Four Resons Why Religion Should Be Avoided at All Cost

REASON 1

Religion is an obstacle to moral development. According to psychological theorist, Lawrence Kohlberg, the first stage of moral development centers on the individual modifying his/her behavior in order to avoid punishment and earn rewards. Small children, dogs, and adult sociopaths tend to operate at this level of moral development. 

In the second stage of moral development, the individual desires to be considered a good person and so conforms to an external system of rules (example: laws, cultural norms, family values, and religion). An internal moral sense cultivated by indoctrination to external belief systems becomes deeply ingrained in people. At this level of development, moral "feelings" are mistaken for undeniable truths. For many reasons, questioning the validity of religious morals can ignite extreme hostility and defensiveness.

The pitfall of uncritically accepting a moral code learned from one’s culture, such as that offered by religion, is that it may include elements that are truly harmful to others. An individual raised in the environment of Nazi Germany would have the same deep commitment to that moral code as anyone indoctrinated into any external moral code.  In the pre-Civil War South, ministers used the Bible to justify the enslavement of other human beings. The Bible and the Koran are currently being used to justify racism and homophobia. The results? Torture, murder, and suicide.

The highest level of moral development requires a critical examination of values using universal litmuses like harm done, fairness, and empathy. Without a rational, compassionate evaluation of every aspect of one’s moral code, the potential for harm is great. Religion is a barrier to advanced moral development.

REASON 2

Religion inhibits intellectual development. The touchstone for intellectual growth is changing positions when disputing evidence for a pre-existing belief outweighs supporting evidence for said belief. Most of the dominant religions require accepting the legitimacy of their doctrines not on evidence, but on faith. Faith is often considered an admirable quality. However, faith and gullibility seem to be two sides of the same coin. Webster's defines faith as, "(a)firm belief in something for which there is no proof." Gullible means, "easily persuaded to believe something." So, aren't faith and gullibility inseparable? In other words, wouldn't it require gullibility to firmly believe something without proof?

Believing without evidence is a slippery slope. If I choose to accept one supernatural manifestation on faith, am I not then susceptible to believing any absurdity? Talking snakes, invisible deities, angels, pixies, leprechauns, and unicorns are all supported by faith and disputed by reason. How does one justify belief in a god, but not in a pixie, or in some other god? Disregarding evidence in favor of faith-based beliefs perpetuates ignorance. Religion is a barrier to advanced intellectual development.

REASON 3

Religion obstructs social development. In a modern global community, appreciation for the benefits of cultural diversity is paramount. Of the six Americans who won Nobel Prizes for Science in 2016, all were immigrants. By nature, religions are exclusionary. They create an "us and them" mentality wherein the "us" are good and the "them," not as good. This kind of social identity has been at the root of every war since the dawn of time. 

Prepackaged, religious beliefs rob people of the opportunity to create personal meaning and to truly define a unique understanding of self separate from cultural definitions. The number one regret of terminally ill patients is that they conformed to the values of others rather than living lives true to themselves. Religion is an impediment to social development.

REASON 4

Religion is a barrier to emotional development. Emotional maturity results from coming to terms with difficult, often frightening, realities. Failure to take responsibility for one's actions is one aspect of emotional immaturity. Children tend to blame others or make excuses for mistakes. Mature adults take responsibility, attempt to make reparations, and try to learn from mistakes. While Christianity holds the individual accountable to a degree, it also provides an easy loophole. Per Christian doctrine, serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer was absolved of responsibility for his actions before his death because he sincerely asked for God's forgiveness. 

Another element of Christianity inconsistent with taking responsibility is the concept of Satan. Satan is ultimately responsible for all evil in the world and God is ultimately responsible for all good. 

By encouraging belief in a fantasy afterlife, religion inhibits adults from maturely coming to terms with mortality. Developing the emotional maturity to deal with the realities of death, unanswered questions, and all of the other uncertainties of human life without resorting to magical and superstitious fantasies requires courage and unyielding integrity. One must be committed to all truths regardless of how scary or difficult. Religion impedes emotional development.

Given that religion is an obstacle to nearly every domain of human development, I consider it a social ill. It is clear to me that outcomes such as charity, love, kindness, and peace have been mistakenly associated with religion. Historically, the opposite outcomes of greed, hate, cruelty, and conflict have just as often been the fruits of religion. Benevolent outcomes result from empathy, a quality independent of religion. If I value the Greek ideal of the fully developed person, I can not also value a system that prohibits human development. 

How to NEVER be Suckered by Statistics on Race Again!

If you don't understand how statistics work, it is easy to be manipulated by intentionally misleading data. Since the races are not evenly represented in our population (64% White, 16% Hispanic, 12% Black, 4% Asian, 2% two or more races), a direct comparison between races in America on any phenomenon will be racially biased and lead to a false conclusion.

Hypothetically, suppose .1% of all Americans have been falsely arrested. Half of them were white and half were black. Saying that 50% of Americans who were falsely arrested were white and 50% were black is true, but it is a racially biased statistic because it doesn’t account for the fact that 64% of Americans are white and only 12% are black.

To factor out this bias, comparisons must be made per 100 black people and per 100 white people (or per 10,000, or per 100,000, or per 1,000,000). By calculating per 100 black Americans, these same data would show that 64% of the people who were falsely arrested were black. And, per 100 white people, only 12% of people who were falsely arrested were white. Now the data lead to an informed conclusion rather than a biased one.

So, the next time you see statistics on race that fail to show the data per 100,000 (or some other round number), you will know that someone is trying to sucker you!

Who Should Liberals Vote for in the Upcoming Election?

The graph on the left from Political Compass provides some interesting insights into voting patterns. Hillary is further to the right than Donald Trump, but she is less of a dictator. The reasons I hear Republicans give for hating Hillary are Benghazi and the e-mails. Given that equally heinous acts have been perpetrated by Republicans, I am fairly certain that the real reason they hate Hillary is just that she is a Democrat. One thing I have in common with many Republicans is that I find the DNC reprehensible. If nothing else

Republicans are team players. The support they are showing for Donald Trump, an outright buffoon, demonstrates their commitment to the team.

My reasons for disliking Hillary, however, are very different than the reasons most Republicans give. Hillary was the primary beneficiary of Citizens United. Her campaign is being financed by the billionaire class. Studies have shown definitively that bills favored by billionaires have a very high probability of being made into laws, while bills favored by the vast majority of the American people have a near zero probability of being passed. Simply stated, the Republican and Democratic parties do not represent American citizens. Like most of congress, Hillary Clinton represents her benefactors. She is hawkish in foreign policy because armed conflicts funnel tax funds to defense contractors. They, in turn, "donate" to political candidates. In 2015-16, the defense sector donated $27 million to political candidates, $16.4 million to Republicans and $11 million to Democrats.

QUESTION: As a dyed in the wool leftie patriot who wholeheartedly supports our democratic republic and the United States Constitution… Who should I vote for? Regardless of party affiliation, or absence thereof, I would never vote for Donald Trump. He is more akin to a cartoon character than a legitimate presidential candidate. Hillary Clinton who, despite much yelling and screaming to the contrary from both major parties, is actually the mainstream conservative candidate. Gary Johnson (who has no chance of winning) is further to the right than anyone remaining in the race. And although she has an excellent platform, Jill Stein (also has no chance of winning) is completely unqualified for the job of Commander in Chief.  

ANSWER: I must vote for Hillary Clinton. Why? As an aspiring intellectual, I pride myself on overriding my own desired outcomes when they are disputed by overwhelming objective data. It is all but a mathematical certainty that the next President of the United States will either be Clinton or Trump. The potential for catastrophic damage resulting from a Trump presidency is truly an unknown. The course for a Clinton presidency is not particularly desirable to me but it is completely predictable with low risk for unprecedented disaster. Ironically, one of Hillary's top ten campaign promises is to fight for overturning Citizen's United. Her platform also includes raising the minimum wage, not increasing taxes on the middle-class, college tuition breaks for families making less than $125k per year, comprehensive immigration reform, and an increased investment in improving our infrastructure. 

How to Develop the Intellect: Why Emotions Matter… A LOT!

 This article is not about smart and stupid. Smart and stupid are terminal states over which one has no control. Conversely, intellectual development, like physical development, can be acquired by nearly anyone willing to put in the necessary work. Intellect is the capacity for reason and for acquiring an objective mental grasp. The key words in this definition are “reason” and “objective.” Reason is the ability to arrive at an understanding through logic. Objective means not being influenced by personal feelings or opinions. So, a developed intellect requires both logic and objectivity.

First, one must be able and willing to apply logic. This means adhering to strict principles of validity. There is a necessary logic to the arrangement of parts in a gasoline engine, an electrical circuit, and even a simple door latch. The validity of the arrangement of the respective parts is shown by the effective functioning of each device. If the parts are arranged illogically, the device won’t function properly. The scientific method is applied logic. The validity of the scientific method is shown by the myriad advancements we enjoy in modern life. Nearly every object in your field of vision as you read this post resulted from the application of the scientific method. The profound impact of science on human life cannot be overstated. Adhering to a belief that is clearly disputed by logic signals an intellectual blind spot.

Second, and equally as important as logic, is objectivity. Why would one stubbornly hold on to a belief that is obviously illogical or disputed by huge amounts of scientific evidence? The answer is simple… emotions. Our emotions evolved for one reason and one reason only, to keep us in the gene pool. Emotions guided primitive humans to behave in ways that kept them alive long enough to bear offspring. In the short run, emotion has far more power over our choices than does intellect. Emotional responses to danger quickly override intellect and prompt us to run or fight. These knee-jerk behaviors served us well for thousands of years. Emotions are about survival. From an evolutionary standpoint, our incredible intellectual capacity was an awesome upgrade, but not much of a survival feature.

Emotional responses are closely linked to another human survival trait, egocentrism. Every animal on earth, including the human animal, strives to preserve the “self.” It is our nature to evaluate situations in terms of the self in opposition to everything that is not the self. So, when illogical information is presented to a human animal in a way that makes the self feel emotionally validated, it is a very natural human reaction to accept that piece of information as true. In psychology, we call this cognitive bias. Cognitive bias is the primary obstacle to intellectual development. The scientific method is a series of procedures that help supersede our cognitive biases. Compare the relative pace of human advances prior to and then after the scientific revolution. This comparison makes it crystal clear that the survival traits that worked so well for so long also kept us from moving forward in our accurate understanding of our world.

A developed intellect requires a willingness to bypass your ego's emotional needs

and accept information that often"feels" uncomfortable. This is a tall order and it requires a lifetime of practice.

Blue Lives Matter / Black Lives Matter

That Blue Lives Matter is not in dispute. Unjust killings of police officers are met with outrage, demands for justice,

systemic support for victims' families, and an effort to decrease these incidents in the future. We honor such victims as heroes. This is as it should be. Unjust killings should never be tolerated in a civilized culture. When I hear of an officer killed in the line of duty, my reaction is sympathy and appreciation for the officer's sacrifice. Criticizing or blaming an innocent officer for her own death would be vulgar and repulsive.

That Black Lives Matter is in dispute. Black people are being shot to death while shopping, or playing in a park, or seeking assistance for a broken down vehicle. Video evidence of innocent, unarmed, black people being shot to death is somehow met by otherwise moral people with complete indifference. Worse yet, these otherwise moral people blame the victims and become enraged when black people complain.

No one believes that all or most police officers are bad apples. On the contrary, most people appreciate law enforcement. However, just as a teacher, truck driver, or bricklayer must be prosecuted for criminal behavior, so must police officers.

Like teachers, police officers receive low pay for an extremely responsible job. Unlike teachers, police officers must be prepared to manage life and death situations on a regular basis. Also unlike teachers, who must complete a Bachelor's degree and an internship to be certified, basic law enforcement training in NC requires only a HS diploma or GED and 620 hours of training. To put that in perspective, cosmetologists must complete 1500 hours of training to be licensed in NC.

Innocent American citizens are being killed by police officers on a regular basis. Instead of black people, imagine if these executions were being perpetrated against people with blue eyes. Because a 12-year-old in a park had blue eyes, police felt threatened and shot him to death. Because a stalled motorist had blue eyes, police shot him to death as he held his hands in the air. Because a father had blue eyes, police shot him to death in Walmart when he picked up a toy gun to buy for his kid's birthday.

For any moral patriot, shock and outrage should be the appropriate responses to

these events. This is not an issue that should be debated. It is an issue requiring immediate action! How could anyone think otherwise!? Accountability and increased training are obvious places to start.

Should Mental Health Be Privatized?

A well regulated free market can be a wonderful thing. At its best, regulated competition leads to fair prices and quality goods and services. However, the free market is necessarily fueled by profit. Failure to produce a profit results in a failed endeavor. The system works well as long as the goods and services in question are not negatively affected by profit as the overarching goal.

Having profit as the key goal automatically relegates more noble aspirations to minor positions. Fairness, compassion, and honesty become subsidiaries to profit in privatized services. We have all experienced firsthand situations where privatized healthcare has failed the litmus’ for fairness, compassion, and honesty.

The state of North Carolina privatized mental health services several years ago. The result? North Carolina jails are filled with indigent folks suffering from mental illness. Mental health services for the poor in North Carolina are nearly inaccessible. State-run community mental health centers have the prime goal of effective mental health services to the community, not profit. State-run facilities are not always successful (especially when underfunded), but effective treatment is at least their main objective.

At a community mental health center, if a patient fails to show for an appointment, a case worker may make a home visit to ensure treatment. In the private sector, when a patient fails to show for an appointment, follow up is much less aggressive (What happens when you miss an appointment with your family doctor?). Community mental health centers assume a good deal of responsibility to ensure their patients receive treatment. Many indigents with mental illness do not place a high priority on their own treatment. Failure to treat these folks is not just harmful to the individual, it is detrimental to society. Financial, social, emotional, and physical harm to other members of the community often results when the poor do not receive the treatment they need.  

Despite stereotypes of lazy, ineffective government workers, many services are more effectively delivered through the public sector. The US Military, Post Office, Medicare, Mental Health, FDA, and Social Security are all examples of services better managed by the public sector.

Is Donald Trump a Sociopath?

Once called sociopathy or psychopathy, the diagnostic manual for mental disorders now calls the condition "antisocial personality disorder." To receive the diagnosis, one must exhibit 3 of the 6 criteria listed below. Is Donald Trump a sociopath?

	1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest   Donald Trump has paid out millions to settle thousands of legal charges including sexual assault, racial discrimination, mafia ties, fraud, tenant intimidation, employing illegal immigrants, marital rape, antitrust violations, refusal to pay workers and contractors.
	2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure As of this date, Politifact lists 27pages of documented lies by Donald Trump since entering the political arena
	3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead 63% of Americans consider Trump to be too impulsive in his decision making. NATO reworked its discussion format to compensate for Trump’s unusually short attention span.
	4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults According to Barbara Res, who in the early 1980s served as vice president in charge of construction of Trump Tower in Manhattan, the emotional core around which Donald Trump’s personality constellates is anger: “As far as the anger is concerned, that’s real for sure. He’s not faking it,”…  “The fact that he gets mad, that’s his personality.”
	5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others Trump has called for violence against those who protest him at rallies, refused aid to hurricane victims, and failed to denounce terrorist hate groups when they murdered a woman in Charlottesville.
	6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations Trump has filed for bankruptcy 4 times. There have been over 3500 lawsuits against him. Many of those were for failure to pay contractors, workers, and material providers.
	7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another. Trump famously fails to admit mistakes. It is impossible to feel remorse if you do not believe you have done anything wrong. Ask the people who filed those 3500 lawsuits about Donald Trump’s remorse.

Why Government should NOT be run like a Business

I think this conclusion should be a no-brainer for anyone who takes the time to think about it. What is the primary function of business? On the most basic level, the function of business is to generate profit. Profit is good and necessary for any successful business. But, profit is a motive without conscience. When profit is the guiding force, higher human motives such as patriotism, fairness, social responsibility, loyalty, honesty, generosity, and kindness become subordinate.

What is the primary function of government? The function of government is to serve the citizenry. The US Constitution articulates this purpose very eloquently: "establish Justice (fairness), ensure domestic Tranquility (peace), provide for the common defense (protection), promote the general Welfare (social responsibility), and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity (protect the rights and freedoms of current and future generations of American citizens)."

Consider a hypothetical individual, modeled after business, who is motivated by personal profit to the exclusion of all other influences. This individual would be characterized as a sociopath and government would be charged with protecting the populous from him/her.

Now, consider a hypothetical individual, modeled after government, whose dominant motivators in life are to stand up for people who are being treated unfairly, to maintain social harmony, to protect those who are in danger, to share with those who are in need, and to support the freedoms and rights of all people. This person would be characterized as a hero.

Running government like a business is not just a bad idea. It is an immoral one. Government protects society by enforcing laws and regulations that restrict individual citizens and businesses from engaging in behaviors that harm others. This must be accomplished while ensuring that the liberties of each individual are protected and that there is a level playing field for the free market. 

This is not rocket science. When one’s moral compass is not compromised by base motives (greed, bigotry, selfishness, arrogance, clannishness, indifference to the suffering of others, cruelty, etc.), direction becomes clear and obvious. 

Why You Can't Always Trust Your "Gut Feelings?"

A “gut feeling” is an automatic, cognitive, short-cut that provides a crude, organic, meta-analysis of the culmination of one’s entire life experience relating to a given concept.

Life experiences are three-fold. First, they involve sensations. Real and/or imagined sensory stimulation from the environment such as light, sound, fragrance, texture, etc. Second, experiences require cognitions and perceptions. These are your thoughts about the sensory stimuli. Your eyes and brain may sense a light, and then your mind interprets, “Oh, the car in front of me just put on the brakes.” Third, experiences are bathed in varying levels of emotion. So, the car in front of you suddenly hits the brakes and you feel a quick twinge of fear that you may rear end the other car. Emotions are the body’s security system. They evolved as a mechanism to aid us in survival. Emotions warn us of danger and reward us for behaviors that have historically resulted in increased odds for survival of the species.

In the course of a lifetime, you have countless experiences covering innumerable concepts. Some of these experiences are available to the conscious mind, but most are not. It would be impossible to function if you had to process your lifetime of experiences every time you had to answer a question or make a decision. So, the mind provides a shortcut called the “gut feeling.”

If I ask, “Do you like raisins?” the answer will lie in an overview of every life experience you have ever had with the concept called, “raisin.”

…raisins are dehydrated grapes
…the dancing California Raisins
…raisin bran cereal
…raisins look like flies
…raisins are high in antioxidants
…as a kid, I threw up after eating a box of raisins
…raisins are sweet
…raisins have a funny texture
…I got raisins in my lunchbox when I was in grade school
…raisins smell bad
…and on and on and on and on

But, since filtering through these millions of experiences would be impossible and impractical, your mind makes a snapshot using the most dominant, overshadowing emotion related to the concept called, “raisin.” This provides your gut feeling and your answer… “No, raisins are gross.”

The gut feeling is necessary to navigate the complex terrain of human life. Without it, we would be paralyzed. However, it is also the fundamental cognitive error that interferes with human advancement. Our nature, like all animals, is to accept gut feelings as “truth.” If I approach a squirrel with the intention of giving it a walnut, the squirrel’s gut feeling may be that I am a threat, so the squirrel runs away. The truth is that I intended to help the squirrel by giving it food. Gut feelings are not truth. Truth is based in fact and possesses objective validity.

So, if I am interested in finding "truth," then I must understand that my gut feeling is an extremely fallible resource completely dependent on my very limited and unique fund of life experiences. To find “truth,“ I must test my gut feeling against objective litmus’ like logic, mathematics, physical properties, etc. The gut feeling is a necessary place to start, but it can be a foolish place to end.

The ability to override “gut feelings” is the characteristic that enables the human to operate beyond the confines of biological and environmental programming. Every animal on the planet is a slave to gut feelings. Throughout the majority of human history, we have operated exactly like every other species in this respect. However, the advent of logic, mathematics, and the scientific method has provided a means for humans to break the bonds of our animal nature and rise above superstition and intuition. It is a tragedy that so few take advantage of this magnificent opportunity.

The Difference between Feeling True and Being True

In her book, Being Wrong, Kathryn Schultz explains that being wrong feels exactly like being right! It is our nature to assume that the knowledge we possess is correct. Our level of certainty tends to remain constant regardless of whether we are actually right, or if we just mistakenly think that we are right. We enjoy an ongoing sense of rightness until the very moment we are proven wrong. 

In teaching General Psychology, I found that each chapter we cover carries the underlying message that, as humans, we are nearly always wrong about nearly everything. Our memories are erroneous. Our sensory perceptions are flawed. We are unable to conceptualize large numbers and great spans of time. We are easily fooled by appeals to emotion. Our innate tendency to make sweeping generalizations based on tiny bits of information creates an environment of near-chronic wrongness.

Despite chronic wrongness, it is natural for us to trust our feelings, our thoughts, and our perceptions. Navigating human life would otherwise be impossible. Our sense of rightness enables us to make decisions and take necessary actions. It is an unfortunate side-effect of living in this bubble of pleasant certainty that we experience shame when proven wrong. We stubbornly resist opportunities to improve on the accuracy of our respective funds of knowledge, because being proven wrong is so unpleasant. We are mortified as the false perception, “if I am proven wrong, then I am made a fool,” emerges. Evidence abounds to suggest that the accurate interpretation should be, “if I am proven wrong, then I am learning, developing and improving.”

• Make friends with being proven wrong. The moment you understand that being proven wrong is necessary to becoming a better you, a world of opportunity materializes. As Dudley Field Malone said, “I never in my life learned anything from a man who agreed with me.”
• Be a skeptic. Skeptics are not the same as pessimists. Pessimists are characterized by feelings of negativity and hopelessness. Skeptics are simply people who require evidence before believing a piece of information. Being skeptical is the opposite of being gullible. 
• Don’t be fooled by emotionally persuasive manipulations. Arguments that are supported by appeals to tradition, popular opinion, common sense, weak analogies, attacks on character, and false generalizations all exploit the human tendency to trust gut feelings and emotional responses.
• Learn to identify actual evidence. Very often, actual evidence will conflict with gut feelings and emotional responses. True evidence is measurable and empirical. I may feel that this was the hottest summer ever. However, if measurable data indicates otherwise, I must trust the empirical evidence over my feelings.

So, if I am interested in finding the truth, then I must understand that, while gut feelings are useful, they are an extremely fallible resource. I must continuously test my gut feelings against objective litmuses like logic, mathematics, research results, and physical properties. I must learn to trust real evidence, especially when it conflicts with my emotional leanings. 

The ability to override gut feelings enables humans to operate beyond the confines of biological and environmental programming. Every animal on the planet is a slave to intuition. Throughout the majority of human history, we have operated exactly like every other species in this respect. However, logic, mathematics and the scientific method provide a means for humans to break the bonds of primitive thought processes. Determining the difference between feeling true and being true is the mechanism for transformation.

Are You an American Patriot, or an American Nationalist?

In his book, Capture the flag: a political history of American patriotism, Woden Teachout distinguishes American patriotism from American nationalism.[1] American nationalism requires love and support for our country. I relate nationalism to the commitment one feels for a favorite sports team. Regardless of who is playing on the team, who is coaching the team, who owns the team, and how well the team is doing this season, the fan proclaims, “My team is the best!” Likewise, regardless of the foreign policies of this country, domestic policies of this country, and data on how this country ranks in the world on myriad issues, the nationalist proclaims, “America is the best!” Nationalistic flag waving support for any and all military actions initiated by the US very much resembles a sports fan rooting for his/her favorite team. The mantra of the American nationalist is, “AMERICA, LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!”

Conversely, the focus of American patriotism is love and support for the ideals of our country. The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution articulate these values:

·         Popular Sovereignty: The people are the ultimate source of the authority for the government. It derives its right to govern from their consent.

·         Majority Rule and Minority Rights: While decisions are ultimately made by the majority, these decisions may not infringe on the rights of the minority

·         Limited Government: The powers of government are limited by law and kept in check through separated and shared powers, due process of law, and leadership succession through elections

·         Basic Rights: Life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.[2]

There is a significant correlation (.78) between the nature of legislation passed in the US and the desires of the economic elites in America.[4] There is a near zero correlation (.03) between the nature of legislation passed in the US and the desires of the average citizen in America.[5] These statistics demonstrate that popular sovereignty does not currently exist in the US! The American patriot is outraged by such information that cuts to the heart of our democracy. The nationalist may shrug it off as, “just politics.”

American patriots ensure that minority rights are protected. The Constitution is very clear on this point. However, disregard for the rights of minorities are in the news every day. African Americans represent 13.2%[6] of the US population, but are arrested at a rate “10 times higher than people who are not black.”[7] Unfairness to any minority group is repugnant to a patriot, but may be seen as trivial or even "getting what they deserve" to the nationalist.

American patriots support the separation and limitations of power in government. Laws like Citizens United nullify the checks and balances put into place by the framers of the Constitution to ensure that power is never in the hands of a privileged few. When the economic elite fund politicians from both sides of the isle at all levels of government, there is no longer any real separation of power. Any process that undermines our democracy will outrage a patriot. Nationalists, however, will continue to wave the flag and shout, “We’re the best!”

American patriots support the natural rights of everyone everywhere to live freely and pursue their own happiness. Freedom is a fragile and complex notion. Initially, a capitalistic, free-market economy is a healthy environment to foster freedom. However, anyone who has played the game Monopoly knows that it always ends the same way. One player will own everything while the other players have nothing. Monopoly is an unrestrained capitalist, free-market economy. In the real world, if a society wishes to preserve freedom, capitalism must have checks and balances that continuously even the playing field. Regulations on banking, Wall Street, and others at the top of the food chain protect liberty and freedom for the average citizen.

American patriotism, by its very nature, prohibits nationalism. A true American patriot holds government accountable to the people. The Iraq War, which ultimately killed between 144,745 and 166,468 civilians and orphaned over half of Iraq’s children, was initiated despite the CIA’s “best Intelligence” indicating Saddam Hussein did NOT have weapons of mass destruction.[3]  A war precipitated by ignoble motivations is tantamount to mass murder and should be repellant to a real American patriot.

The fundamental values outlined in the Constitution are forever in the hearts of American patriots. American liberals and American conservatives should also be American patriots. Nationalists wrapped in the American flag, who claim patriotism, need to be outed for what they really are.

---

[1]  Teachout, Woden (2009). Capture the flag: a political history of American patriotism. New York, New York, USA: Basic Books. p. 230. 

[2] "CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY." CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

[3] Taylor, Peter. "Iraq War: The Greatest Intelligence Failure in Living Memory." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

[4] Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin I. Page. "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest

Groups, and Average Citizens." Perspect. Polit. Perspectives on Politics 12.03 (2014): 564-81. Web.

[5] Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin I. Page. "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest

Groups, and Average Citizens." Perspect. Polit. Perspectives on Politics 12.03 (2014): 564-81. Web.

[6] "USA QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau." USA QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

[7] Heath, Brad. "Racial Gap in U.S. Arrest Rates: 'Staggering Disparity'" USA Today. Gannett, 19 Nov. 2014. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

Why bad critical thinkers believe they are good critical thinkers

"When you are dead you don’t know it, but it is difficult for the people around you. Same as when you haven’t developed critical thinking skills."

I ripped off and modified this quote from an internet meme. Unfortunately, it relates a fundamental truth. Good critical thinkers know that they are good critical thinkers, because critical thinking requires training. It is an internal battle between the instinctual pull of human egocentrism and a disciplined commitment to evidence and logic. Non-critical thinkers don’t realize it, because they don’t really understand what the term “critical thinking” means. This lack of insight is itself a demonstration of egocentrism. 

Dictionary.com defines critical thinking as, “disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence.”[1] This means that when evidence and logic conflict with what you believe, you change your position. Believing doesn’t make a piece of information true. Neither belief, faith, intuition, gut feelings, nor common sense can be used to validate the accuracy of a piece of information.

For instance, if I believe that the United States is the best country in the world, but I have never lived anywhere else and I have not researched the data on what constitutes the “best” country, then my belief is unfounded. It is based on feelings rather than evidence. “I love my country,” is a statement of feeling and requires no evidence. 

No matter how badly I may “want” a piece of information to be true, no matter how powerfully a piece of information “feels” true, no matter how many other people I respect “believe” a piece of information is true, critical thinking requires the maturity to rise above my own ego needs and reject information that is not supported by evidence and logic. 

The scientific method is critical thought in action. It is a mechanism for factoring out emotion driven human bias. The results of the scientific method are nothing less than every benefit of modern life from space ships, to medicine, to the electronic device you are currently using, to nearly every object in your current field of vision! Prior to the advent of the scientific method, our natural tendencies towards preconception and superstition were the primary stumbling blocks to the advancement of our species.[2][3] Human nature evolved to help us survive in the natural environment. Traits that are adaptive in a primitive culture can be quite maladaptive in a modern culture. As a result, many aspects of human nature hinder progress.

Reliance on gut feelings is natural. Every primitive animal on the planet operates on gut feelings.

Overriding gut feelings in favor of critical evaluation does not come naturally to any species. It requires ongoing diligent work and self-discipline. The difference between the skilled critical thinker and the average thinker is as dramatic as the difference between the physique of a professional bodybuilder and that of the average couch potato.

                                                                                          

---

[1] Open Source. (2014 ). Critical Thinking. Available: http://www.reference.com/browse/critical+thinking?s=t. Last accessed 28th May 2014.

[2] Harris, William. "How the Scientific Method Works." HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks.com, 14 Jan. 2008. Web. 09 June 2014.

[3] Killeen, P. R. "Superstition: A Matter of Bias, Not Detectability." Science199.4324 (1978): 88-90. Web.

Guns, Mass Shootings, Evidence, and Opinions

In the wake of repeated mass shootings and the predictable subsequent media debates arguing simple solutions to a very complex problem, I did some research to find what the empirical evidence on the issue would reveal. My personal bias prior to the research might be categorized as a pro-gun liberal. I would support reasonable gun regulations such as background checks and a ban on assault weapons, but I firmly stand behind the Second Amendment.

The American Sociological Association (ASA) summarizes a study conducted by Adam Lankford.[1] Lankford provides a quantitative assessment of all mass shootings worldwide (171 countries) from 1966 through 2012. Omitting gang-related, hostage-taking, robberies and domestic shootings, the study borrows the FBI definition of mass shooting: a shooting that killed more than 4 victims. (ASA)

Lankford found that, unlike shooters from other countries, American mass shooters were more likely to strike in schools, factories, warehouses, and office buildings. American shooters were also more likely to use multiple weapons. (ASA) Lankford also found a strong correlation between civilian firearm ownership rate of a country and that country’s mass shooting rate. The top 5 countries for firearms owned by civilian population were also in the top 15 countries for mass shootings within that population. Lankford cites gun ownership rates as the best predictor of mass shootings. (ASA)

In an interview with Science of Us, award winning sociologist, Abraham De Swann, cites three qualities that make an individual more likely to commit mass murder:

1.   Their sense of conscience is limited to friends and family (low morality with regards to minorities and the less fortunate in society).

2.   They are low on self-efficacy. That is, they don’t feel particularly responsible for their lives. Life happens to them. Others are to blame for their problems (fate, God, luck, destiny, minorities, people who are different).

3.   They have very little empathy for people outside of their social circle ("If it doesn't affect me or mine, then they deserve what they get").[2]

Stanley Milgram’s famous obedience experiment and Phillip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment, provide evidence that heinous behaviors do not manifest in a vacuum, but result from complex interactions between an individual and his/her social environment.[3] America is ranked number one in mass shootings. In a list ranking the top 5 countries for incidents of mass shootings, America is followed by the Philippines, Russia, Yemen, and France.(ASA) How does the social environment in America contribute to our having nearly twice as many mass shootings as the other four countries on this list combined?

Frederike Sommer et al, conducted a “systematic search” of the professional literature on school shootings which included 35 international primary studies.[4] While there was no single factor that was present in all school shootings, certain factors did emerge as strong predictors. The following is a breakdown of frequent and infrequent qualities in perpetrators of mass shooting:

·       88.1% social conflict within the school

·       53.7% peer rejection           
                                         

·       43.3% conflicts with teachers                                            

·       29.9% victim of bullying:                                                  

·       29.9% romantic rejection                                                 

I love westerns, biker flicks, and gangster movies. I like guns, and swords, and other dangerous toys. Courage, strength, violence, and heroes are concepts that resonate with my inner 7^th grader. A thirst for adventure is the emotional element that draws me to dangerous themes.

That said, while I own guns, I have never carried one or even considered it. Why would I? If tears say, “I am sad,” and punching a wall says, “I am angry,” then carrying a gun says, “I am scared.” And, I am not scared.

Only a terrified person would need to have a firearm on his person at all times. Some situations warrant such fear. If one is in combat, law enforcement, a violent street gang, or any position where one might reasonably expect to be the target of some else’s firearm, then carrying a weapon is sensible. But, what level of paranoia and anxiety would be required to prompt a person living in ordinary circumstances to believe that, at any moment, someone might try to kill him? If life itself is so frightening that one feels the need to carry a firearm everywhere, I interpret that as evidence of a level of anxiety bordering on delusional. And, if I’m not mistaken, an absence of psychiatric problems is a prerequisite for obtaining a concealed weapon permit.

I have been fortunate in my life. At 55, I have resolved every conflict through conversation or an ass whipping. Whether I am at a motorcycle rally or in a bad part of town late at night, I move through life without fear of my fellow man.  I’m not saying that I am against guys carrying firearms, only that those who do are also carrying more fear than I can muster. 

The odds of my dying in a mass shooting are 1 in 12,000,000. I am 4 times more likely to die by a lightning strike! If I am ever in the unfortunate situation of being present at a mass shooting, I will try to stay alive and try to help others stay alive. Otherwise, I will continue to be a kind and generous person, rather than a well-armed one.

---

[1] "U.S. Has 5% of World's Population, But Had 31% of Its Public Mass Shooters From 1966-2012." American Sociological Association N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Oct. 2015.

[2] "An Author Explains How Mass Killings Happen." Science of Us. N.p., 04 Feb. 2015. Web. 08 Oct. 2015.

[3] Zimbardo, P. G. (1971). "The power and pathology of imprisonment", Congressional Record (Serial No. 15, 1971-10-25). Hearings before Subcommittee No. 3, of the United States House Committee on the Judiciary, Ninety-Second Congress, First Session on Corrections, Part II, Prisons, Prison Reform and Prisoner's Rights: California. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

[4] Sommer, Frederike, and Et Al. "Bullying, Romantic Rejection, and Conflicts with Teachers: The Crucial Role of Social Dynamics in the Development of School Shootings – A Systematic Review."International Journal of Developmental Science 8 (n.d.): 3-24. 12 Oct. 2015. Web.