Everything has changed. Or nothing.

But I'm not sure which.

In the wake of the stunning announcement of Osama bin Laden's death, I have been at a loss to describe how I'm thinking or feeling. Many other people seem to know exactly what they are feeling.

Last night, it was hundreds of people cheering, waving flags, dancing, and celebrating joyously. This morning, it was the backlash of dozens of articles condemning those who celebrated, and insisting that the war on terror is not over just because one man died. "Nothing has changed!" they say. "We are just as bad as the people who celebrated 9/11!"

And both of those reactions bother me.

Dancing in the streets did seem an odd reaction. A person was shot and killed. This was an action that is just as likely to inspire violence as it is to reduce violence. Did I personally feel a moment of joy when I heard the news? Yes, I can say that I did. I have extremely vivid memories of 9/11, this man was almost definitely involved, so yeah I felt some happiness. I did not join the celebrations in the street. Does my private emotional reaction make me a bad person? Does the fact I chose not to enact those feelings in public make me a good person?

And that's why I am equally bothered by the backlash today. While I don't fully understand many people's inclinations to celebrate the news last night, I also understand that those people are human. Many people believe that Osama bin Laden's life and work threatened lives around the world. Maybe those people are not completely right, but they're not completely wrong either.

"The war on terror is not over!" Certainly, but no one said that it was. No one on CNN, no one in the government, no one on my Facebook feed. No one believes terrorism is over. I find such remarks to be patronizing.

"Nothing has changed!" Really? I'm not sure it's that simple. This man was a leader and an internationally recognized figure. He had immense personal wealth. He was a major player in horrific plots to kill people. He was very intelligent. Leaders like that are not a dime a dozen, and losing him does have some impact. I don't think it means the end of terrorism, but I think it has some impact. We'll just have to wait and see what that is.

So no, I will not be joining in any neighborhood dance parties to celebrate someone being killed. We should never take death so lightly, no matter who was killed. But I will also not be damning others from a pedestal of philosophical righteousness.

Uncertainty on Libya

Everyone has an opinion on Libya, and everyone seems positive that they know best. I don't know what I think. What I do know is that it's very easy to sit on the sidelines and make proclamations. I'm not sure that President Obama could have made a single decision without upsetting a huge portion of the population. If he intervenes, he's stupidly starting a horrible war. If he stands aside, he's horrible for allowing human rights violations to occur. If he takes too long, he's dithering. If he acts too quickly, he's being rash.

Personally, I at least agree with his sense of timing on this one. He waited for UN and NATO support (a crucial difference between Libya and Iraq; why does everyone keep comparing the two?). Once he had the support, he acted swiftly. What happens in the next few days and weeks will largely determine the future safety of Libyan citizens. I sincerely hope things go well, although I have many doubts.

Maybe intervening in Libya was the correct decision. There were certainly atrocities occurring there, but there are atrocities in hundreds of other places too. So why not intervene elsewhere? I heard one explanation that made some sense to me, which stated that a no-fly zone can only be effective if:

1. There are mass civilian deaths occurring within a region
2. Major objectives (that will decrease the civilian deaths) can be reasonably achieved with a no-fly zone

Libya meets these standards. Gaddafi (wow everyone sure spells that name differently) was using tanks and airplanes to kill civilians from far away. We can eliminate these weapons using our own bombs. There is minimal risk and it's quite effective. It's much more difficult to use air forces or a no-fly zone to end a ground battle between minimally-armed groups. We can't intervene in every single civil war.... but maybe we can intervene in some of them, and maybe we can help occasionally. I don't know. It's not easy playing Supercop for the whole world.

***

I really don't know where I stand on Libya, and maybe that's the point. There was no right answer for this problem, no risk-free option. It was always going to be messy, and too many people were always going to die.

Heartbreak

No words.

Scott Walker is gross

Still stunned over the oh-so-sketchy passing of the anti-union bill in the dead of night by 18 Wisconsin Republicans who took all of 30 minutes to heavily damage public workers' rights.

What on earth is the point of this bill?? It has nothing to do with the budget. Nothing! The unions made the (ridiculously enormous) concessions on the budget ages ago. They already agreed to cut pay and benefits. Why this fanatical obsession with destroying union rights? How is this helping?

I have a very difficult time listening to Governor Walker drone on and on about the deficit, and the budget crisis, and how "everyone has to do their part." I'm sorry, and the rich did "their part" when exactly? When they refused to accept a measly 3% raise in taxes?

When did we decide that the budget crisis is the fault of the public sector worker? Wall Street got away with murder, the average CEO of a Fortune 500 company makes a salary 135 times greater than his average employee... but NO! It's the teacher with the $50,000 salary who destroyed our economy! Somehow, despite all evidence to the contrary, people have come to the conclusion that greedy greedy public sector workers take all the money and make millions of dollars more than private workers. Doesn't matter what actual facts say. If Mitt Romney declares that "the average government worker makes $30,000 more than the average private sector worker" it must be true.

It truly makes me sick.

I try very hard not to be overly partisan. I want to believe that there are good, smart folks on all sides of the issue. But it honestly does not seem like it. It's nauseating enough that the superrich were able to obliterate the economy and get away with it. But now we want to blame the average, middle class government worker for our economic woes? I cannot come up with any justification for that.

New chef

As I am currently working from home for the most part, I have been cooking much more frequently. A few recent discoveries:

1. Cayenne pepper in your morning eggs is surprisingly good. I dislike the taste of eggs, and find that a good dash of cayenne makes them much more edible. Plus, it's a nice wake-up call for the morning.

2. Salt rubs are amazing. Prior to seasoning chicken, rub it with coarse salt, then rinse and pat dry. This process tenderizes the meat, increases flavor, and decreases dryness without actually increasing the sodium level (much).

3. Sauteeing green beans makes them taste much better than the traditional method of boiling them. They come out much crisper. Add some steak seasoning and they're delicious!

4. White pepper. Look into it. And use sparingly!

*****************

Rahm Emanuel has just been elected mayor of Chicago! Quite a change after 22 years of Daley.

*****************

I find out about internship in three days. THREE. And then I'm moving? Utterly torn between preemptively missing Chicago and absolutely craving the return to the Eastern seaboard. There is so much to do before then!!

Here we go

Social Scientist Sees Bias Within

By John Tierney

SAN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.

Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”

It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

Dr. Haidt (pronounced height) told the audience that he had been corresponding with a couple of non-liberal graduate students in social psychology whose experiences reminded him of closeted gay students in the 1980s. He quoted — anonymously — from their e-mails describing how they hid their feelings when colleagues made political small talk and jokes predicated on the assumption that everyone was a liberal.

“I consider myself very middle-of-the-road politically: a social liberal but fiscal conservative. Nonetheless, I avoid the topic of politics around work,” one student wrote. “Given what I’ve read of the literature, I am certain any research I conducted in political psychology would provide contrary findings and, therefore, go unpublished. Although I think I could make a substantial contribution to the knowledge base, and would be excited to do so, I will not.”

The politics of the professoriate has been studied by the economists Christopher Cardiff and Daniel Klein and the sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons. They’ve independently found that Democrats typically outnumber Republicans at elite universities by at least six to one among the general faculty, and by higher ratios in the humanities and social sciences. In a 2007 study of both elite and non-elite universities, Dr. Gross and Dr. Simmons reported that nearly 80 percent of psychology professors are Democrats, outnumbering Republicans by nearly 12 to 1.

The fields of psychology, sociology and anthropology have long attracted liberals, but they became more exclusive after the 1960s, according to Dr. Haidt. “The fight for civil rights and against racism became the sacred cause unifying the left throughout American society, and within the academy,” he said, arguing that this shared morality both “binds and blinds.”

“If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community,” he said. “They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.” It’s easy for social scientists to observe this process in other communities, like the fundamentalist Christians who embrace “intelligent design” while rejecting Darwinism. But academics can be selective, too, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan found in 1965 when he warned about the rise of unmarried parenthood and welfare dependency among blacks — violating the taboo against criticizing victims of racism.

“Moynihan was shunned by many of his colleagues at Harvard as racist,” Dr. Haidt said. “Open-minded inquiry into the problems of the black family was shut down for decades, precisely the decades in which it was most urgently needed. Only in the last few years have liberal sociologists begun to acknowledge that Moynihan was right all along.”

Similarly, Larry Summers, then president of Harvard, was ostracized in 2005 for wondering publicly whether the preponderance of male professors in some top math and science departments might be due partly to the larger variance in I.Q. scores among men (meaning there are more men at the very high and very low ends). “This was not a permissible hypothesis,” Dr. Haidt said. “It blamed the victims rather than the powerful. The outrage ultimately led to his resignation. We psychologists should have been outraged by the outrage. We should have defended his right to think freely.”

Instead, the taboo against discussing sex differences was reinforced, so universities and the National Science Foundation went on spending tens of millions of dollars on research and programs based on the assumption that female scientists faced discrimination and various forms of unconscious bias. But that assumption has been repeatedly contradicted, most recently in a study published Monday in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by two Cornell psychologists, Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams. After reviewing two decades of research, they report that a woman in academic science typically fares as well as, if not better than, a comparable man when it comes to being interviewed, hired, promoted, financed and published.

“Thus,” they conclude, “the ongoing focus on sex discrimination in reviewing, interviewing and hiring represents costly, misplaced effort. Society is engaged in the present in solving problems of the past.” Instead of presuming discrimination in science or expecting the sexes to show equal interest in every discipline, the Cornell researchers say, universities should make it easier for women in any field to combine scholarship with family responsibilities.

Can social scientists open up to outsiders’ ideas? Dr. Haidt was optimistic enough to title his speech “The Bright Future of Post-Partisan Social Psychology,” urging his colleagues to focus on shared science rather than shared moral values. To overcome taboos, he advised them to subscribe to National Review and to read Thomas Sowell’s “A Conflict of Visions.”

For a tribal-moral community, the social psychologists in Dr. Haidt’s audience seemed refreshingly receptive to his argument. Some said he overstated how liberal the field is, but many agreed it should welcome more ideological diversity. A few even endorsed his call for a new affirmative-action goal: a membership that’s 10 percent conservative by 2020. The society’s executive committee didn’t endorse Dr. Haidt’s numerical goal, but it did vote to put a statement on the group’s home page welcoming psychologists with “diverse perspectives.” It also made a change on the “Diversity Initiatives” page — a two-letter correction of what it called a grammatical glitch, although others might see it as more of a Freudian slip.

In the old version, the society announced that special funds to pay for travel to the annual meeting were available to students belonging to “underrepresented groups (i.e., ethnic or racial minorities, first-generation college students, individuals with a physical disability, and/or lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered students).”

As Dr. Haidt noted in his speech, the “i.e.” implied that this was the exclusive, sacred list of “underrepresented groups.” The society took his suggestion to substitute “e.g.” — a change that leaves it open to other groups, too. Maybe, someday, even to conservatives.

The New York Times, February 7, 2011

**********

Sorry for posting the entire article, but an idiot just attacked my field, and he deserves a full response. Where to begin....

I will start by saying that supposedly, the entire point of Dr. Haidt's argument is that we should "focus on shared science rather than shared moral values." That we shouldn't allow political beliefs or moral leanings to influence the practice of good science. That's cool, I can get behind that idea. Now let's see how well Dr. Haidt followed his own advice.

1. People in social sciences are not a representative sample of the American population. Dr. Haidt came to this conclusion by using the oh-so-scientific method of having people raise their hands at a conference, but I'll concede. I don't doubt for a second that people in social sciences tend to be liberal. Personally, I think it is damn near impossible to study the social sciences and be conservative or right-leaning. Learning this field involves reading hundreds of books and articles fully documenting the massive discrimination built into our every social system. Working in this field involves meeting hundreds of people who have exactly none of the advantages I was simply born into. I myself have become more and more liberal as I've progressed in this field.

But that's not the point, is it. Who cares if the field of social sciences is not representative of the American population? Psychologists are not politicians; we are not representing the people or creating policy. Psychologists (and all others in the social sciences) are members of a private profession, and according to Dr. Haidt's own ramblings, our only goal should be good science. Of course, we should make every effort to include all relevant points of view in our research, but the field of social sciences will never be representative of everyone. Is there a single profession in the United States that is even close to being a representative sample of the American population in terms of every demographic?

2. Considering the inspiration for Dr. Haidt's rantings is that conservatives get their research shunned for no reason other than their political beliefs, he sure had a difficult time coming up with examples.

Daniel Moynihan's report from 1965? That's a nice recent example. His article, however, is not in any way scientific. It is a rambling statement of Mr. Moynihan's personal thoughts, and reads more like a diary entry than a research report. He cites a few statistics about how black families are different from white ones. He then proceeds to cite dozens of writers and politicians' comments on the subject, but again, no facts or scientific studies. After a long while, Mr. Moynihan randomly comes to the conclusion that because black families are different, they are inferior. He clarifies that black people's inferiority is not their fault, instead acknowledging that black people are victims of centuries of slavery and oppression. He makes a few good points that although black people have gained freedom, they have not gained equality (an important argument to make in 1965). Nonetheless, black families are inferior. Why? Because most black families are led by females, rather than males. Why is this a problem? Because "the very essence of a male animal is to strut," and black males' lack of strutting is apparently a sign of deep pathology. (That is a direct quote; read it yourself here.) This is not science, it's silliness. And, Dr. Haidt, if our goal is to share good research, then you need to get me a better example.

Dr. Haidt's second and last example of a poor conservative being shunned for his political beliefs is Larry Summers in 2005. Ignoring several hundred scientific studies contradicting his statement, Mr. Summers mused that women are underrepresented in math and science because they are less intelligent. Well, not exactly... he stated that men have more variability in their IQ scores, demonstrating a larger standard deviation than women. This is plainly false. While I agree that Mr. Summers was unfairly labeled sexist (although, come ON, that story about his daughters and their trucks was ridiculous), I don't think his views were unfairly shunned. Harvard rejected his speech because it was based on crappy science. He ignored hundreds of scientific studies and instead cherry-picked several obscure ones to make his point. He was unable to defend his arguments when challenged. Again, if you want us to share good science Dr. Haidt, find me some!

Dr. Haidt's summarizing statement regarding Larry Summers says it all: "We should have defended his right to think freely." Excuse me? This is not about civil rights, this is about science! Larry Summers is free to believe and think and say whatever he wants, but he is not allowed to stand on an academic stage and fabricate research. I am allowed to believe that all human suffering is caused by our proximity to basketball courts, but if I cannot publish that idea in a scientific journal. And in any case, I thought you wanted to avoid arguments on morality and focus only on good science.

3. This is more of a personal point, but I find the fact he compared being conservative today being a closeted homosexual in the past to be quite offensive. In the past (and currently), closeted homosexual students suffered because they were attacked for their feelings, thoughts, romantic partners, and personal lifestyles. Homosexual students continue to be in real physical danger if they reveal their sexual identity at the wrong time. Republicans are "attacked" for their political beliefs.... and have to suffer through hearing mildly offensive jokes about Republicans? Spare me your whining. I find it very illuminating that the best example Dr. Haidt could find of this was a timid email from a student claiming that although he/she had never tried to publish an article, he/she was pretty sure that it might not get published due to political beliefs, and therefore he/she would never even try to do research. Wow, talk about true suffering!

*****

In short, Dr. Haidt, if you are going to make an argument, why don't you follow your own advice and include at least one example of decent science? Give me one example of a politically conservative scientist being shunned ONLY for his/her political beliefs. Just one! Because I bet you can't do it.

Strange times

2010 passed without a single entry, but here I am again. I am not sure why I write in these things, except for myself.

I have become a hermit, submersed in a world of research, reading, writing, and learning teeny tiny details. It is tiring. There are lots of buzzwords. (Isn't that word fantastic? Because literally, it makes my head buzzzz with meaningless wordage.) I miss real life and especially my work. It has been extraordinarily difficult to maintain concentration and motivation when I don't get to do the work I love.

There is a point to all of this... right? There has to be.

*

I am fascinated by current situations in Tunisia and Egypt. We are living in an interesting, important time. I wonder what will be next for those countries?

*

More later. For now, back to buzzing around research papers.