News and Views From my kids accomplishments, to my heretical perspective of the world

It was interesting in Thailand to note the prevalence of mixed relationships, almost always male Caucasians with female Asians. Walking down the street in Chiang Mai, especially, it seemed that white men were more likely to be with an Asian woman than with a white woman.

There seem to be mixed feelings about these mixed relationships too, though nothing was ever expressed openly. A lot of American and European men go to Thailand because of the reputation that it’s easy to find an easy girlfriend, and a lot of Thai girls think that white men have money. There is often an assumption that every mixed relationship is formed on those bases.

So there I am walking down the street with my Asian wife, thinking “I’m not the same as you guys. My relationship is a long term marriage based on love and mutual respect.”

But then I realize that I am falling into the same stereotyping error that I fear others are applying to me. Those couples are probably just as likely to be serious as any couples I see on the street in any city in the world. I think couples everywhere start out on more practical than romantic basis anyway, including physical and economic attractions, but what matters is how they develop and grow.

I certainly can’t imagine that I could have done better than I did with another woman of any race or background.

Today is the 220th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution that guarantee us most of the civil rights we enjoy.

I think most of us take these rights for granted, somehow thinking that even without the Bill of Rights we would probably still have most of the freedoms we have. You only have to consider how busy the ACLU is continuously defending these rights to get an idea what would happen if they weren’t codified in law.

… the non-expert is probably wise to withhold opinion, or at least not be too dogmatic about it.

Economics is the first thing that comes to mind. Maybe Keynes is right, maybe Friedman, maybe neither. I tend to lean towards Keynes, but with all the disagreement between the experts, I have to confess that I really don’t know.

On the other hand, when the experts all agree (or the vast majority), that’s good evidence that the opinion they hold is closer to reality than any contradicting ideas I may have. There are exceptions all through history, of course. Plate tectonics is a recent example, where in the early 20th century geologists mostly laughed at the idea that there were huge moving plates under the earth surface. But as the evidence accumulated, and the old guard died off, it became the accepted theory. And the trend was continually in the direction of more and more acceptance.

Global climate change is an example today where almost all the experts (climatologists) agree that it is happening, and that human activity is a major cause. As with plate tectonics, the trend has been towards more and more acceptance by the climatologists, to the extent that today it is very hard to find any that disagree.

People who disagree are mainly television pundits, politicians and businesses that might be hurt by corrective actions, though they have done a job of convincing people that there’s some kind of conspiracy. Even as I wouldn’t ask one of them for medical advice, or understanding about quantum physics, I also doubt their expertise on climate.

I didn’t do or read of any surveys, but based on the discussions and questions, I brought back the following impressions from the Amazing Meeting in Las Vegas.

The focus on the meeting was “Science, Skepticism and Critical Thinking”. Many different topics were discussed, but the beliefs of the participants probably roughly went this way, from fewest people believing to most people believing:

Probably less than 1% believe in:
Talking with the dead
Fairies, gnomes, trolls, etc.
Moving objects with your mind
Mind readers
Power bands (bands worn on the wrist that increase your strength)
Ghosts
Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster
The moon landing was faked
Obama is a Muslim
9/11 was an inside conspiracy (i.e. Bush, Cheney or Jews, etc.)

Maybe 5% or less believe in:
Homeopathic medicine
Aliens visiting the earth (might belong in the 1% category)
Creationism
Vaccines may cause autism

Maybe 10% believe in:
Acupuncture
Chiropractic medicine can work for other than bones and joints
Intelligent life probably exists somewhere else in the universe
God or Gods
People possess a soul, something other than the physical body

Maybe 50% believe:
Chiropractic medicine can work for bones and joints
Life probably exists somewhere else in the universe
Science can help make moral decisions about right and wrong

Maybe 80% believe:
Humans caused global warming
All mind and mental activity is completely based on brain function

Maybe 90% believe:
Global warming is real, whether caused by humans or not
Science can help determine what is true

Maybe 95% believe:
Life evolved on earth by natural selection
If a God exists, it doesn’t interfere with the world. Everything happens by natural causes.
Science is the best way to determine what is true

These numbers reflect what I believe too, roughly in order of probability.

What superstitions or valid beliefs did I leave out?

The Economist published a poll a couple of days ago that asked (among other things):

“Do you think that Muslims have a constitutional right to build a mosque … near the World Trade Center site?”

The question wasn’t “Is it wise?” or “Does it make you uncomfortable?”, or “Do you hate the idea, and hate Muslims?”. It was “Do they have a constitutional right?”

Barely 50% of Americans said “Yes”.

This makes me depressed about the future of freedom in this country, that 50% of the population doesn’t believe in full freedom of religion for everyone.

I just finally watched the Ken Burns documentary, “The Civil War”. I think I was out of the country the first time it ran. I remember hearing rave reviews, but I didn’t see how 12 or so hours on a war could hold one’s attention.

Boy, was I wrong. It is probably the best documentary I’ve ever seen. It really adds perspective to the nation. To think — it happened less than 100 years before I was born. That’s not very long ago.

A comment made almost at the very end sticks in my mind: Before the war they would say, “The United States are..” After the war they said “The United States is…”. We went from a loose confederation of separate “states” (which in those days was almost synonymous with “country”) to a single united entity.

Before the war you might argue that the association was freely entered into, and should be open to freely depart from. Lincoln disagreed, and forced the issue. If he had allowed the South to split off, later there might have been other disagreements and fractures, and we would have ended up as many small countries. It was forcing the union that brought our current greatness.

The theme song keeps playing in my head.

I watched the early rounds of American Idol this year, and was struck by how many people think they are good singers, so good that they have a chance in the American Idol competition. But in many cases the people who hear them sing think they are so bad that they laugh about it.

It makes me wonder: How could people’s self-evaluation be so bad? How could they think they are excellent, when they are really terrible?

Singing is one of those fields where there isn’t a lot of objective evaluation in our daily lives, unless you are a professional. And if your friends think you are bad at it, you will rarely get that feedback, out of politeness.

Then it made me wonder: What other fields are like this? What else do people do where they think they are world-class, but might actually be very bad?

The first one that comes to my mind is driving. I’ve heard surveys that found that most people think they are above average drivers. In some ways it is a lot like singing — there is little direct feedback on your skill, and even in cases where there is feedback (honking horns, tailgaters trying to push you to go faster) it can be passed off as the other guy’s rudeness, impatience or the other’s poor driving habits. Traffic tickets and accidents do help mark the worst offenders, but even in those cases they can blame it on the other guy, or “the speed limit was too low for the conditions” etc.

People probably have a more accurate evaluation of their math ability, because of objective feedback in high-school classes and tests. But conversely, writing ability is much more subjective and poor grades are easier to blame on the grader, as biased or unimaginative.

And right up there near the top when listing inaccurate self-evaluations must be political and economic astuteness. Many people are passionate about their political beliefs, and their ideas of the best way to move forward in an uncertain economy. “Fewer laws, less government control!” “More regulations of the out-of-control banking industry!” “It’s obvious that the wealthy should pay more taxes to help the poor!” “If I’ve earned this money I should be able to keep it — it’s not my fault if those poor people were playing while I was working to get ahead!” “More Stimulus!” “Less Stimulus!” The only feedback we get on these ideas is listening to other people’s ideas, and we usually filter out those we disagree with.

What’s right? Based on watching American Idol, I’m sure there are many people out there passionately convinced that they know what’s right, but their beliefs are based on poorly thought-out positions. They all think they are political/economic experts, but their self-evaluation is in many cases as poor as the tone-deaf screecher hoping to be the next American Idol.

I do have opinions about tolerating people’s differences, but that’s not what this post is about.

I’m talking about building up a tolerance to substances or environmental factors. For example, some people can tolerate much spicier food than others, or drink more alcohol without feeling drunk, or drink lots of strong coffee.

It’s not surprising that people vary in these characteristics, but it is interesting that many are proud of tbeir own tolerance. For example, we’ve all heard some guy smugly talking about “drinking somone under the table”. What they are saying is, “I drink so much, so often, that alcohol doesn’t affect me much anymore”. That sounds like something to be ashamed of, not proud.

Or pouring lots of Tabasco on your food. Nothing wrong with spicing up your food, but I think as you develop tolerance to the spice you lose appreciation for the underlying flavors. I’m proud that it only takes a little spice to satisfactorally enhance my food.

Coffee is another example. Interestingly, brain activity scans show that without coffee, habitual coffee drinkers’ brains show much less activity than “normal” people’s brains. With coffee, their brains look like a normal brain does without coffee. So being able to tolerate strong coffee basically means that you need it to be normal.

Of course, there are some things it is certainly worthwhile developing tolerance for. If you live in a cold or hot climate, it’s useful to develop tolerance to cold or heat. But intentionally building up a tolerance with no personal benefit and potential harm doesn’t make sense.