a nation, we truly value intellect and rationality. If this indeed turns out to be a "change election," the low level of discourse in a country with a mind taught to aim at low objects ought to be the first item on the change agenda.

info@susanjacoby.com

Susan Jacoby's latest book is "The Age of American Unreason."

There's a ridiculously self-serving & poorly written response to Jacoby's article by Jimbo Wales of Wikipeida here: We're smarter than you think

We're Smarter Than You Think

By Jimmy Wales
Tuesday, February 19, 2008; 12:00 AM

In her essay for Outlook, Susan Jacoby presents a compelling, though perhaps naïve and myopic, view of intellectualism and the persistence of literature in the 21st century. It's unfortunate she didn't take the time to include in her argument the peculiar phenomenon of Wikipedia and its rapidly growing international language versions.

Like so many nervous academics of our age, Jacoby provides a view compounded by urgent pollster data, alarming statistics and factoids heralding in the age of ignorance at the hands of the digital revolution. I prefer to point to the statistics of projects like Wikipedia, a volunteer-driven, non-profit endeavor whose unique article count, in over 150 active language projects, will soon eclipse 10 million. Millions of people use Wikipedia every day, maintaining its ranking as one of the 10 most popular websites in the world.

Furthermore, when WIND Research Institute made a comparison of German language Wikipedia to the traditionally leading German-language encyclopedia, Brockhaus, for Stern Magazine, it found that Wikipedia was of higher quality. On a scale where 1 is the best and 6 is the worst, Wikipedia's average rating was 1.7, while Brockhaus average rating was 2.7.

Jacoby's essay offers a number of interesting insights. But it also overlooks some real gems on the contemporary intellectual scene. A concern about whether young people are wasting their minds has been intermittently fashionable throughout history. We are now living in an era where something remarkable and transformative is taking place.

I speak from personal experience. Over the last year I've had the opportunity to speak to young people in Asia, South Africa, India, and Europe. Imagine someone from an alien civilization reading Jacoby's essay and forming an opinion of young people. And then imagine that alien peeking in on one of my public lectures at a high school or university. Who is this person getting the reception of a rock star? Is he a musician? Perhaps some crude comic? No, he's ... the founder of an ... encyclopedia?

High school and college students all over the world are absolutely fanatical about Wikipedia. On Facebook, Wikipedia-related fan groups number in the thousands; one boasts close to 150,000 members. There are dozens of Wikipedia-related applications. On YouTube, you can find thousands of student videos singing the praises of Wikipedia.

Students write to me in volumes I can only hope to respond to, reporting on their own personal experiences and breakthroughs. These are not people whose use of the Internet has resulted in an "inability to concentrate for long periods of time;" as Jacoby says. I hear from students who have spent hours reading and learning from Wikipedia entries just for the sake of general knowledge. Better still, I hear about collaborative campus parties devoted to making thousands of quality improvements to young articles in one night -- or uploading gigabytes of public domain source material.

What stereotype do these teenagers and 20-somethings fit into? What can we expect of this generation, devoted to sharing and improving the world's knowledge, decades from now?

If Jacoby contends that "video" is eroding our intellect, I encourage her to immerse herself in the story of Wikipedia. This is a place where today's youth, in phenomenal numbers, are helping professors and graduate students to build a repository of living knowledge from all corners of this planet. This is not a project for the next decade or the century. It is a project for all time.

I encourage Jacoby to consider the power of the global, knowledge-based digital enterprises of the 21st century. These are the forces that are redefining intellect, knowledge and literature. Instead of fearing the power, complexity and extraordinary potential of these new platforms, we should be asking how we can gain from their success.

Jimmy Wales is the founder of Wikipedia.

And Jacoby responded to that as well as online questions about her original article in a WP hosted web chat here:
Outlook: We Don't Care What We Don't Know. Rising Anti-Intellectualism Leaves Americans Steadily Dumber -- and Disdainful of Knowledge.
Jacoby provides answers to many of the challenges given to the idea that intellectualism is good (such as "aren't you all just snobs/disdainful of pop culture").
Two questions she answers there that're particulrly relevant:
Washington: It seems that one major stumbling block to critical thought is the belief that serious evaluation of positions is unimportant from a critical standpoint (assessing truth as opposed to interest or practicality) given that every position is a mere opinion. If everything is and can be only an opinion, and if no opinion is any more worthy than another (egalitarianism), then critical evaluation is not only pointless, it is impossible. My question is, if the above is true, is this primarily a modern cultural problem? And what might be its causes?

Susan Jacoby: Ah, the question. This is a problem, particularly, of postmodern culture, and is greatly exacerbated by the media, which frequently takes the position that truth -- if it exists -- is always equidistant from two points. Not everything is a matter of opinion. Some things are true and some are false. Knowing the distinction between opinion and evidence-based knowledge is essential.

And, in response to a question about things like mathematical and geographical ignorance:
Susan Jacoby: It all matters. Mathematical ignorance, for example, makes it hard for people to understand medical articles. If you don't understand basic fractions and percentages, you can't understand how much a particular alarming story matters. For example, there was a front-page story in The New York Times today about a seemingly scary rise in the suicide rate of the middle-aged, but when you looked at the overall numbers they were extremely small. If you're talking about a doubling of deaths, it matters a lot whether the base number is one or a million.
(This is key to some of tacit's points, as well as some of the fear-based arguments I find myself in online.)
Outlook: We Don't Care What We Don't Know
Rising Anti-Intellectualism Leaves Americans Steadily Dumber -- and Disdainful of Knowledge
Today's Live Discussions

Susan Jacoby, author of "The Age of American Unreason," was online Tuesday, Feb. 19 at noon ET to take questions on her Outlook article about the negative consequences of Americans' increasing distaste for reading, diminishing attention spans and general anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism.

The transcript follows.

Archive: Transcripts of discussions with Outlook article authors

____________________

Bethesda, Md.: I'm not sure I see convincing data to support your argument, just anecdotes that easily are countered. Are we not in an age in American where getting into college is increasingly competitive, Ph.Ds can't find teaching jobs at universities because the market is glutted, and business and law schools have become impossible to get into?

The intellectual curiosity of the bottom 10 percent, or even 80 percent, of Americans is not all that relevant. As long as the decision-makers and those who set policy are prepared adequately for the challenges ahead, does it matter if the average Joe reads novels? When I look at the academic resumes of those holding high public office, I see a lot of Ivy League schools, etc. Same with those who run Wall Street. I don't really care if my mechanic can find Iran on a map; I care that he can replace the timing belt on my car.

Susan Jacoby: I'm Susan Jacoby. Hello everyone.

This question is a dismaying example of how lack of respect for knowledge affects citizenship. So the intellectual curiosity of the "bottom 80 percent" of Americans isn't relevant? The country should be run by a top 20 percent and it doesn't matter how little the rest of Americans know? There is also a huge confusion here between knowledge and "Ivy League resumes" and "credentials." There are all sorts of people with Ivy League resumes who have no respect for knowledge and all sorts of mechanics who can find Iraq and Iran on a map. You ought to care whether everyone knows the location of countries where we're at war, because ignorance about such matters is what gets us involved in wars in the first place.

_______________________

Bowie, Md.: Your article seems to imply that information and ideas cannot be transferred by the new media. I loved the president Roosevelt example: If we did that today in a speech, all anyone would have to do is click on Google maps and the Pacific would be before them. Please explain to us all why that would be worse than what happened in 1942?

Susan Jacoby: If everyone did click on Google maps and listen to the president talk, that would be fine. But, as I mentioned, no president can count on the attention of 75 percent of Americans when he makes a speech about anything. So they're not clicking on Google maps either. It's the desire to know about the world, not the medium, that makes the difference.

_______________________

Cleveland: As someone who tries to convince more of his friends to read, and in an age of quick sound bites and short answers, what is the best retort for "elitists" when friends want to know why it's better to read something like Melville as opposed to Entertainment Weekly? Something that may work in a restaurant conversation?

Susan Jacoby: Well, both "Entertainment Weekly" and Melville have their place. The problem is that when people are saturated with infotainment from an early age, they're used to getting everything in the easiest and most passive form. I can't imagine how you'd convince someone who doesn't think that reading is fun that it is fun. (Especially in a restaurant, where you generally can't hear anyone talk because the music is so loud.) I'd work on the little kids in your life.

_______________________

Honolulu: I get what you're saying and I basically agree with it. However, there is also a strain of American thinking that says "be innovative, be different, go your own path." Taken to an extreme, this can means rejecting past traditions and values, including striving to be well-educated. I once worked with a girl who pointed out that "Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard" as her excuse for slacking off (of course she didn't realize that Gates went to a prestigious private school and came from a really well-connected family). How would you jibe this point of view with yours?

Susan Jacoby: There actually is no conflict between respect for intellectual endeavor and taking your own path. I don't have any particular respect for a college degree as an indicator of knowledge, and Bill Gates dropped out because he had something better to do. The problem is that a lot of people don't continue with general self-education, as opposed to the sort of information that makes you a good test performer, after their formal education is complete. The value of a good education, whether obtained conventionally or unconventionally, is that it leads you to do more.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Nothing new here. Mark Twain could have written about the same "problem." Basically I see it as a class difference and a lack of appreciation of different points of view. I was not convinced.

Susan Jacoby: Ah, I see. Education is for the upper classes. The old "elitist" argument. So much for Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, et al. If only they'd understood that reading is for "the elites," and that all that time they spent reading books was a matter of pure snobbery.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: To what extent is the media partly responsible for the dumbing-down that we see? I always am stunned when I watch political discussions by how much the commentators seem to celebrate the stupidity of voters. I also am stunned by how much Chris Matthews, David Brooks, David Broder et al openly mock intellectuals. Do things like this go on in other countries? Do media elites make fun of those who attempt to be thoughtful there as well?

Susan Jacoby: This is a big problem. No, the media elites in other developed countries don't make regular sport of intellectuals as a group. Of course, there's nothing wrong with making fun of stupid intellectuals, and there are plenty of them -- but what's wrong with them (say, the right-wing intellectuals who brought us the Iraq war) is not that they're intellectuals but that their blinded by ideology to evidence.

The media elite also tries to pretend that it is not an elite. Hence, the constant references to "folks" by national television anchors as well as politicians trying to show that they're just one of the boys or just one of the girls.

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: I would like to know what Ms. Jacoby thinks about the response in today's Washington Post by Jim Wales of Wikipedia? I think he misses the point entirely and is confusing real reading with digestion of factoids. As a mother of two boys, 11 and 13 years old, I am facing an uphill battle getting them to read not only for school but for pleasure. It's a battle that I am going to fight till the end. I am grateful that my children's teachers do not accept Wikipedia as source for any research, even though I admit it does have its merits in a limited way.

Susan Jacoby: I would expect Jim Wales to confuse the digestion (or ingestion) of factoids with real knowledge, because what Wikipedia is all about factoids, unedited by people who actually know what they're talking about. Not that I have anything against Wikipedia, any more than I have anything against traditional encyclopedias. These reference works are a useful way to begin finding out about the world, a jumping-off point.

But the reading we all do on the Internet, as I pointed out, is not really reading. It's a shortcut in the search for facts or factoids. It has nothing to do with the integration of information into a larger body of knowledge.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: I find it odd that you would use anti-Communism as a bugbear in your article when history has proven the "anti-intellectual" anti-Communists so thoroughly right. McCarthy's foolish excesses rightly can be condemned, but the fact remains that the anti-Communists were right that Communism was oppressive, Eastern Europe did want to be free, the Soviet Union did have spies in the U.S. government, and Alger Hiss was guilty. If this is anti-intellectualism, then we need more of it.

Susan Jacoby: There were plenty of anti-communist intellectuals (including anti-communist liberal intellectuals) as well as communist intellectuals. The attempt to tar all liberals and intellectuals as communists or lefties is part of the right-wing intellectual strategy of character assassination of liberals. Ever hear of Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Mary McCarthy, Irving Howe -- anti-communist liberal intellectuals all?

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: I was stunned at the muted reaction when a number of Republican candidates for president proclaimed that they didn't believe in evolution. It seems to me that part of this willful ignorance is tied up with the current religiosity of right-wing American culture. As a believer I find that insulting, because belief and rigorous intellectual discourse are not mutually exclusive. Still, we seem to be falling victim to an almost Taliban-like attack on rationality in this country.

Susan Jacoby: One of my major points is that American anti-intellectualism today is particularly virulent because it is joined to anti-rationalist contempt for science and evidence. Religious fundamentalism -- belief in the literal truth of every word in the Bible -- is part of that. You obviously can't approach evolution with an open mind if your faith tells you that you must believe the Earth was created in six days. But I think it's a great mistake to blame the dumbing-down of America entirely on fundamentalist religion. There are many Americans of faith for whom religion and science are compatible, and their voices are, I think finally beginning to be heard.

_______________________

Chicago: You said above, "It's the desire to know about the world, not the medium, that makes the difference." But in your article it seems as though you do put blame on the medium ... the digital age, where tons of information can be thrown at you in little snippets and attention spans are short.

Susan Jacoby: I guess I'm enough of an Enlightenment rationalist to believe that we still can control our use of the media (a plural, by the way, not a singular noun). I think the state of much of the media is execrable, but isn't it the responsibility of the individual to restrain his or her dependence on passive infotainment and to question what's said on TV and spread across the Web?

_______________________

Re: Convincing adults to read: For the person who wanted an argument to use on friends as to why to read books rather than Entertainment Weekly: don't try to convince them to read in general, try to convince them to read in specific. Try to get someone to read a book you read and enjoyed, or a book that matches interests you already know that that friend has. Once they're used to reading books for pleasure, they will be more likely to be open to reading the literary giants.

Susan Jacoby: Right. Absolutely. If you've got a friend who's a passionate baseball fan, give him or her a great baseball book for a present.

_______________________

Maryland: When you were forming your thesis, did you take into account "information fatigue," that the level of information available to people is so vast and that there are so many issues and concerns and groups fighting for attention that people just start to feel overwhelmed? I know I so often am bombarded by things I should care about (and I can find Iraq on map and read regularly) that I've started tuning things out. I'm only one person, and the world is so big and noisy, and has so much wrong with it.

Susan Jacoby: This is, I think a fundamental question. We all have to tune some things out in order to stay sane. No one can read everything or encompass the whole of human knowledge. (In fact, the Enlightenment founders of the United States belonged to the last generation for whom that was possible.) We all have to make choices every day. Do I watch people humiliating one another on "The Biggest Loser," or do I maybe give a new book a try during that time period? Do I have the TV or the computer on 24 hours a day, or do I spend some down time just thinking or talking to friends?

_______________________

Chantilly, Va.: I had to laugh today when The Post's article about a new style of teaching math mentioned that children were having trouble with problems like: "There are 28 desks in the classroom. The teacher puts them in groups of four. How many groups of desks are in the classroom?" The article then felt the need to point out that 7 was the correct answer.

I find geographical ignorance rather amazing (how can you not know some of these things?) and foreign language ignorance unfortunate but understandable (many Americans learn a language in school but soon lose it through lack of use -- Europeans don't need to travel very far before encountering people who don't speak their language), but I think mathematical ignorance is a far more worrying problem.

Susan Jacoby: It all matters. Mathematical ignorance, for example, makes it hard for people to understand medical articles. If you don't understand basic fractions and percentages, you can't understand how much a particular alarming story matters. For example, there was a front-page story in The New York Times today about a seemingly scary rise in thethe suicide rate of the middle-aged, but when you looked at the overall numbers they were extremely small. If you're talking about a doubling of deaths, it matters a lot whether the base number is one or a million.

_______________________

Fredericksburg, Va.: I am sure you'll be inundated with smug pronouncements from self-proclaimed intellectuals lamenting how they are surrounded by idiots; I'd like to present another view: the curse of the over-educated. I've worked in few companies and organizations headed by power-school graduates (MIT, Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins). My observation is these types are too educated and over-informed.

Arrogance, hubris and stubbornness are the prevailing traits of this tribe. Their iron-clad superior view precluded the possibility that a new idea or a better path existed that was not their own. Wallowing in infinite analysis, they could not make a decision. They never were wrong. Convinced of their position, they'd continue in a straight line and drive right off the cliff. (What I see in these individuals is, to a disturbing degree, mirrored in American foreign policy!) Please, provide your insights on the phenomena of hyper-intellectualism and hyper-rationalism in American society.

Susan Jacoby: This isn't "hyper-intellectualism" or "hyper-rationalism." On the contrary, it's anti-rationalism. People who are so convinced of the rightness of a position that they simply ignore countervailing evidence can be found among Harvard business school graduates (George W. Bush) and among fourth-graders. The fourth-graders have an excuse. The greatest failure of our schools at all levels is inability to teach children how to think critically and evaluate evidence. I forget who said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It's also a definition of stupidity.

_______________________

Boston: I don't think this gilded age of enlightenment with fireside chats and books overflowing out of every shelf actually existed. People listened because they were involved in a war and radio was new, and they read more because there was nothing else to do. Stating that they did these things because the culture was fundamentally more curious about knowledge and the world is pure conjecture.

Susan Jacoby: They read because they had nothing else to do? Talk about conjecture. In many ways, people in the 1930s had a lot more to do -- physical labor, for example, was much more a part of their lives. But you're right, what they didn't have was continuous access to low-level infotainment. Their ears weren't filled all day with noises from electronic devices, and they didn't spend time in chat rooms. Yup, they actually talked to people they knew and read themselves to sleep.

_______________________

Wait a minute...: You said: "Do I watch people humiliating one another on 'The Biggest Loser'?" I say: This is part of the smugness of intellectualism that I find rather despicable. Have you seen that show? Do you think it's all about humiliating one another? Or are you just making assumptions? The "intellectual community" has a really bad habit of letting its imagination run away when it comes to popular culture.

Susan Jacoby: I have watched "The Biggest Loser." Check back with these people a few years from now to see where their weight is without the stimulus of being on national TV.

_______________________

Washington: Great article. How informed were Americans in 1776? I seem to recall reading that the Founding Fathers believed an educated populace was essential to the type of government they were creating. It seems like political discussions today are dumbed down to emotional arguments rather than being based on rational thinking.

Susan Jacoby: Of course, many fewer people were able to read in 1776 (slaves, among others). But the influence of print and the literacy level in colonial America were quite astonishing; that's why Thomas Paine's arguments were circulated so widely. More to the point, the founders longed for a society in which more people would be able to read, and where free inquiry thereby would be promoted.

_______________________

"But the reading we all do on the Internet, as I pointed out, is not really reading.": You certainly have made this assertion, but you've offered little in the way of evidence or reason to support it. If I read a newspaper or magazine article online, as opposed to in print, what is lost? It really seems to me -- and to other people who have commented on this chat -- that your beef is with technology.

Susan Jacoby: No, my beef is not with technology, it's with the way people use technology. In fact, studies from the past ten years have shown that online newspaper readers spend much less time reading articles than readers of print editions do. Most discouraging is the fact that the proportion of online newspaper readers under 25 -- an audience that print newspapers hoped to capture with online editions -- is no larger than the proportion of print newspaper readers under 25. If my beef were with technology, I wouldn't be here in this chat room right now. On the other hand, I think that people who spend the whole day in chat rooms are absolutely wasting their time. Balance, moderation -- ah, what archaic ideas!

_______________________

Tuning in late ..: and appalled by the first commenter. There are a lot of mechanics out there who have been to Iraq. My plumber is a Vietnam vet with all kinds of opinions and knowledge that have nothing to do with plumbing, although he does a first-class job at that.

Susan Jacoby: Bravo.

_______________________

Carrboro, N.C.: Serious question: What kind and what level of discourse would you consider this chat?

Susan Jacoby: Honestly, the nature of an online chat doesn't allow for much real discourse, even though many of the questions are extremely thoughtful. But I don't have the time, in this format, to answer as thoughtfully as if I were communicating by a traditional letter. This is actually a higher-level online chat than occurs in most venues.

_______________________

Washington: It seems that one major stumbling block to critical thought is the belief that serious evaluation of positions is unimportant from a critical standpoint (assessing truth as opposed to interest or practicality) given that every position is a mere opinion. If everything is and can be only an opinion, and if no opinion is any more worthy than another (egalitarianism), then critical evaluation is not only pointless, it is impossible. My question is, if the above is true, is this primarily a modern cultural problem? And what might be its causes?

Susan Jacoby: Ah, the question. This is a problem, particularly, of postmodern culture, and is greatly exacerbated by the media, which frequently takes the position that truth -- if it exists -- is always equidistant from two points. Not everything is a matter of opinion. Some things are true and some are false. Knowing the distinction between opinion and evidence-based knowledge is essential.

_______________________

Wokingham, U.K.: You often refer to the Enlightenment and often refer negatively to certain forms of religion. Would you agree with Rousseau that any church that says "outside us there is no salvation" is politically intolerable and that society cannot be secure until it is removed?

Susan Jacoby: Obviously, no one who reveres the U.S. Constitution can agree that churches claiming "outside us, there is no salvation" can be removed, but the absolute liberty of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution -- including the freedom not to believe as well as the freedom to believe -- has weakened the force of the "outside us, there is no salvation" argument in America. That would mean that most of your neighbors are doomed, and who would wish to say such things to his neighbor? Doesn't mean that a great many right-wing fundamentalists don't think that I am headed for the fiery pit, but so what?

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: A good friend of mine who attended at prestigious liberal arts college related disgust with academics in regards to their removal from the realities that most of us have to contend with (financial responsibilities, environments that are economically, politically and socially diverse etc.). It does often seem like there is a divide between practical knowledge and traditional "academic" or "intellectual" knowledge. Do you think that perception fuels anti-intellectualism?

Susan Jacoby: I think that perception does fuel anti-intellectualism, but it is a misperception. I don't know why so many people are hung up on the "elites" in the teaching professions. I don't know, but I'd say that CEOs who make more than $100 million a year are far more removed from "practical realities" than a tenured college professor who might make about $80,000 a year.

_______________________

Washington: Wow! When I first read your column, I thought you were being rather snobbish. Now, as I read the comments, I see that you have definite point. A lot of people seem to be confusing education with knowledge and really seem to have no idea what you mean.

Susan Jacoby: Thank you. One man cited the fact that law schools and business schools are oversubscribed as evidence that we don't need any more intellectuals. Those schools are oversubscribed because students see law and business as a way to make the most money. This has nothing to do with knowledge, real education, or any of the intellectual pleasures that (among other things) make life worth living.

I speak as someone who probably would have dropped out of college 40 years ago had I not attended a school (Michigan State University) that allowed honors students to take a lot of extra courses and graduate early. I wanted so badly to be a newspaper reporter (which I became, at The Washington Post) that all I could think of was how fast I could get through school. Then, of course, I had to spend a lot of time educating myself because I'd been in such a tearing hurry.

_______________________

North Little Rock, Ark.: If you were to stipulate three books students should read -- say, one during primary education, one in secondary and one in college -- that would help enlighten the next generation on the importance of critical thinking and broad-based knowledge, what would they be?

Susan Jacoby: I wish I could answer this wonderful question from a teacher, but I can't, because I think the answer has to be individual. I think the books that most influenced me in childhood, for example, were historical novels -- ranging from Howard Fast's "Spartacus" to James Michener's "Hawaii" -- that were important not so much for their content but because they got me interested in history. Anything that piques a child's interest in a wider world can get them reading.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: Susan, what are your credentials? Where did you go to school? What was your major? Where and what have you published?

Susan Jacoby: This is my signoff question. What are my credentials? I went to St. Thomas Aquinas Elementary School, Okemos High School, and Michigan State University. My parents read to me, and my dad recited poetry to me. I spent a lot of time watching baseball in my grandfather's bar. I spent two years in Russia, where I learned to speak Russian, developed a belated appreciation of all of the great poetry I missed while I was hell-bent on finishing college fast, and wrote my first book, "Moscow Conversations."

"The Age of American Unreason" is my eight book. My previous book, in 2004, was "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism."

My credentials are that I spend a lot of time in libraries, and when I'm not doing that I spend a lot of time listening to music and watching baseball. My credentials, as you put it, are that I'm interested in almost everything. I'm a generalist in an era of specialization, and I like it that way.

Ms. Jacoby's comments on anti-rationalism are also well worth noting.