Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts

Saturday, January 17, 2015

Stop diverting public funds to faith-based private schools

by  Edd Doer

Wall St Journal on Jan 8 ran a piece titled “Letting Education and Religion Overlap”, by Robert Maranto and Dirk  van Raemdonck, pushing school vouchers. Below is my response. The best way to obtain the article is by Googling to its title. It appears that  2015 will see renewed efforts in Congress and the states to divert public funds to private schools. The address for letters to the WSJ is wsj.letters@wsj.com. – Edd Doerr



Robert Maranto and Dirk van Raemdonck (“Letting Education and Religion Overlap”,  Jan 8) are wrong about diverting public funds to faith-based private schools for at least the following reasons:

1.      In 28 state referendum elections between 1966 and 2014 many millions of voters, of all faiths,  from Florida to Alaska and from Massachusetts to California have voted against vouchers, tax credits and all similar gimmicks by an average margin of 2 to 1, most recently in Florida in 2012 and Hawaii in 2014.

2.      As faith-based schools are pervasively sectarian institutions that tend to  separate children along religious, ideological, ethnic, socioeconomic status and other lines, tax support for them would fragment our student population and greatly worsen our social divisions.

3.       Three fourths of our state constitutions clearly forbid taxing citizens to support religious institutions.

4.      Our religiously neutral public schools, serving 90% of our kids, operate to protect America’s enormous religious diversity and religious liberty.

The Maranto/Van Raemdonck article is a simplistic screed that seeks to undermine two important pillars of American democracy,  religious freedom and public schools.


Edd Doerr President
Americans for Religious Liberty
Box 6656
Silver Spring, MD 20916

Friday, May 31, 2013

Playing with Forgivenss & Redemption


By Gary Berg-Cross


It’s a big time for redemption as acts of atoning for a sin, fault or mistake). Recently we had adulator and trail hiker Mark Sanford’s successful bid in the South Carolina special general election.  He was forgiven his sins, at least by his Tea Party backers. The NRCC chose not to provide him funds.  As one religio-conservative publication put it in a post called, “Mark Sanford: Welcome Back to Washington”:

He [Sanford] has always been a consistent, principled, and courageous conservative. And he has always done it with showmanship and clarity that gets the points across to voters.

He unfurled this showmanship in this campaign of redemption, in which he was combatting not just his opponent, but also his deeply tarnished image as result of serious ethical transgressions during his second term as governor.

Standing by the flawed man was surprising in one way, since Conservatives generally are less forgiving than Liberals and ague that a politician who commits a moral error in his personal life is likely to commit one as part of official duties. Well perhaps not for members of their own team. And in very Christian South Carolina, at least, another factor was at play, the Christian idea of redemption. One read that clearly in Sanford’s  post-win self-analysis with thanks to God & redeeming grace:

“Some guy came up to me the other day and said you look a lot like Lazarus,” Sanford told the crowd Tuesday night, referring to the man who, according to the Bible, Christ raised from the dead. “I’ve talked a lot about grace during the course of this campaign,” he said. “Until you experience human grace as a reflection of God’s grace, I don’t think you really get it. And I didn’t get it before.” (reported in NYT opinion piece)

One may be a bit uncomfortable with this version of American style religio-politics that loves sinners, who prostrate themselves before us and beg for forgiveness.  After all it shows they buy into the sin idea.  And maybe the devil made them do it.

Another religious excursion into redemption territory, perhaps a more progressive hike than the Sanford style was visible in the widely reported remarks by Pope Francis' regarding atheists who he gave credit for possible good works. .

According to Catholic News Service, the pope was speaking of a broad horizon people of all or no faith working together to do good. "The Lord has redeemed us all with the blood of Christ, all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone," he said. Some may ask, "'Father, even the atheists?' Them, too. Everyone."


Well this simple redemptive stance didn’t last long. One day after the inclusive Every-Do-Gooder idea we were treated to damage control headlines of “Vatican Clarifies Pope's 'Atheist' Remarks.”   A less progressive Vatican spokesman (a Rev. Thomas Rosica) released a statement that clarified that redemption isn’t salvation. Quoting from Church “Catechism” we learn that people who reject the teachings of Jesus Christ cannot attain salvation.  Bad news for many.

"All salvation comes from Christ, the Head, through the Church which is his body. Hence they cannot be saved who, knowing the Church as founded by Christ and necessary for salvation, would refuse to enter her or remain in her."

Anthony Weiner’s redemption tour as part of his announced candidacy for mayor of New York City is just starting up, so we are likely to hear more about sinners and redemption, this time with the New York Jewish twist. Lots of ideas on redemption in that Creed. We’ll see if forgiveness gets wrapped up with the condition that you seek it from god. It seems like yet another uncomfortable scene in which special speakers to god exercise some semi-official brand of religio-morality calculus using the vocabulary of sin.  Self selected people get to divine God’s plans which gets all tangled in democratic processes of judgment.  

All in all forgiveness is a good thing, but I’m more comfortable with a non-sinner. humanist take on it like Mark Twain, “Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it."

Images


Forgiveness: http://montereybayholistic.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/50-forgiveness-quotes/

Sunday, December 02, 2012

Some thoughts on Chris Mooney's Republican Brain

by Simone Amselli (posted with her permission by Gary Berg-Cross

The following were some thoughts Simone had about Chris Mooney's presentation at WASH MDC on The Republican Brain. Simone is a teacher of French & Spanish.
others who attended or have read the book will be interested in these and in commenting.:

1-First, Mooney based his studies on only two elements of the political spectrum: the Liberals and the Conservatives. This is what I call a “black and white” outlook on the subject. There are so many nuances of grey that can be addressed.

2- The topic is presented as scientific (which would mean that the theory could be applied universally), but it contemplates only the American perspective.

3-My opinion is that in what determines our personality, the cultural element is much more important than our genetic disposition. Mooney said rightly, that the choices we make in politics can be compared to those we make in religion. However, most of the time people don’t “choose” their religion; they were raised in it. This can apply to politics. I see my students just repeating the political arguments their parents are using; this was quite obvious at the time of the last election. I wonder if a study has been made, or could me made to see if the children of the so called “liberal parents” feel more free not to stand by their parents ‘political affiliation than the Conservative’s. Of course, in that topic, like in many others that pertain to human sciences, there are a lot of gray areas.

4- Regarding the definitions Mooney give of each group: the Liberals being more open-minded, and the Conservatives liking structures, they can be applied to the individual members of each party: There are among the “Liberals” people who like structure (and are not "messy") and are used for their sense of duty and organization. There are among the “Conservative” people who like to discover, learn new things. All parties need people who reach out, and others that are duty oriented. All spectrums of personalities can find their niche in any party.


5-and last: I agree with the comment of the gentleman who said that Mooney’s theory is somewhat deterministic: "our political inclination is dictated by the configuration of our brain". This seems to be the conclusion Mooney is aiming at. However determinism is a huge subject… and a lot can be said about it. Even the cultural context can be deterministic.

Friday, July 20, 2012

Battles Discussing the Elites -America Lite & Twilight of the Elites




by Gary Berg-Cross
In this book-crowded summer of contentious reads David Gelernter has added to the pile with his America-Lite: How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture (and Ushered in the Obamacrats). One may agree with some of the broad statements: "The nation is filling inexorably with Airheads, nominally educated yet ignorant; trained and groomed like prize puppies. " But wait a minute who does he say are the puppies? Good liberals. Oh, I had some other airheads in mind. Did Gelernter follow the Republican primary?
 
The book's already the object of battling reviews. The National Review cautiously likes it and talks about it's argument of Dismantling of a Culture - "America’s elites now disdain the rest of America." 

They interviewed a disgruntled Gelenter, who was happy to add to his earlier arguments from Americanism:The Fourth Great Western Religion.
In that earlier work Gelenter asked what it means to “believe” in America? Why do we always speak of our country as having a mission or purpose that is higher than other nations? I think our founders gave us some hope for this with things like separation of church and state.  But David argues that modern liberals have "invested a great deal in the notion that America was founded as a secular state, with religion relegated to the private sphere." So to Gelernter, America is not secular at all, but a powerful religious idea—that males its sort of a religion in its own right. What kind you ask? Gelernter says that what we have come to call “Americanism” (as in American Exceptionalism) is in fact a secular version of Zionism. This is scary language to some since Zionism has produced a conservative state based on religion. And it attitude towards the use of the military option and settling disputes with neighbors leaves something to be desired.

His new book takes off from there to continue the attack on intellectual elites, a topic I've blogged on earlier.

"In a piddling few decades, the world’s most powerful, influential cultural establishment happened to get demolished and rebuilt from the ground up. What had been basically a Christian, patriotic, family-loving, politically moderate part of society became contemptuous of biblical religion, of patriotism, of the family, of American greatness. The American cultural elite used to resemble (more or less) the rest of America. Today it disdains the rest of America. That’s a revolution."

A good counter arguement to Gelenter's is offered in Russell Jacoby's review of the book in an article called Dreaming of a World With No Intellectuals.

As he notes Gelernter highlights the role of American Jews as a way to trace the enormous cultural change and its consequences in higher education. But Gelenter's argument seems to be one of selective data and does not live up to comparative analysis as suggested in the quote below from Jacoby's review which includes quotes from the book.
"Up through the 60s, the WASP establishment excluded Jews from elite universities. But by 1970, Jews had pushed their way into student bodies, faculties, and administrations. The consequences? Again, easy. Jews are both leftist and aggressive. "Naturally, we would expect that an increasing Jewish presence at top colleges" would imprint the schools with those qualities. "And this is just what happened." Colleges and universities became more leftist as well as more "thrusting" and "belligerent."...
"Gelernter is Jewish, and it is not likely that a non-Jew would airily argue that obnoxious leftist Jews have taken over elite higher education. But Gelernter does so with enthusiasm untempered by facts. Aside from quoting Jewish neoconservatives such as Norman Podhoretz as sources, Gelernter does not offer a single example of what he is writing about. Who are these belligerent leftist Jewish professors? Anthony Grafton? Steven Pinker? Richard Posner? Martha Nussbaum? Perhaps Alan Dershowitz?
Moreover, the entire formulation remains vague. What does it mean that colleges have acquired "a more thrusting, belligerent tone"? The whole college? The administration? The students? One might imagine that Brandeis University, founded in 1948 by Jews, would be a perfect example to verify Gelernter's argument. Is it loud and leftist? Gelernter does not mention it."

Chris Hayes has also written a book this summer on called Twilight of the Elites. In Hayes' view the problem is less ideological of left and right and more of elite self interest which detracts from solving problems. "Part of the problem is that this kind of elite solidarity, this self-protection impulse, it stretches across the public and private sector, and it stretches across, in some way, ideological lines," (More on Hayes book, perhaps in a later post.)

It would be great to get Chris and Gelernter to debate this point and one might hope we could see this on Chris's weekend show Up with Chris Hayes. If he invites Susan Jacoby to the discussion it should be world class. She was great when the Up show discussed the Reason Rally this Spring. He could also invite Janine R. Wedel who could discuss her idea of Shadow Elite - see
The Scandal of Anti-Intellectualism and Elites.


Picture/Image Credits

America Lite:http://www.writersreps.com/America-Lite
American Zionism: http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/history/zionism/news.php?q=1341887958
Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy : http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2012/07/11/review-christopher-hayes-twilight-elites-america-after-meritocracy
Why Are Jews Liberals?:http://www.toqonline.com/blog/sailer-on-podhoretz/

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Would you Like some Lettuce with my Answer?


By Gary Berg-Cross
Word Salad (aka verbal salad) is a phrase to describe a rather jumbled manner of speaking or writing. The words are organized in free flowing ways that for most of us don't form or communicate a meaningful idea. They are like ingredients in a tossed salad. In graduate school I was introduced to this as sympathetic of schizophrenic speech. In other words diagnostic evidence of a mental disorder. Indeed the 3 positive symptoms of schizophrenia are:
1. disorganized thinking such as delusions of grandeur or persecution
2. disturbed perceptions such as hallucinations and
3. disorganized speech – our verbal salad
There often seems some associative nature to a word salad such as
backward, TV, new, Japanese, movie.”
,
At times some poetry has the free flowing associative feel that can seem like a word salad, but it has overall coherence, consistency and associative insight that people find in the passage below from Gregory Corso’s "Marriage" which stays on it’s marriage theme:
" Should I get married? Should I be Good?
Astound the girl next door with my velvet suit and faustaus hood?
…….
How nice it'd be to come home to her
and sit by the fireplace and she in the kitchen
aproned young and lovely wanting my baby
and so happy about me she burns the roast beef
and comes crying to me and I get up from my big papa chair
saying Christmas teeth! Radiant brains! Apple deaf!
God what a husband I'd make!"
Corso was a key member of the writers Beat movement that consciously aimed at convention-breaking, novel use of words and testing the bounds of appreciative comprehension.
I was reminded of word salads that break “conventions” of the non-poetic form listening to a politician’s answer to a question recently. It hardly matters who, since it is a wide and growing phenomena. Well, OK it was Bob McDonnell, anti women's rights Governor of Virginia, who when asked something, I think about the Bain capital issues, responded with a barrage that changed the topic to another direction:
“I lived in the places the president went this weekend,” …. “I lived in Green Run in Virginia Beach. I lived in Glen Allen in Henrico County. I know the people in those neighborhoods. They don’t much care about Bain Capital or Mitt Romney’s tax returns. They care about getting people to work, getting people out of debt and having bold leadership on energy, so if the president wants to continue to talk about things that aren’t that important, he’ll have to make that decision, but for me, for the Romney campaign, I’m going to talk about things Virginians care about.”
How much better it would be in a society where people can respond to a question rather than push out talking points.I hope that the media will play the role of fact finder and insist on fair, logical analysis and coherence on the issues. Here's to critical thinking. But I what I see now is more of an inability to handle the spin.
Confusing, spin non-answers may be on the rise in states like VA where there is much at stake this Fall. A prefiguring of this might be what we heard and saw in Wisconsin’s recall effort earlier. Word salad from Wisconsin State Sen. Frank Lasee, (R-De Pere), circulated in May that seemed to one writer to equate recall petition signers with tax delinquents. The full text is at the end of this blog. To rational analysis and the fact-based community it raises more questions than answers and defies simple logic or conventional math. It does, however, have that coherence needed to satisfy that low hurdle of confusing issues about who is using shame to what purpose, getting in emotional phrases about “good neighbors” and talking points on taxes. Here is an example on the reason about taxes, see if you can diagram the logic here and get back to me:
"These are the people, when asked how local governments will pay for these elections say 'Tax the rich! They need to pay their FAIR SHARE!' Apparently that means 'We don’t have to pay, so they can pay more.'”
All this is within a buffet style that provides unhealthy heapings for ideologs. You get climate change thrown in to the recall effort. What fun when pols get to mouth off like 8th graders. It’s the political form of word salad, but mixed with delusions, denials, mis-perceptions, half truths and disturbed perceptions. Dare we say it is schizophrenic-like or light. It’s not filling, but some will call it a dysfunctional meal.



This is What Hypocrisy Looks Like! (according to Frank Lasee)

Have you ever had your lawn get away from you for a while? Maybe your kids have a dance recital or you have family coming into town and you just didn’t have the time to mow it?

Eventually, if it gets so bad, your neighbors start to give you dirty looks, and rather than have your neighbors resent you for making the neighborhood look bad you get out the old mower and get to work.

Technically, if you live in town, there is probably a law that says you have to mow your yard, although I doubt the thought crossed your mind when your neighbors were giving you the eye. Your neighbors were using a powerful tool, called shame.

Meet the recallers. They've developed a powerful antibody to shame.

Over the next month, state and local governments will pay $17 MILLION because the left didn’t get their way. It's a funny coincidence that some of the people that signed the recall petitions just happen to owe over $17 MILLION in back taxes and that's only part of the recall list!
These are the people, when asked how local governments will pay for these elections say “Tax the rich! They need to pay their FAIR SHARE!” Apparently that means “We don’t have to pay, so they can pay more.” They don't care about spending other people's money on recalls. They are shameless.

Of course, not everyone who signed a recall petition owes back taxes, and I’m sure there are a few Walker supporters who aren’t completely paid up either, times are hard. The difference is those Walker supporters aren’t asking everyone else to pay $17 million dollars because they didn’t get their way, so they can have a "do over".
In total, these Recallers have cost the state $34 Million dollars, and then they have the nerve to talk about “fair share.” That’s $34 Million that won’t be spent to pay teachers, $34 Million that won’t help sick people with medical care, that's $34 Million that won’t go back into Taxpayer pockets.

Many local governments could wind up short this year because they didn’t budget for the recall elections. Town and city governments don’t have a lot of extra money lying around, and this is going to have a big impact on the money they have to repair roads, to pay snowplow drivers in winter, to provide all kinds of services.
For safety’s sake, let’s hope Global Warming hits really hard this year! I like the Carolina winters.
Although shame doesn’t work on everyone, it can do some serious good. When I was in the legislature I authored the law requiring the Department of Revenue to start the Taxpayer Website of Shame. This goes back to the lawn mowing. If your neighbors know you’re not paying your taxes, you might be a little more likely to pay them……
Photo/Image Credits
False: http://www.bonamiciforcongress.com/2011/11/14/oregonian-confirms-cornilles-attack-false/

Tuesday, May 08, 2012

Understanding Confirmatory Bias and Dead End Arguments



By Gary Berg-Cross


In her popular blog “General Myers and His Endless War on Error”, Sarah Hippolitus took on PZ Myers essay, Sunday Sacrilege: Sacking the City of God, for its deliberate and provocative vitriol. The argument is simple, telling people they are wrong in this way just doesn’t work and is perhaps counterproductive. Sarah cited Chris Mooney's essay, The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science, in which Mooney explains why berating people, such as religious conservatives who are emotionally committed to an idea, can make them defensively cling harder to their beliefs and biases. An in-your-face criticism raises emotions and people respond defensively overwhelming any chance at reason. Over the last 50 years of social and cognitive research we have learned a considerable amount of the general type of phenomena of how people frame and defend biases (bracketology being one area where “experts” are visibly wrong) and unsupported beliefs and how we rationalization our beliefs rather than use reason to arrive at opinions. I’ve written on this topic earlier in such blogs as Rationalizing Irrational Choices: That $45 entree and presidential choices” and Boxing Ourselves In with Category Errors. We have come to a sad, but scientific understanding from a coordinated system of studies that we humans are imperfect reasoners. The fact is that the emphasis on rationality encouraged by Enlightenment thinkers is a noble effort, but difficult, and does not come easily in many circumstances. The modern parlance covering this is to talk about gut feeling that overwhelm and, in effect, reverse engineer our opinions. More recently the studies have focused on group differences in cognitive styles and the role of emotions, like fear, in these differences.
The scientific study of general phenomena of changing the minds of people with convictions, especially faith-based ones,  goes back a long way, but progress was made starting in the 50s. Stanford University social psychologist Leon Festinger summarized it succinctly based on a study of a UFO cult that was convinced the world would end on December 20th 1954 (see“When Prophecy Fails”):
"A man with conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."
And it wasn’t just odd folks that show biases responses. Experimental studies of experts, such as Physicians, show they are often biased in clinical judgments. Their expertise could be improved upon by simple statistical rules, a discovery that prompted some hope for things like artificial, expert systems to aid human judgment.But this human tendency gets enhanced when it interacts with factors like ideology,  frightening circumstances and cultural framing.
The more recent studies on differences of reasoning style, which I touched on in Epistemological Styles. There I contrasted scientific with theist styles. Scientific styles are cognitively taxing and require considerable cultural support for chained combinations of postulates that get tested by experiment. These may confirm a belief but also disconfirm it. It’s all part of a humbling style that values exploration of ideas with controlled observation and measurement, analogical models and statistical analysis of regularities of populations.Such methods have been applied to self-study processes by which small groups have moved the country  away from intellectual  processes to more of a conservative agenda in this  country (see for example Hacker and Pierson's work Off Center). Such conservative, social-political engineering reflect reaching people who prefer far simpler style . It is to be an idea advocate and largely focus on evidence to justify existing belief and gut feelings.Taken as a whole this tends to appeal to conservative minds more than liberal ones.

Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science, discusses such things in his recent book The Republican Brain The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality. His finding is simply states: conservatives and liberals don’t just have different ideologies; they have different psychologies (aka epistemological styles) that help explain their fact and expert denying positions on such things as climate change and evolution. It’s not just that they don’t know facts it is that they have a tendency towards a confirmatory bias that reflects a preference to focus on evidence that supports existing belief. Another part of who conservatives are is their preference for ideas that bind groups together rather than “truth” in an objective sense. And one of the big factors driving conservative beliefs is their tendency to emotional, fight or flight responses. Eye tracking studies, for example, show that people who score high on conservative positions tend to track “threat” objects in an environment (a knife or gun – maybe a stranger). There’s survival value in such a tendency so one may imagine how such a tendency was selected in populations and later frozen into cultural values. Conservatives tend to be ready to be afraid and this can turn off the reasoning side of the brain.
You can see a good discussion of all of this on the recent Up With Chris Hayes, where Mooney and Jonathan Haidt, UVA moral psychologist & author of The Righteous Mind, discussed group differences. They agreed that liberals tend to be more open to new experiences, new data and convincing finds. As a consequence they tend to be more sympathetic to scientific process, and take their scientific findings more seriously. This is a tendency/predisposition and not a hard and fast thing in all circumstances.  The socially generated tendency of Conservatives, meanwhile, is that they just do it differently. Haidt explained:
“I want to fully agree with Chris that the psychology does predispose liberals more to be receptive to science; my own research has found that conservatives are better at group-binding, at loyalty, and so if you put them in a group-versus-group conflict, yes, the right is more prone, psychologically, to band around and sort of, circle the wagons.”
This is consistent with Sarah’s earlier argument about the reaction of believers to strong, mocking arguments. In conversations with conservative thinkers (as opposed to  liberal styles) we should be aware that they may not have the same regard for the Enlightenment’s style of rational argument. We are either fooling ourselves or just being a bit too rigid in our style. But we need not be quiet or withdrawn certainly in our own communuty, and we can use the new understandings that come from cognitive and social science to guide us. The value of framing (see my Framing Arguments: You say Flaming Atheists and I Say Non-Confrontational Humanist) 
is one tool we can use. Another is to recognize that individual reasoning is biased. We are often battling a strong confirmatory bias that repels facts and strict logic. What we need instead is get into a dialog to challenge our biases as well as others. Socrates was on to this a long time ago and its time to update that technique drawing lessons from the relevant science. Overcoming a reflexive conservative denial of the science of denial would be a big step. We need to get the word out on that.

Monday, February 28, 2011

OK and Some Not OK Memes: The battle for Union Rights

Some ideas just catch on like viruses. You know the kind – tunes playing in our heads from the Oscars, Super Bowl ads, storylines and bumper sticker slogans attacking teacher union selfishness and campaign-like talking points (‘public employees need to start making some "shared sacrifice’). The idea of mind viruses, aka "Memes" was developed by Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene. Dawkins came to this construct by analogy to how genes propagate themselves. Genes use the physical bodies they are housed in, as Dawkins said, selfishly. That is they have evolved to act only for their reproduction without knowing about or caring about their host’s quality of life. Genes succeed just as long as they are passed on. A side effect is that they help construct hosts that survive their environments.


Looked at this way genes are reproducing and infective specialists with side effects for hosts who need to survive environments to reproduce. Dawkins generalized this idea to propose that our mental life includes entities, which he called memes, that are similar to genes but a unit of cultural transmission. They are ideas that play in a mental host and "seek" to replicate themselves in one mind after another. Having a host with advanced skills (think of early humans making tools) and communicative abilities allows better reproduction of ideas, especially if they are selfish in spreading themselves. So without conscious intent (let along divine ones) our memes infect host-minds, copying themselves not for host interests but for their own reproductive ability. The idea is more of a framework than a well worked out theory but people like Daniel Dennett think that considering the meme focus on “who profits” answers some key evolutionary and cultural ideas, such as chain reaction of one innovation leading to and affording another. A simple example is the idea of a belonging meme for human gregariousness. The concept of staying with others is reproduced, since there was safety in numbers for our ancestor’s tribes.

Dennett and Dawkins along with others have applied the idea vigorously to discuss various memes that they hypothesize are involved in propagating religious ideas. In this formulation ideas giving people a feeling of belonging to a group (say a religious group) have an advantage. There is also the idea of distinguishing oneself by doing something new, innovative, or significant. An individual with memes about how to find food, shelter, and stands out from the crowd is more likely to find a potential mate. Religious leaders stand above others and so a religious story meme is likely to be reproduced as they are voiced by what a tribe recognizes as favored mates.

But other non-religious cultural advances and economies of scale efficiencies may also be propagated by a concentrated population. One group economy of scale comes with such innovations such as farming which requires stable groups. Population concentration also then works to increase mate choices and possibilities, who in turn can pass on innovations.


I was reminded of the meme model by 2 recent things. The first was a light BBC article called 'How did the word "OK" conquer the world' which illustrates why some ideas spread and take over. The article was based on Allan Metcalf’s book OK: The Improbable Story of America’s Greatest Word in which he traces the word’s journey from “joke to business tool and then to staple of everyday conversation and an attitude toward life.” "OK" like "you know" or "I mean" crops up in daily speech dozens of times every day, although it seems habitual and carries little real meaning. My personal knowledge of OK’s origin was limited to what was declared in a Pete Seager song - "All Mixed Up". This asserted that OK came from Native American Choctaw - Okeh. But as Allan Metcalf explained the sound is also similar to Scottish German, Finnish and Greek affirmative words. Some idea-thing like OK is a good viral candidate in part because it sounds distinct but has simple acoustic components that are familiar to a multitude of languages. Thus its sound travels well and its graphic balance of the round /O/ and a /K/ made of straight lines makes it stand out clearly, easily distinguished from other words. These are good distinctions for a “Virus of the Mind” as Richard Brodie notes in his book of the same name. They help a meme virus get into the system and be communicated to others via a diffusion network. You can see some diffusion networks for recent memes that are afforded by the internet and social media online.

But as Dawkins noted early on, we are now aware of memes and so are at a new stage where people can intentionally design mind viruses. Those of us aware of the danger or having an interest can track some forms using a tool like Truthy .

Viral marketing is now a well known phenomena, which brings me to the 2nd phenomena that reminds me of memes – the attack on organized labor and the various memes of conservatives echoed my a mostly passive and tame media. It starts with simple sounding quotes as recorded in a NY Times article on dueling protests in Madison WI.

“‘You don’t care about this country! Shame on you, you’re selfish,’ one supporter of Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal told union supporters, wagging his finger as he spoke.”

Eric Alterman, for one, believes the issue of selfishness implied here isn’t merely rhetorical, but something we need to understand. It is dangerous. Alterman asks how did our country become a culture where “poor and middle-class folks willingly engage in internecine class warfare against one another, with one side essentially acting as a cat’s paw for mega-wealthy conservatives intent on undermining every worker protection in existence.” See http://www.thenation.com/blog/158844/whats-matter-wisconsin for the full article and the analogy to crabs fighting to escape a steaming pot. Altermann thinks that Thomas Frank framed an understanding of deceptive efforts by conservatives in his 2004 book, What’s the Matter with Kansas? The problem is that many of us have fallen for well designed memes disguised as populist, conservative messages that are in fact in conflict with the middle and working classes best interests. These have been called truthy memes since they rely on deceptive tactics to represent misinformation and half truths as fact. In a phrase we are infected with some bad ideas, which we are also in danger of passing on. They are spreading through the culture in part because they are driven by some basic fear of decline and by being packaged in a simple, relatively message about who to blame. Easy targets make for simple messages, which move along more easily than cognitively complex ones.

One thing that makes these messages difficult to resist is that the mainstream media has adopted conventional storylines as their hot button topics. This is done while crowding out competing and less sexy memes that provide the larger context digging into the real causes of the accelerating budget deficits seen in Wisconsin and elsewhere around the country. The real story might be to understanding the confluence of the failed housing market, high unemployment and Wall Street speculating and wild leveraging. These, rather than meme stories about public-employee union activity, are much better predictors of which state’s revenues are now in the red. But they are not simple, “OK” stories. They appeal to higher understanding and not the sexy, fear-based, scapegoating message being pushed.

Nor do you get much hard to resist messages about how the new cohort of Conservative governors have (or are) enabling state budget deficits by slashing corporate tax rates. Ron Brownstein had a column on a new war front role that Republican governors are playing in Washington's conflicts now –“American politics increasingly resembles a kind of total war in which each party mobilizes every conceivable asset at its disposal against the other. Most governors were once conscientious objectors in that struggle.” Instead of these ideas being widely discussed we hear echoes of misinformation dressed up as good statistical analytics. One cited example is the talking-point meme-statistic used by GOP politicians around the country. It appeared in USA Today in this form in August during the campaign:

“At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn.” USA Today, August 10, 2010

This notion of public union employees milking excess benefits from local government while the rest of the middle-class is simultaneously struggling sparks much of the public’s resentment. But it is a designer meme that is easily refuted by grounded realists like Ezra Klein of the Post who pops meme bubbles like Organized labor is in the hands of the teacher's unions. Klein points out that, "Wisconsin public-sector workers face an annual compensation penalty of 11%. Adjusting for the slightly fewer hours worked per week on average, these public workers still face a compensation penalty of 5% for choosing to work in the public sector."
(see http://www.politicalruminations.com/2011/02/truth-about-wisconsin-public-sector-employees-compensation.html)

That’s a meme we need to hear more about. Like conservative stories it needs to be made ubiquitous and give some organic growth time to put down hardy roots into the public’s mind. This is what Conservative memes echoes over their media and do it religiously. When they are wrong on an issue, based on a hard look at the facts, they ignore the facts and keep repeating their meme story. Dangerous designer memes...Beware.




















.