Tridimity

I am saying, all other things being equal, I would prefer to be treated by an atheist than by a theist. Others may disagree and prefer to be treated by a theist, or may not care either way, but that is their own life choice and not mine. I appreciate the suggestion by some that theistic Scientists may be able to effectively 'separate' their thinking such that, while working on scientific projects or in their capacity in a scientific field (e.g. Medicine), they concentrate on the availability of evidence that is amenable to peer review and to the scrutiny of the public - while, in their capacity as a follower of religion, they choose to rely more heavily on faith as an approach to 'discovering Truth'. Therefore, defendants of the theistic scientists' approach would have us believe that such a person's belief in an omnipotent, omnipresent, all-loving and interventionist God - even in the absence of publicly available evidence - would have no impact on their ability to safely practice Medicine, i.e. they would not see a positive result where others see negative; or they would not rely on faith in place of an evidence-based approach. Personally, while I understand the point that theistic scientists are able to compartmentalise their cognitive processes in this way, and so the vast majority of theistic scientists are good scientists and safe practitioners of Medicine - I would be relucantant to place trust in somebody who compartmentalises in this way. If you visited your Doctor's surgery and they mentioned that 9-5 they choose to think like Tommy but on work nights and weekends they choose to think like Harold, would you still trust them? Most people displaying the compartmentalisation of multiple personality disorder are pitied and possibly medicated - not so if they happen to visit Church on a Sunday.

I did not mean to imply that you were responsible for misdirection of the thread. It has been rather enjoyable thus far; I just lost track of the link between trust and arrogance. Yes, I would tend to agree with this – some people, of high or low IQ, are just useless when it comes to social interaction. I would add that it is possible for non-geniuses (people who are really not very intelligent at all) to be perceived as arrogant because - despite their high EQ and availability of peers/role models/judges/examples for living – these people choose to disregard the feelings of others or not to take into consideration the opinions of others, always assuming that they know best, and so resulting in a kind of unconstructive stubbornness that limits their own intellectual and emotional development.

I’m saying, IF an employer had unlimited freedom, then it could lead to the oppression of the employees. Take, for example, child labour in foreign (foreign to the US and European) countries – the children may be paid a small amount for their hard labour, and so the work is, technically-speaking, salaried – but I think that we would all agree that this is a form of slavery; salaried slavery. Hence why we have certain safeguards in place (i.e. the minimum wage) – designed by, as YOU would choose to say, quote: “Some jobsworth sitting in an ivory tower”. Yes, any employer worthy of the title has social responsibilities. I don’t know what planet you are living on but it is a fact that employers must work in accordance with workers’ rights and Human Rights legislation. Free will. So imagine this. A person with zero qualifications or connections looking for a job and surviving on welfare. The terms of the agreement are that the jobseeker accept any offer of work. How is there any choice there? How can that individual really be said to be in a position to secure just working conditions for their labour? This is the case, even more so, since the global recession and the decreased demand for labour. Employers are pushing the boundaries as far as possible to see what they can get away with in terms of pay (real term cuts), zero hour contracts and other working conditions. The slavemaster comment was a response to your suggestion that to secure decent working conditions for employees would be to ‘straight-jacket’ the employer. My conclusion was that the only type of employer who would be ‘straight-jacketed’ in this way by such a proposal would be one unworthy and unfit to employ anyone. However we seem to have descended into a strawman versus strawman argument with no prospect of sensible or constructive discussion. Okay, so you are right on this point: http://business.time.com/2013/03/12/if-theres-no-inflation-why-are-prices-up-so-much/ However I still deem the underpayment of employees to be unsustainable and, in the fullness of time, the nation’s path to the begging bowl. How is it possible to generate sufficient profit in the absence of consumer demand?

What about the sophisticated conmen who appear trustworthy to mentally average and even astute adults? The sophisticated conmen will provide ample evidence of apparent trustworthiness up until the point when the victim is exploited - or possibly even beyond the point at which the victim is exploited. The regulatory system as you describe it for the moderation of complex financial products, and the like, may suffice to protect customers. However, these formal avenues of redress are usually inadequate in dealing with matters of personal relations or crimes against the individual - the damage is already done. How did we digress from arrogance versus genius to trust... arrogance is misplaced confidence in oneself* i.e. confidence without qualification. Fraud is essentially the work of confidence tricksters i.e. conmen. I guess that is the tenuous link? *[Ed: scratch that. We have already agreed that geniuses, who obviously have grounds for their own self-confidence, may be arrogant.]

The trustworthiness (or otherwise) of individuals within a particular group has no bearing upon the trustworthiness (or otherwise) of other individuals within the group. The behaviours of one individual, or a minority of individuals, within a group may determine the extent to which outsiders are willing to place trust in the group as a whole. However, this judgment on the part of the outsiders is fallacious: by failing to judge on a case-by-case basis, they will overlook advantageous opportunities to appropriately place trust in the trustworthy individuals, and will inappropriately place trust in the minority of untrustworthy individuals within a group of otherwise trustworthy individuals. That’s my lifetime quota of using the words ‘trustworthy’ and ‘individual’ spent

Are you going Lamarckian on us? I didn't know that dead things are capable of enjoyment.

Kristalris, I would tend to concur with Onora O'Neill's perception that what our societies need is not so much trust per se but an increase in the trustworthiness of institutions and of individuals. The erosion of trust can have a runaway effect: when one individual is betrayed by another, that individual will be less likely to trust others overall, and so in future societal transactions will not only choose not to co-operate but may choose to betray a potential partner, as a defensive mechanism, as in the Prisoner's Dilemma. The repercussions for consumer confidence and for lending by the banks and business partnerships globally are clear. However, arbitrarily increasing trust will lead more people to place their trust inappropriately if there is not a commensurate increase in trustworthiness. If trustworthiness is first increased, then trust is likely to follow. Catch Onora's TED talk, 'What we don't understand about trust', here: http://www.ted.com/talks/onora_o_neill_what_we_don_t_understand_about_trust.html As for open-mindedness: yes, a degree of open-mindedness is necessary in order to allow innovative ideas to flourish; but people ought not to be so open-minded that, quote, 'their brains fall out'.

Yes

Equally, none of us choose to be born. Following the logic of your 'free will' argument, would you therefore suggest that having babies is unethical and that we all ought to stop procreation at once?

Of course the use of language involves abstraction. If our language is such a hindrance as you seem to suggest, perhaps you might provide an alternative way of, for example, communicating to a pupil the History of the Second World War. How would you exchange ideas with the pupil, not only providing information but also assessing their understanding and debating with them the significance of various historical events? One massive reel of images? Note: if you do not accept this challenge, it will be assumed that you are not up to the challenge and that your assertions are groundless. I look forward to your (almost certainly non-existent) contribution.

Also the sexual abuse toll, the toll of inequality for women, for children and for homosexuals. S1eep’s posts smack of postmodernism, wherein the longer the sentences you use and the less you are understood by your readers, the more profound your thinking must be. Which makes about as much sense as s1eep’s posts. Reminds me of this: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/dawkins.html

Imagine two groups of people. Each group is composed of a small number of individuals. Group 1. The people live simply, making their living by tending the land and they are in tune with the seasons, with the stars and so come to recognise patterns and constants within Nature. They do not believe in a Deity and have never considered the possibility of a Deity nor has the concept been suggested to them by others from outside of their close-knit community. If they were to be presented by outsiders with the concept of a Deity (of the kind that is omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and interventionist), after consideration of the available evidence, they would deem the probability of the existence of such a Deity to approach exceedingly, immeasurably close to 0%. Group 2. Are exactly as in group 1 except for the fact that outsiders have come and proposed to them the concept of a Deity and, as for the hypothetical case in Group 1, the members of Group 2 deny the existence of any Deity on the basis of a total lack of positive evidence for the existence of such a being. Now, would you suggest that the people in group 1 are not religious atheists but that the people in group 2 are religious atheists? There is no difference whatsoever between the two groups in terms of cognitive processes. The only difference is their exposure to an alien philosophy - which is coincidental, it is not an inherent characteristic of any of the people within any of the groups - any more than the asteroid that annihilated the dinosaurs was a characteristic inherent in the dinosaurs themselves - and so cannot be used as a basis for defining the religious identity of the individuals in either group. They are all, in reality, atheists. Atheists are technically extreme agnostics who acknowledge that it is impossible to disprove the existence of a Deity and who recognise that there is zero supporting evidence in favour of the existence of a Deity so their estimation of the probability of the existence of a Deity would be 0.0000[too many zeros to be able to mention]1%. Because it is not possible to express succinctly the actual probability, and being pragmatists, they round it down to 0% and label themselves 'atheist' rather than 'agnostic'. Being agnostic/atheist is the default position, and there would be no such 'position' if it were not for the infiltration of minds with the alien concept of a Deity. You also seem to conflate the terms 'atheist' and 'Scientist'. Actually, some Scientists (the kind I would not trust my life or health with) do believe in the existence of a Deity. And not all atheists have formal education or training in the Sciences, and may not be avid followers of Science, but they have common sense enough to recognise that natural explanations underpin the happenings in this Universe and that there is a dearth of positive evidence for the existence of any Deity.

Or the specification of cell type?

Not a joke but still funny High visibility jackets for pet chickens - or, as the manufacturer calls them, 'health and safety gilets' http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/20/high-vis-chicken-jacket_n_4131395.html

So I have been defending a person not worthy of defence. Great. This doesn't strike me as the message of a poster with relevant statistics to hand. "Listen guys, I have a new formula for analysis in Political Science and Economics... take your life experiences, n = 1, and extrapolate your own conclusion. It's like Build-A-Bear only more newsworthy." Hm, I had not heard of this before. I think it's time to let Popcorn and TeaParty get on with it, I do not respect the approach taken by either of them.

I suppose one way of obtaining evidence of psychological/emotional abuse would be to secretly record the parent's interactions with their child. I find it very disturbing indeed that we live in a society where adults and institutions are so harshly reprimanded for written or oral abuse (take Twitter and libel cases as an example) yet almost nothing is done to protect children who are constantly fed negative opinions about themselves from their parents and who are denied love. The situation is complicated by the fact that, unless the child has interaction with another caregiver who actually loves them and shows them that love, then the child is likely to regard the treatment received at the hands of their parents as normal and so will be less likely to report it to a trustworthy adult. In this sense, psychological and emotional abuse is perhaps the worst form, since it lacks the potential to be identified at an early stage, in contrast to physical abuse which usually leaves visible evidence.

The child would probably be a bit apprehensive because i. they might fear punishment from their parent/caregiver ii. except for the periods of abuse, the parent/caregiver might care for the children, and so the children might still love the parent/caregiver in their own way, and so will not want to do anything that might destroy whatever glimmer of a normal functional parent/child relationship they have. Regardless of the temporary stress and anxiety that talking about their experiences may cause, it is the only way for a responsible adult e.g. a teacher to find out about what is happening and to take steps to protect the child. No matter how many suspicions a teacher may have, if the child does not openly discuss the abuse, then the teacher is unable to do anything to help the child. That is why the new educational programme is so important in my opinion.

It depends on what you mean by freedom. One person's freedom can be the cause of another person's oppression. Why is it that the American psyche is pervaded by this obsession with freedom/liberty? If the focus was instead shifted to responsibility for oneself and for others then I think US society would run much more smoothly. I think your concept of freedom is basically allowing the employer to decide upon the terms of employment, no matter how unfair they may be, no matter if it results in a kind of salaried slavery on the part of the employee. You fail to recognise that the employer's freedoms must have a limit so as to preserve the freedom of the employee. Perhaps it would be better to express the working relationships in terms of responsibility: the employer has responsibility for ensuring that the employee is paid fairly (> minimum wage) and at a level comparable to the competition, and that the terms of employment are clearly explained in the contract, and that the security of those terms of employment are upheld, and that the employee receives the necessary support (in terms of training) required in order to perform their job successfully. The employee has responsibility for ensuring that they uphold the terms agreed in the contract including with regards to notice period, and that (s)he performs to the very best of his/her ability while on the job. At no point did I suggest that the employer is responsible for the credit taken out by the employee or that anybody owes anybody else a job. The first point was that you fail to recognise the human reality and that not all decisions are as autonomous as you seem to assert. Likewise, an employee is not responsible for the employer's re-mortgage! The second point was that, as a society, all citizens have a collective responsibility towards fellow citizens in the welfare and employment stakes. This collective responsibility could be abolished, but then you would no longer have a society. You would have a group of people in-fighting over scarce resources. Having an employer secure fair working conditions for their employees is not equivalent to 'straight-jacketing' the employer - unless the employer is a tyrannical slave-master (which I think you would be happy for them to be - pushing the labour costs down and down until they are non-existent. Free labour! Imagine that! Imagine how well that would float on your free market!) "And as for 'cannot afford to pay', who or what on earth decides what an employer is required to pay? It seems to me you're looking at state control, and I think we all know what happens with state control: destruction of aspiration, destitution, starvation and eventual collapse." Greater than or equal to minimum wage for basic entry level jobs, and higher wages that are standardised across private and nationalised sectors, so that people doing roughly the same job receive roughly the same reward for their labour. Tally the rate of pay with the rate of inflation. What is difficult about that? Now, you keep on conflating state control with "destruction of aspiration, destitution, starvation and eventual collapse". I think you will find that the surest means to destruction of aspiration is to pay employees less than their labour is worth, with no realistic prospect of improvement, and to deny them basic safeguards on working conditions. Destitution, starvation and eventual collapse have historically been the result of regimes with absolute state control. I don't like to do this but you have brought me to the point of using caps lock since I made this point in my previous post and you ignored it very efficiently. NOBODY IS PROPOSING ABSOLUTE STATE CONTROL. The modifications would be more like tighter regulations on working conditions.

Philosophy and Linguistics. PhD level study, teaching jobs, academic jobs, professorships, transferable critical thinking and communication skills. I would think that a Philosophy and Linguistics graduate would be a major asset in the workplace. And, wfu, “most guys provide this service for free”? Seriously, how many people are sufficiently knowledgeable and willing to provide insights on the nature of language? “my first thought was oyster diving since this trade should have similarities to your chosen course of study” In the same vein, wfu, I would advise you to join the circus. You’d be really good at tossing. Popcorn, if Philosophy and Liguistics are your passions then you should continue to pursue them. I would not advise that you take advice from anyone who spells career as ‘carrier’, much less when that person is our resident clown, wfu. Wfu: take your FED EX advice elsewhere And, to paraphrase iNow, I can show you physical proof that I tend to be carrying an umbrella when it starts rain. Doesn't mean that the umbrella-carrying caused the rain to fall. TeaParty, your entire argument - if it can be called an argument - is based on one person's life experience (your own). There is no way to establish a causal link between your particular set of circumstances and the election of Obama. Come back when you have some convincing national statistics on GDP, unemployment rate, inflation and interest rates during Obama's term in office.

Here's the link to the News report, before I forget: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24667936

I'm so sorry to hear about your experiences. And glad that you have proven a survivor; you may well be stronger than most other people as a result. I'm not sure if your proposed neurobiology plan would work but recently I was watching a News report detailing a new scheme that has been introduced here in the UK to teach primary school children, using language and concepts that are age-appropriate, about the nature of physical, sexual, psychological and emotional abuse: how to identify it and recognising that abuse is not acceptable. Whether or not they included information on what to do/who to inform should the child be the victim of abuse, I am not sure, but I think that this would be a very good idea. Perhaps one of the problems with child abuse is that the child is unable to identify abuse when it happens; if they are always treated a certain way by people (especially if those people are their parents or primary caregivers) then they are likely to normalise it and expect to be treated in that way. They may have an intuitive feeling that something is wrong, but they lack the language of adults to specify what is happening - this new educational programme hopefully will give children a voice. Have you considered working in this area? Perhaps you could work with children and protect them from harm, so preventing children from having to experience what you experienced yourself as a child. You would probably also be more empathetic with the children - I bet that you would be good at this, and they certainly need somebody to protect them.

I agree, EdEarl. I think some degree of exposure to change while a person is still young is healthy and helps them to learn both the inevitability of change, and that changes of circumstance can be managed successfully, so raising a well-adjusted child with robust flexibility of mind who is more likely to survive and thrive under real world conditions. Also, change forces you to consider your priorities; the life interests which you are willing to preserve through investment of your own energy against the backdrop of universal entropy allow you to recognise your ultimate values in life. E.g. changing institutions, working with one set of colleagues then changing to another, making outrageous sacrifices for study and work in the field of Science involves a lot of change. The constant is the love of Science. Or, likewise, being prepared to sacrifice a long-held ambition and to relocate to someplace on the other side of the globe in order to be with somebody, involves a lot of change. The constant is the love of that person.

Popcorn, I am not so sure that money is the fundamental root of your unhappiness although it undoubtedly seems a contributory factor. So, you are unhappy living in a particular place with a particular group of people because they do not give you respect, autonomy, privacy or interesting conversation. I do not know exactly what your arrangement is, but I am willing to bet that you would be able to start restricting the amount of time that you are prepared to spend with these people. For example, if you are sharing accommodation together, you could install a lock system on your door and explain to each of the people what they can now expect from you in terms of time spent with them. If there are certain things that you are expected to do for them (e.g. household maintenance) then agree with them beforehand when you will do those tasks (so that they are not perpetually nagging you). Try as far as possible to be assertive with these people, neither passive (from what you have written, I would hazard a guess that, on the whole, you engage in passive behaviours) nor aggressive. And then try and get out to meet friends, or to make new friends, with whom you share the same interests. (This coming from the asocialite. But it is much easier to give advice than it is to heed one's own advice. ) Introducing Assertiveness: A Practical Guide http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/products/david+bonham-carter/introducing+assertiveness/9424701/ Let us know how you get on

Engineering the system in such a way that labour costs are standardised in a fair way, to a greater degree than they are currently, would require existing measures such as minimum wage with a tallying of salaries in line with the rate of inflation - and some mechanism to ensure that people who are doing broadly the same jobs are paid approximately the same for their labour - regardless of any inherent or acquired phenotype (e.g. age, nationality, sex, sexual orientation, social standing, etc). If a person cannot afford to pay their employee the going rate, a rate that is fair for their labour, then they should not be advertising the employment opportunity. That is a matter of straightforward fairness. Employees have a de jure right to not accept zero-hour contracts - but you fail to acknowledge the de facto inability of people to not accept zero hour contracts. Most people living in the UK are living under conditions of more or less financial stress; in previous decades they have perhaps taken out too much credit and are now failing to pay off their loans and mortgages. Both unemployment and the cost of living are high, and these people still have bills to pay, mortgages to pay, loans to pay back, food to put on the table, ever-increasing energy bills, the kids need new school shoes etc etc. These people are not in a position to demand the true worth of their own labour or their deserved working conditions; many would not even qualify for welfare payments should they lose their job. So, there is an option there, but it's more a choice of whether or not to survive, rather than which of two lucrative options to select. CEO to earn 10x, perhaps 15x, the salary of the clerk. Seems fair to me - why would anyone need any more than this anyhow? Anything beyond this is pure greed. "Oh, don't! Don't! Don't tell me I can't have three Lambourghinis!" *pouts* Anything else is state control. And we already have state control, it's just not absolute state control. This kind of wage control would not require absolute state control in other areas of the economy. By implication, I think you mean to say that state control equates to totalitarianism and crimes against humanity. Absolute state control often does have this consequence; but absolute state control is not being suggested. Finally, there are plenty of things that people do not like and that are amenable to change (disease, as one obvious example). Your approach of deciding at the outset that change is impossible would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I do not think that you really think this change to be impossible. You just do not want it to be possible.