I’m Smarter than Them

Posted on January 22, 2016 by Tom Liberman

I just added a blog to my Stupid Comment of the Week collection and, while discussing it with my co-worker Joe, found his observation to be extraordinarily intriguing. His thought essential involved the idea of perceived intelligence. Let me explain.

The original stupid comment involved a mathematical equation involving prime numbers but it is the implications of that comment that intrigue me.

The commenter got themselves involved in a complex mathematical discussion in which they felt their ideas would easily trump that of the established mathematic community. Their idea was nonsensical and well-worthy of inclusion in my Stupid Comment of the Week blog but it was the idea behind it, that Joe so ably pointed out, that I find so interesting.

Why would someone, without much thought or hesitation, enter into a complex mathematical discussion? I think there was a time when the sciences, as a whole, were respected and admired by the population. But in the last few years we’ve seen a stark politicization of science. When the science agrees with my political philosophy I respect it but when it does not I ridicule it. This attitude has filtered down to the average person so much so that they think they know better than scientists.

That is clearly what drove the comment in question. Anyone who had respect for the all but unfathomable nature of higher mathematics, which I do, would never so much as dare enter into an opinion that countered the established thought. At least not without considerable research. Yet the fellow in question, one assumes without hesitation, had the absolute arrogance to assume a greater knowledge than those who spent countless hours in study. The fellow in question did not hesitate to assume that their ten seconds of thought, if that, could simply and easily dispose of astonishing intelligence and hard work.

What does this tell us? That the average citizen believes they are smarter than those who work, who study, who spend hours in deep discussions with colleagues, who are clearly of superior intelligence? That the average, or below average, person thinks they know more than she or he who has spent a lifetime studying and learning?

It is a disturbing thought. If the average person believes they are smarter than the intellectual giants; what does it tell us about where the United States of America is heading?

I think this is a question well worth examining and I find I do not like the answer.

If the average person does not respect, does not admire, does not even so much as admit that the intellectual elite are in fact, elite, where is our nation headed?

The only answer I can come up with is that we are headed for obscurity. The United States will become an afterthought in the world. A has-been. A once great fallen into laughable disrepair.

I hope this is not the case but evidence is growing.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Netflix and the Ridiculous 6

Posted on January 8, 2016 by Tom Liberman

The-Ridiculous-6 There’s an interesting story from the entertainment industry about an Adam Sandler movie called The Ridiculous 6.

It’s not an earth shaking story by any means but I do think it gives us an interesting insight into the nature of capitalism and the creativity with which people use statistics.

First a little background. Netflix entered into a contract with Sandler to produce four films for exclusive distribution on the Netflix network. It’s a nice way for companies like Netflix to have exclusive content but that’s not the gist of my blog today.

The Ridiculous 6 was roundly criticized as a poor movie by both critics and audiences. Rotten Tomato accumulates critiques from both professionals and regular movie watchers.

Now comes the story I referenced in the first sentence of this post. The Chief Operating Officer of Netflix, Ted Sarandos, announced that the movie has been viewed by more people in the first thirty days than any other Netflix movie. This statistic would seem to bely the many poor reviews for the film. If that many people are watching, it can’t be all that bad. At least that’s a relatively logical conclusion. That’s exactly the conclusion that Sarandos and Netflix would like you to have.

I have not seen the movie and I can’t say whether it is as awful as critics have described or if it’s not all that bad. But when I read that statistic my mind began to whirl. “Tom,” I said to myself. “That’s an odd statistic to put out there. 30 days. Most viewed. I wonder if there’s something going on that needs investigation.”

Okay, I didn’t really say that to myself, my thought process was more like, “Ding, Ding, bullshit alert going off, check it out you sexy beast!”

So I rushed home after the gym, put a kettle on to boil, put on my jammies, sat down in front of the computer, and got to work!

Here’s the deal. Netflix has banners all over its site promoting the movie and when you click one of them movie starts automatically. This counts as a view. In addition the Netflix Streaming Catalog is significantly smaller than their DVD catalog. Many of the biggest blockbusters are not available for streaming. So the competition is somewhat diminished when comparing the first 30 days of release.

I’m certain that Sarandos is telling the truth but I’m equally certain that this truth doesn’t tell the entire story and many people might easily come to erroneous, but reasonable, conclusions.

There’s nothing wrong with any of this. Netflix has every right to promote their original content as they desire and count views how they want. They are in a business and want to make money. As long as they don’t lie, more power to them.

Anyone who is “tricked” into watching the movie can turn it off at any time. Even someone who spends $10 to sign up for Netflix simply to watch the movie isn’t really out a significant amount of money. Let the buyer beware. The reviews are out there and anyone who claims they didn’t know it was supposed to be awful has only themselves to blame.

My only point here is that people should always take time for a critical examination when someone tells them something that sounds a little too good to be true. Statistics can be manipulated.

And that, my friends, is that. Catch you next time!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Great Pyramid of Giza and Critical Thinking

Posted on November 8, 2015 by Tom Liberman

The pyramids of Egypt are in the news lately for a couple of reasons and it gives me the opportunity to discuss the nature of critical thinking. Of course I’ll take it!

The first story involves a new chamber being found in the tomb of Tutankahmun.

The second story involves presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson’s assertion that the Great Pyramid of Giza was built as a grain silo.

Another group of stories involves how it is impossible for the pyramids to have been built with the technology of the time. I addressed this issue in another blog so I’ll leave it alone today.

Finally is the twenty year timeline for building the pyramids themselves which is based upon certain assumptions.

The first story proudly declares that a new, hidden region was found in the burial chamber of Tutankahmun.

When I finally got around to reading the story I discovered that no such new chamber has been found at all. What they do is scan the region for temperature. An area where the temperature is slightly cooler might indicate a draft from a room. It could also indicate some damage to the structure that is letting in air. No one has gone into these areas because to do so would potential destroy them. It’s a lot of speculation and, frankly, I’m not convinced. It seems more likely to me that the cool areas are caused by structural flaws than hidden chambers, particularly because any number of these were found in the analysis.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there are many hidden passages in the burial region. It just seems to me that it’s best to go with the most logical explanation before leaping to the most sensational conclusion. That’s critical thinking.

This, naturally, leads me to the rather bizarre assertion by Carson that the Great Pyramid of Giza was a grain silo. I’ve included a diagram of the pyramid to illustrate why this conclusion is so unlikely. The grain silo explanation has to do with a biblical story about Joseph warning Pharoah (Genesis 41 ESV) that seven good years would be followed by seven lean years and thus grain should be stored away.

What is called the main shaft of the pyramid, which leads to the burial chambers, is basically equivalent in dimensions to a silo. However, building a grain silo of those dimensions would have been trivial to the people that built the Great Pyramid. One look at the diagram above makes it obvious that it was not designed to store grain. Only someone who desperately wanted to come to the grain silo conclusion could possibly think otherwise. This is called a Cherry Picking fallacy. From what I’ve seen of Carson this fallacy seems to largely determine his entire thought process.

Finally, as to the twenty year time scale on the Great Pyramid of Giza. This is based on three facts.

Workers left a mark in an interior chamber with their name on it and the name of Pharaoh Khufu.
Khufu reigned for 23 years. This is disputed.
The mummification process took some 70 days to complete.

From these three facts Egyptologists assume Khufu started the Great Pyramid upon ascending to the throne and that the completion of the pyramid coincided with his death.

I find these conclusion dubious. Khufu could have died long before the Great Pyramid was completed and been stored away until then. His reign could have been much longer than twenty years, some sources put it at over sixty.

The most logical conclusion I can draw is that some other Pharaoh started the pyramid but it was finished during Khufu’s reign and he simply usurped its use for himself.

Do we know for certain? No. But why not go with the most apparent conclusion first? Why leap to an unlikely scenario?

Tell me where my critical thinking skills have failed me in the comments!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Why am I Offended by Stupidity?

Posted on October 30, 2015 by Tom Liberman

During a break my co-worker showed me a hilarious YouTube site called Bad Lip Reading which is exactly what you would expect it to be. With the political season upon us we watched a few videos of the various debates which, most naturally, led to a discussion about people who insist upon opinions that are demonstrable false.

My co-worker mentioned that it was ridiculous to be offended by someone else’s false statement, by their insistence upon stupidity. Why would someone else being stupid offend me? It has no effect on me, it is no reflection of my own intelligence, it harms me not, and yet it bothers me. I often find myself unable to restrain myself in attempting to dissuade people from illogical and obviously wrong positions.

Why? I ask, why does it bother me so.

It is the mere existence of such illogical thought?

Is allowing stupidity to pass without saying something a reflection upon my own intelligence?

The majority of my blog posts are engendered by someone taking a position I find absurd. Such stupidity inspires me. It raises me up and the words flow, sometimes rather too caustically than the situation warrants.

The fact that I am bothered, yes offended, by stupidity is undeniable, as is my co-worker’s assertion that it is just as stupid for me feel so.

I’ve been thinking on the subject since that conversation. I had a good workout which often clears my mind. I watched an episode of the excellent although a bit sappy National Parks Exploration series on Hulu which is good entertainment for pondering difficult questions. I’ve written the above words rather slowly, pausing to think again on why I am so bothered by stupidity, by wrongness in others.

Is it my nature? Is it an inexorable feature of my genetic makeup (thanks, mom)? Was it my older sister’s insistence on pointing out most painfully my every mistake? A combination of these things?

I’m still pondering.

I don’t know. I just don’t know why it bothers me so.

But I do know one thing and of this I’m certain. My hatred of wrongness, my love of logic and critical thinking, despite all the problems in the course of my life these traits have brought upon me, and these troubles are not inconsiderable, it has served me well.

I insist on truth arrived at by precise and logical examination. I am not happy when such is not in evidence. Perhaps I could be happier if I did not so demand, perhaps my life would have been easier, perhaps I would have more friends, more loves, I cannot say for what is, is. What is not, is not.

I wouldn’t have it any other way, not that I could.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Free Association vs Free Assocation

Posted on October 14, 2015 by Tom Liberman

I just became aware the Supreme Court recently decided an absolutely fascinating case, Christian Fellowship v. Leo P. Martinez et al.

The decision is a rather long read and I admit freely that I haven’t perused the entire thing as of yet. Also, my complete lack of legal training makes those documents tough for me anyway. I’ll try to summarize but anyone who has a better handle on the situation please feel free to clarify.

The University of California Hastings College of Law has a rule about student organizations it is willing to recognize. Such organizations are granted certain privileges at the college including meeting rooms. The rule is that they must accept anyone who applies, even someone whose stated views seem to be at odds with the group.

The group in question is the Christian Fellowship at Hastings. They forbid anyone who engages in premarital sex, among other things, from becoming a member. This was a clear violation of Hastings rule that to be recognized they must be willing to accept anyone who wants to join. The case went to the Supreme Court.

What I find insanely interesting about the case is that it is largely an argument about Free Association. The college wants to associate only with student groups who allow anyone to join and say they can exclude those who don’t. The Fellowship wants to associate with only people they want and feel free to exclude those who do meet their standards!

Both sides are essentially arguing the same point!

If you say the college must allow everyone regardless of their rules, it seems to me you can only say the Fellowship must allow everyone as well! If the college can exclude based on a rule then shouldn’t the Fellowship likewise be able to exclude?

Kaboom!

What do you do with that one?

As I said, the ruling goes on for pages and pages but talk about a tough one!

There are times I’m glad I’m not a Supreme Court Justice!

I honestly don’t know what to think. Talk about the Kobayashi Maru!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Love it or Leave It – What it Really Means

Posted on June 8, 2015 by Tom Liberman

I was invited on a fishing trip this past weekend with a great bunch of fellows. I had an excellent time fishing (not much catching), eating, and playing a little cards and one night as we sat around one of the fellows uttered the phrase about Loving or Leaving your Country.

I was a guest and a newcomer so I didn’t say anything and the conversation did not persist. I was thinking about that statement as the night went on and the next day. I don’t like it for a number of reasons. Up until today I always argued that the Constitution of the United States is very clear that dissent is welcome. We have a number Articles and Amendments in the aforementioned document that state unequivocally that people are allowed to criticize their country, to even hate it, and express those opinions freely and without threat of arrest much less deportation.

I don’t disavow those thoughts and I think they are valid but I suddenly realized why the statement that you should love your country or leave it is so wrong.

How do we define who loves their country? That’s the question. And the answer tells us why the statement is so very wrong.

Is it someone who never criticizes their country? Then no one loves their country for we all have our complaints. Is it someone who proclaims they love their country? Then it has no meaning because anyone can say such a thing.

The reality is quite simple.

Anyone who disagrees with me about the policies of this country must not love it. Conversely, anyone who agrees with me is a patriot who loves their country.

What I’m really saying when I say love it or leave it is: Agree with me or go away, your opinion is not valid.

That statement shows a stupendous level of conceit and ego. I’m right, you’re wrong. I want anyone who doesn’t agree with me to pack up and leave the country. I want all votes to be unanimous in line with my opinion. I tolerate no dissent. I want total control.

Love it Leave it? Hardly.

Tom Liberman

Goodbye Mr. Spock

Posted on February 28, 2015 by Tom Liberman

It’s a sad day for me. Leonard Nimoy passed away and with him, to some degree, Mr. Spock.

The reality is that Mr. Spock is not dead for the simple fact that he was never alive. He was simply a character played by Mr. Nimoy who spoke lines and acted from scripts. Yet here I am saying farewell anyway. It is difficult to separate Mr. Spock from Mr. Nimoy. It is not difficult to do the reverse. Mr. Nimoy went on with his own life and accomplished many things.

Mr. Spock may not be dead but my heart is heavy nevertheless. Mr. Spock is now played by Zachary Quinto in the new Star Trek movies. I wish Quinto well, certainly his bravery at taking on such an iconic role is to be admired. That being said, I think I am not alone in thinking of Mr. Spock as the embodiment of the acting talents of Mr. Nimoy.

I watched Star Trek in the reruns in the early 1970’s and he was far and away my favorite character. I myself might well be what they call today a high functioning autistic. The definition is thus:

The manifestations of autism cover a wide spectrum, ranging from individuals with severe impairments—who may be silent, developmentally disabled, and locked into hand flapping and rocking—to high functioning individuals who may have active but distinctly odd social approaches, narrowly focused interests, and verbose, pedantic communication.

Whatever my condition may or may not be there is no doubt that Mr. Spock inspired me. His insistence on logic when those around him were aroused by their passions touched something inside me even in my juvenile years. I loved Mr. Spock. I was furious during the episodes where he was infected by something or another and forced to act illogically or to, horrors of horrors, kiss Nurse Chapel!

I loved his habit of coolly calculating the odds in dangerous situation. I loved his search for the best possible solution to every problem regardless of other factors. He was my hero.

I did not always agree with his logical conclusions. I do not think the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I like to think Mr. Spock would have approved of my disapproval. He was that sort of man … er … Vulcan … er … fictional character.

I’ll finish this post with my favorite Mr. Spock quote of all time. It is certainly not his most famous line but for me it sums up everything. In the heat of battle, in a moment of crisis and emotion, he kept his cool and gave us his logical perspective on the tactical prowess of Khan Noonien Singh.

Captain Kirk was lucky to have such a friend.

Live long and prosper.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition

1984 or Men Like Gods?

Posted on February 23, 2015 by Tom Liberman

Utopia or Dystopia? That is the question.

I was skimming through various news headlines, as is my daily habit, and felt a familiar sense of bemusement as I noted story after story that seemed to have little relationship with the truth. We now live in a time where information is more freely available than it has ever been. Communication of ideas cannot be suppressed but it can also be channeled in a way never before known in human history.

More people can think and learn independently and at the same time more people can be directly influenced by a set upon story decided by a few people in power. A single narrative broadcast through various outlets and repeated endlessly as truth both loudly and with conviction.

I think this duality brings us, at this moment, closer to both Utopia and Dystopia than ever before.

So the question is whether we are heading toward Men Like Gods or Nineteen Eighty-Four?

Will we grow into a society which believes in privacy, free movement, unlimited knowledge, truthfulness, and free discussion and criticism?

Will fear of such a society inspire those who desire control to create a world of tyranny?

Generally I’m pretty optimistic about this subject. I think people will embrace freedom and those who wish to impose tyranny will never be able to convince the masses otherwise. Still, as I peruse article after article that spouts nonsensical ideas. As I read statements that lack any factual basis from men and women whom I consider to be intelligent; I begin to wonder.

Is it a race? Will one emerge victorious and the other fall by the wayside or is it our lot in life to vacillate between the two ideologies? I do not offer any conclusive answers. These are difficult questions and perhaps they will never be satisfactorily answered.

Here’s what I think.

As individual freedom spreads so also will fear of freedom. I think it is a race. As I, and those like me, demand more privacy and less government those that want to control us will redouble their efforts to suppress us. They will gather their forces and unify their Talking Points. They will promise safety and promulgate fear. Many people will believe anything they are told if it is said often enough and with absolute conviction. Truth can be overcome and lies can win. There is a terrible danger.

Evil might triumph.

Think for yourself. Don’t believe a statement because it matches your ideology. Question. Be skeptical. Demand logic and proof. Examine evidence with an open mind. Go where the facts lead, not where you heart wills.

If enough people can fight and win that difficult battle, I’m confident Utopia awaits.

See you there!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition

Game Theory – Fortune and Glory Board Game

Posted on February 21, 2015 by Tom Liberman

Last night was game night and we played Fortune and Glory from Flying Frog. The main reason I mention this is not that my glorious victory erased the memory of my ignominious defeat at Illuminati but that we had a fascinating moment in what is often called Game Theory.

I know many people aren’t much interested in board or role-playing games but I think what I’m going to talk about today is something you should be interested in regardless of your gaming habits. Game Theory largely involves decision making while playing games but has tremendous application when it comes to real life as well.

Understanding not only statistical odds but also the many other factors that go into a successful endeavor is a study that everyone should understand. I was never taught game theory while growing up and I’m certain that I am the worse for it. I’m of the opinion that Game Theory should be mandatory education at a primary level of schooling and continuing through secondary and advanced education. That being said I’m not going to go too deeply into the topic. I just want to explain what happened last night and how it was I emerged victorious. I think it is instructive in a number of ways.

In the game Fortune and Glory you move your tokens around a board that is made up the world. The goal is to collect Fortune. You do this through a number of game mechanics. In addition to collection your own Fortune you also gain various Event Cards which can be used to help you or hinder your opponents. This is very important.

Back to the game. Two of my opponents were playing quite well and getting close to victory. I then began to use Game Theory. In Fortune and Glory you get the most Fortune through the accumulation and eventual sale of Relics. To get Relics you have Adventures. You must pass a series of Adventures to get the Relic. You can rest between Adventures and hold your victories or push your luck, but if you fail an Adventure you lose your accumulated successes.

In this case I used good Game Theory in pushing my luck even though my chances of success were low. I then had a series of fortuitous dice checks for which only luck gets the credit, not me.

But now comes what for me was the most interesting point of the game. There were three of us with enough Fortune to win the game but we had to rush back to our home base to claim the victory. We were all within a lucky Movement roll of victory and it came time for initiative to see who would move first in the upcoming round. It seemed clear that whomever moved first of the three of us would be victorious. The dice were rolled and my string of luck ran out, I would act last in the round.

Here is where my Game Theory failed me. I assumed all was lost. However the reality is that this “bad luck” roll actually allowed me to win the game. As the two fellows with the appropriate amount of Fortune made their final moves all of sudden my fellow competitors started to pull out various Event cards that blocked their progress in one way or another. After a flurry of activity it was suddenly my move and no one had any blocking cards left!

The path was clear and victory was mine.

While I’m happy to have won, the reality is that playing the game with a great bunch of guys made us all winners (just me a little more). The real moral of the story is to study Game Theory because it will help you make good decisions, not only across the board but in life as well. Sometimes it’s not easy to see what the best decision will be and often it is counter-intuitive.

Happy gaming!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition

Best Whiskey from Japan – Subjective or Objective

Posted on November 6, 2014 by Tom Liberman

I just read an interesting story about a whiskey tasting contest which is adjudicated by a panel from the Whiskey Bible. The winner in past contests has often been a Scotch Whiskey and usually at least one brand from Scotland makes it into the top five. That was not the case this year, and at least judging by the comments, there was some consternation over this result.

The winner is called Yamazaki Sherry Cask 2013 and it is from Japan. As I wrote about earlier, Japan’s Suntory recently purchased Jim Beam and there was a lot of tumult about a Japanese company owning such an iconic U.S. whiskey brand. I don’t really want to discuss why Japan is now producing some of the most delicious tasting whiskeys in the world and if this is a good thing or a bad thing. What I’d like to discuss is the nature of the comments below the article. I’d say about 80% argued that either there was bribery involved or that no one could tell if a whiskey was good or not because taste was subjective.

I can’t tell you if bribery was involved and certainly the whiskey that is ordained as the best tasting will certainly enjoy a large increase in sales. This would indicate the potential for financial shenanigans. I can tell you that while there is certainly a subjective view about what whiskey tastes good to you there is also, absolutely, a difference in the quality and taste of one whiskey over another. What is determined to be a good whiskey is objectively good. It is not a matter of personal taste preferences.

Let’s start with extremes. I have a bottle of urine and a bottle of Virgil’s Cream Soda. One is objectively better tasting than the other. That’s a fact. Subjectivists will argue that if they like the urine better that it is better. This is the argument of those who prefer a different brand of whiskey to that chosen as the best. If this argument is true, if best is a completely subjective idea, then there really is no such thing as best. I would even argue that there is no such thing as good and bad. Urine and Virgil’s Cream soda cannot be compared at all. I think this is nonsense. It is clear that one thing is better than another.

In a more nuanced argument, like the one between the Yamazaki whiskey and it’s competitors, the judging becomes more difficult. A panel of experts samples the various whiskeys based on certain criteria and they vote. The votes are tallied and one whiskey emerges as the best. It can certainly be argued that the panel used inaccurate judging methods. It is possible that financial incentives swayed the vote. It can even be argued that the scoring methodology was flawed. What I say cannot be argued is that this year the Yamazaki whiskey was victorious. That it is better than its competitors based on as good an objective rating system as exists. What else is there?

This same argument can be made for any food, television show, or business decision. You must weigh the various factors and make the best decision possible. If you do so then you will generally succeed in life.

It’s undeniably true that people personally prefer one brand of whiskey over another but that does not mean that particular whiskey is, in fact, better than its competitor. I reject the notion of a subjective world. This doesn’t mean I’m taking away your right to love Evan Williams over Yamazaki Sherry Cask 2013. That’s your business. I’m just telling you that the Yamazaki is better, objectively.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

How I Feel Talking to a True Believer

Posted on July 9, 2014 by Tom Liberman

I’m an atheist. I’m not a what I would call a fundamentalist atheist in that I’m not out there trying to convince every Christian, Jew, and Muslim that atheism is the only right thing to believe but I do get into conversations with religious people on occasion. I think religious freedom is extremely important to the survival of the United States and people have every right to believe what they want and every expectation that the government cannot try to influence those beliefs.

I just read an interesting article from Yahoo Finance, of all places, about Buzz Aldrin‘s supposed experience with an alien space-ship during the Apollo 11 moon landing. It was during this mission that Aldrin saw a light apparently moving in tandem with his own craft. His words on the experience have long fueled those who believe aliens are among us.

So what’s the connection between Aldrin’s supposed alien experience and my atheism? If you scroll down and read the comments on the Aldrin story you will encounter what I frequently see when discussing the existence of God with the faithful. In the article Aldrin states specifically that when debriefed by NASA after the mission both he and fellow astronauts were of the opinion the light was sunshine reflecting off just released panels. He was interviewed about the matter years later and during that interview said the same thing but the producers of the show left that out of what was later aired.

While reading the comments below the article I was struck by how often those who truly believe in aliens were willing discount Aldrin’s explanation. They believed the original quotes without their attendant explanation were his true opinion and that he was hiding something now by giving a new explanation. This, of course, defies the fact that Aldrin’s original explanation is the one that makes the most sense and is a story he has told from the beginning although it wasn’t always published.

I’m not here to discuss the merits of aliens or religion but simply the idea that it is all but impossible to convince someone that the thing they believe is false. I can present all the evidence I want for the lack of a divine being in the universe. I can trot out all the Flying Spaghetti Monster arguments that illustrate the bad logic of many religious claims. I can point out the huge gaps in logic in the Bible and other religious texts. I’m not getting anywhere with the True Believers. They have faith and you can’t argue logically with faith.

So what’s the point of my little blog? I’m speaking to those of religious faith who think the idea of aliens visiting the earth is a rather silly notion. Have you ever tried to convince a True Believer that their pet alien theory is nonsense? If you have, you know exactly what experience I have had trying to talk to people about the notion of God. I know this comes across as insulting, even demeaning but I hope that it will give those of faith some insight into what the atheists among you feel when discussing such topics.

Believe what you want, that’s not only your business but a Constitutionally guaranteed right. I’m not here to convince you you’re wrong. I’m here to tell you that I know you’re wrong. There’s a difference, however subtle.

Care to tell me that you know I’m wrong? The comment section awaits.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

Is it the Media or Our Perceptions? Eugenia Bouchard

Posted on July 6, 2014 by Tom Liberman

I used to be a huge tennis fan and played in college and high school. I remember with great fondness my many games with friends during that time. I used to follow tennis very closely but I generally only watch the major events these days. Something that is happening in the tennis world today reminded me of the power that so many attribute to the media but in reality belongs to us.

At Wimbledon a rising young star by the name of Eugenia Bouchard got a lot of publicity as she made it all the way to the final match. Bouchard is pleasing to look upon, there were a number of stories written about her, and she quickly became a darling of the media. Just like Tiger Woods this feeding frenzy of stories was not created by the supposed “media” but by the interest of fans in the stories. The more people who read the stories, the more who clicked on links, and the more who commented led to even more stories being written. Greater and greater optimism was expressed about her chances of winning Wimbledon and becoming the next “big name” in tennis.

I wasn’t really aware of all of this until I read the story about her loss in the final. Until I read the comments under the story. In the story itself Bouchard seems very reasonable. After the match, as the roof was being moved into place because of oncoming rain, she was asked to wait in the room where the engraver puts the name of the champion onto the wall. She had to watch while her opponent’s name went up. Here are the quotes:

It was a little odd. I was in the engraver’s room, so I was watching them work, wishing one day, dreaming that he’ll write my name somewhere.

Maybe it’s a bit cruel. She just told me to go in there. I didn’t ask questions. I was in there when I won the juniors. I got to go in the Royal Box, so while waiting, I waited in the engraver’s room, as well. So I had flashbacks to that time.

The comments on the story essentially brutalized Bouchard. Very nasty stuff. I was immediately puzzled because the quotes in the story didn’t match what I was reading in the comments about her “arrogant” and “spoiled” attitude. What’s up?

As I read further in the comments it became clear that most of the people writing negatives things in the story were not responding particularly to this story but their overall perception of Bouchard. They didn’t like all the stories anointing her the next queen of tennis and reveled in the heavy defeat she suffered in the final to the superior Petra Kvitova. They associated the media frenzy over Bouchard with the young woman herself. They blamed her for the plethora of stories and in their minds made her to be selfish, spoiled, and just plain evil.

It’s an interesting situation to me because I so often hear people blame “the media” for fooling people politically or favoring one side or the other side. I’m certainly not saying that there isn’t plenty of bias out there in the media but I am saying we make up our own minds about things. Whatever the media has done to promote or denigrate Bouchard, President Obama, Senator Paul, or any other public figure the reality is that we make up our own minds about them. When we come to erroneous conclusions it is not the fault of the media but our own.

If we choose to have a preconceived notion about a young tennis player and vent our anger and hate then that is what we choose to do. If that hate is completely out-of-line with the story in question then the blame should fall squarely upon our shoulders. If we cannot read the facts of the story and come to rational conclusions then we have failed a test of critical thinking. Each time we fail such a test we hazard making a poor decision. Each poor decision leads to … well you get the point.

Would that everyone was judged by their actual actions. When reading something about a public figure it’s wise to check your preconceived notions at the door. Read the story for the story. Look for biased reported. Check facts. Take the time to look for another point of view. Come to an informed conclusions. And if you still hate Bouchard then so be it. Even if you still hate Bouchard take the time to read this particularly story and her words. Just because you dislike someone in general doesn’t mean everything they say is wrong.

I know it’s easy to rely on what we want to believe. Try not to and you’ll be a better person.

Tom Liberman

Fallacy Saturday – Confirmation Bias

Posted on June 21, 2014 by Tom Liberman

I just read what appears to be a well thought out article from the Huffington Post about the decline of Olive Garden restaurants and the meaning this has for our overall economy. At first read it appears completely reasonable but it’s not. Happily it gives me the opportunity to talk about an incredibly important logical fallacy called Confirmation Bias.

The article itself looks into the declining market for Olive Garden and Red Lobster which are owned by Darden Restaurants. It then compares them to their high-end Capital Grill restaurants that saw growth in the most recent quarter. It then concludes that because the middle-class catering restaurants are seeing declining sales and the high-end restaurants are increasing this clearly means that the middle-class is suffering while the upper-class is thriving.

I’m not going to say the argument is completely false but it’s a classic example of Confirmation Bias. Yes, Olive Garden and Red Lobster have seen dramatic losses in the last few years but at the same time Fast Casual restaurants like Chipotle, Qdoba, and Panera (or St. Louis Bread Company as we call it here in St. Louis) are growing by leaps and bounds. These are clearly not high-end restaurants.

So what is Confirmation Bias? It’s the willingness to look only at facts that support your preconceived notion and either ignore or simple refuse to look at other factors that might not support your hypothesis.

It’s a very easy fallacy to fall into. When you see a post on Facebook that confirms what you believe there is the instant urge to Share and Like that post without even reading the article that is behind. This almost happened to me in regards to an article about Hospice Care that a friend posted on Facebook. When I went and actually read the article I saw that it was heavily biased.

We so badly want to believe that certain things are true that we are willing to accept any evidence that supports this point of view while ignoring those facts that seem to contradict our hoped for conclusion. This is an extremely dangerous fallacy. Just ask the brave men and women who served our country in Iraq ostensibly because they were going to stamp out the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

This fallacy is pervasive in today’s political culture where ideology trump facts. When we make important political decisions based on what we want to be true then we are doomed to making horrific mistakes.

What I’m saying is that the reason Olive Garden and Red Lobster are struggling might be because of the changes in economics for the Middle Class but there are likely other reasons as well. Certainly other Middle Class aimed restaurants are doing quite well. I’m sure there are a number of fine-dining establishments that aren’t doing very well. Can we assume the rich have less money?

The next time you hear someone make a claim that seems to support your position pause for a moment. Examine the facts from a Critical Thinking perspective. Do your homework. Think twice before Sharing that Facebook post.

The bottom line is that when we make better decisions we experience more favorable outcomes. Better decisions are driven by complete information. When we fall into the trap of fallacies we make worse decisions. When the people of a nation make bad decision after bad decision there are bound to be serious repercussions.

Tom Liberman

How the Pyramids were Built

Posted on May 1, 2014 by Tom Liberman

I saw an article this evening from LiveScience about how one of the great mysteries involving the Pyramids of Egypt was recently solved. It’s not that big a mystery, despite what you may have heard or even think yourself.

The pyramids of Egypt seem to engender a lot of mysticism based on the concept of ignorance.

Ignorance about the Pyramids

I see comments on boards all the time to the effect that modern engineers could not build a pyramid even with today’s technology. This is utter nonsense. Cranes can easily lift more weight than the pyramid stones and modern stone masonry can cut stones with much greater precision. Crawler Cranes, as one example, can lift up to 3,500 tons and the heaviest stones in the Pyramids were about 80 tons.

We Don’t Know doesn’t Mean what you think it Means

This is not what I want to talk about today. What I want to talk about today is the phrase, “We don’t know how they built them.” I hear this phrase all the time and it is often taken to mean that it was impossible for the Egyptians to build the pyramids and therefore they had to have some sort of help. An advanced civilization or aliens or some other such lunacy.

“We don’t know how they built them” does not mean that. What it means is that we have no written record of how they were built. There are any number of very reasonable theories. All of which might be partially or completely correct.

The original article I read presents a good argument that dragging the stone blocks across the desert would have been even easier than other methods suggest. It’s not particularly ground-breaking news but the comment section is filled with people absolutely married to the idea that the Egyptian Pyramids, and others around the world, could not possibly have been built by the societies that built them.

So, what does “We don’t know how they built them” actually mean? I’ll give you an example of what it means.

Do you know how I got to work this morning?

Your correct answer is, “I don’t know how Tom got to work this morning.”

However, you can make excellent guesses based on the evidence. Was my car in the parking lot? Was my car parked at home anytime last night? What did the odometer on my car this morning read compared to what it read last night?

By looking at the existing evidence and deducing how I traveled you can guess that I drove my car to work. You don’t know I drove my car to work. I might have done so but I might have hired someone to drive my car to the parking lot while I walked to work. I might have built a jet engine and wings onto my car and flown it to work. I might have been picked up by aliens, flown to Jupiter, had a breakfast burrito under the seas of Europa with an intelligent life-form called the Bortlebuts, and then used a transporter from the Enterprise back to my office.

Occam’s Razor

Which is the most likely explanation? That same logic applies to the pyramids. This same way of critical thinking is crucial to finding correct solution to problems that present themselves in everyday life.

We live in this amazing Information Age and can easily look things up and make informed decision. Why do so many people choose to eschew reality and plunge foolishly into fantasy? I just don’t understand. Believing things that are in all likelihood false is a bad habit to be in and an even worse one to teach, by example, those around you.

How do you think I got to work this morning?

Tom Liberman

A Glint of Light Equals Aliens … Why?

Posted on April 9, 2014 by Tom Liberman

There’s a news story making the rounds which I’ve been ignoring because I didn’t think I had anything interesting to add to the conversation. I’ve changed my mind.

About a week ago Curiosity took a picture on Mars in which there is a glint of light on the horizon. A picture taken a day later from the same position did not show the glint. There are a number of explanations as to what caused the glint but I’m not going to talk about the rational explanations. Nor am I going to spend much time talking about the theories that it represents aliens living underground on Mars who somehow caused the anomaly.

I want to talk about why anyone would think that a speck of a light in a picture taken on Mars might be evidence of alien life. Not whether or not the light is or isn’t such evidence, but why anyone would think that it was such proof.

Mars is a barren world with barely any atmosphere. We’ve landed any number of vessels on the planet itself and spaceships with high-resolution cameras are constantly orbiting Mars taking pictures. We first sent a robotic ship by Mars in 1965.

Earth bound telescopes have been trained on Mars since 1672 and have only gotten sharper in resolution and more available to amateurs. Radiation bombards the planet relentlessly. Water is likely present but only deep below the surface. There are no signs of a civilization on the surface, no signs of animals or plants, no chemical signatures indicating living creatures.

So why, why would anyone think that a glint of light in one picture is anything other than sunlight bouncing off a shiny rock? Or an illusion of photography? Anyone who has taken a picture with a camera on earth knows that light is a tricky fellow.

When you go to the store and a somethings inexplicably falls off a shelf nearby do you assume that it was Bigfoot lurking in the next aisle using telekinetic powers to alert you of an upcoming Supervolcanic eruption? Or do you shrug your shoulders and assume that something was perched precariously and a small vibration sent it to the ground?

What is the psychological makeup of someone who immediately leaps to the most unlikely explanation? What are they thinking? Are they thinking at all?

That’s my question. I don’t know that I have a good answer. I know that my mind always looks for the most logical explanation to any event and a thriving community of intelligent creatures living beneath the surface of Mars and pointing their flashy lights at the rover would never, ever, have crossed my mind when I saw that picture.

That being said, I think this sort of thinking is not unusual. Everyday I read about or actually experience someone who believes absolutely unlikely things in lieu of a very reasonable explanation.

I’m of the opinion that people largely believe what they want to believe over factual evidence. If a person wants there to be Martians then that person is going to grasp at every ridiculous explanation to believe Martians exist.

I ask you an important question: What would the world be like if people only believed what the evidenced suggested and threw out their preconceived notions?

It’s a world I dream about. It’s a world that I believe can exist. I’m certain people are capable of thinking rationally all the time. Of making decisions based on factual evidence.

I see a world like this in our future. When disease is eradicated, energy is abundant and cheap, the population static with food for all. Automated machines doing the work people don’t want to do. Free people living eternal lives dedicated to achievement.

The novels I write are about a Sword and Sorcery fantasy world but there are characters in that world seeking the same thing I’m seeking in this one. There are those that thwart them. You should read my books and maybe you’ll see that same world I see in my mind’s eye. That endless Utopia where humans stand astride the galaxy always striving to be better, ever better.

Do you want to live in that world?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Broken Throne
Next Release: The Black Sphere

St. Louis Assault Via Foam Dart

Posted on February 15, 2014 by Tom Liberman

It’s been a while since I’ve done a feature in my Critical Thinking Fail category but I have a winner!

Apparently my hometown is making national news with a rather ridiculous story. A young couple drove their car up to the checkout window at the drive-through of a St. Louis Lion’s Choice restaurant not with the intent of purchasing anything but so that they could shoot the attendant with a foam dart.

With the prevalence of video cameras it was all caught on tape and after investigation by the police the couple was apprehended and is now being charged with felony assault.

The Failure of Critical Thinking in this story is pretty much across the board.

Who in their right mind thinks it’s okay in this day and age to point a gun-like object at an unsuspecting person? Have you not been reading the news? The couple is lucky the attendant didn’t open fire with a real gun. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with shooting games and shooting toys. I played plenty of such games when I was a child but with people who knew we were playing. Even then I didn’t go around pointing toy guns at people who were not in the game.

Secondly, someone needs a lesson in Nerf. Nerf darts are not yellow. It’s not a big deal but can’t we at least get the story right?

Apparently the restaurant brought the police into the matter and I’m not totally opposed to their role in all of this. I think if someone is shooting anything through the drive-through window it’s not unreasonable to alert the police to the activity even if it was a harmless foam dart. Still, it seems excessive.

I don’t blame the officers in question for tracking down the fugitives. They were likely called by the restaurant and it’s their job to investigate crime. I do have an objection to charging the couple with felony assault. I suspect this a product of our zero-tolerance, no personal responsibility world. If the officer in charge of the investigation didn’t charge the couple he might have feared being accused of not doing his job. In this world he might have been reprimanded or even fired. Who knows.

What should have happened? The officer should have dragged the couple back to the Lion’s Choice, made them apologize to the worker, made them shake hands, and finally had them order a delicious roast beef sandwich. Problem solved.

This is the way we used to solve a lot of problems in this country. We don’t any more because we fear repercussions. A teacher cannot discipline a child in school for fear of being charged by the outraged parents with assault. An officer can’t walk a criminal around the block.

I’m not going to pretend there isn’t a rationale behind the zero-tolerance policies. There are teachers who physically and emotionally abuse students for their own sadistic pleasure. There are police officers look the other way for those from whom they curry favor.

My point is that these zero-tolerance policies aren’t helping. There are still individuals doing those things. The real solution is to spend the time and effort to prosecute those who are dangerously criminal in their actions. This involves giving discretion and responsibility to people in charge. To administrators, to teachers, to police officers, to judges, and many others.

If those people fail in their duties then they must be appropriately punished.

The problem is that we seem to think zero-tolerance, zero-responsibility rules will solve the problem. They won’t and they create their own issues as well. As we see in this case.

The less responsibility we give people, the less responsible they will become.

The Libertarian Ideal is a world in which the vast majority understand their actions and take responsibility for them. When there are those that do not; they must be reprimanded, educated, and often given another opportunity. This is not an easily arrived at state of affairs. It requires that everyone understand the principles of critical thinking and have the ability to apply them to their day-to-day lives and actions.

In this sort of world we wouldn’t be talking about foam dart assaults but might be focused on more important things.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

UFO Sightings from a Critical Thinking Perspective

Posted on January 4, 2014 by Tom Liberman

It seems like every few months or so there are reports of Unidentified Flying Objects in the news and that these reports are generally associated with alien visitations. There were recently such reports from multiple sources across California and in reading the comments I was struck by how many people had their own story to tell. In addition a new crop-circle has generated much interest.

The study of these various reports comes under the category of UFOlogy and a lot of people, including various governments, have spent a great deal of time and tax dollars in trying to determine the nature of these events.

Many people claim to have seen aliens or UFOs and there is no chance I will be able to change the minds of those who are convinced that alien races are visiting our planet; what I’d like to do is to make a critical examination of the general idea.

First a disclaimer. I do not think alien races are visiting our planet. I think all UFO sightings have logical, non-alien, explanations. Most of them have to do with the limitations of human vision and the plethora of natural events that can fool our eyes.

For the sake of argument, let us suppose there are alien races visiting our planet.

Sheer Volume of Sightings

Evidence

The enormous number of sightings in which people are absolutely convinced they witnessed an alien craft indicates that these aliens visit frequently, have been here for a long time, and are actively interested in our world.

My Thoughts

If aliens are frequently visiting our planet, if they are putting on shows in the atmosphere regularly, if they are kidnapping, speaking to, and otherwise engaging the people of our world; well, we’d have hard evidence by now. There is no plausible explanation of why they would engage in such a plethora of activities and yet supposedly want to keep their presence a secret. It’s illogical. Either we would know they are here because they communicated broadly and indisputably, or they are not here at all.

Behavior of Visitors

Evidence

The aliens kill farm animals to examine them and kidnap people to examine them.

My Thoughts

Any species that can master interplanetary travel could easily tap into our vast communication network and gain whatever anatomical information they desire. Why would they do things so overtly if they want to keep their presence secret? It makes no sense.

Fleeing Authority

Evidence

Many of the stories we hear depict the alien vessels fleeing at the first sign of military or government intervention.

My Thoughts

These aliens can clearly avoid detection. If they have been hanging out in the solar system for centuries, which reports indicate, they clearly can avoid detection from modern probes which are constantly looking at the sky. It makes no sense that they would have to flee when they are clearly capable of easily avoiding detection.

The God Delusion

Evidence

People generally want to feel in control of their lives but there are many things that are completely beyond our ability to change. It comforts us to think there is a guiding hand orchestrating events. This has historically taken the form of all-powerful gods.

People need an explanation as to why something happened. They want a reason. They assign a mystical being as this explanation.

My Thoughts

Aliens make perfect fodder for unexplained events. If you see a strange light in the sky, the easiest and most comforting explanation is that it was an alien or a god, same difference. A more intelligent creature guiding us is a soothing idea for many people.

Motivation

Evidence

There isn’t a lot of evidence as to why the aliens are visiting but speculation runs from wanting to use humans as a food source, to conquest for slaves, to friendly alliances.

My Thoughts

If the aliens had any of the motivation as suggested above they would simply make them happen overtly. What possible motivation could they have for centuries of subtle contacts, crop-circles, or abductions? There is no rational explanation for why aliens would be hovering around for so long, making their presence known in little fits and starts, and yet not do anything.

Imagine you are completely superior and want something from a technologically inferior species. You would simply do whatever it is you wanted and be done with it. There would be no need for games.

This for me is the most compelling reason I do not think aliens are visiting us. What reasonable motivation could such a vastly superior race have for behaving in the manner they do?

I understand people can come up with explanations but they don’t resonate with me.

That the aliens feed off our confusion or irrationality is probably the one I’ve heard the most. I call it The Matrix explanation; that the world is not what we suppose it is. That aliens or robots or gods are feeding off us, without us knowing. It seems self-evident to me that they could get the same result without all the nonsense.

Conclusion

I’ve gone on too long here I suppose. I just find the obsession with aliens to be irrational and it bothers me. I appreciate that your think you saw an alien space ship. You didn’t.

I also realize that I’m not going to change your mind. Please feel free to comment with your irrational explanations about why aliens are real and I’m an idiot. I had my say, you’re entitled to yours. Know that I won’t try to argue with you.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Correlation does not equal Causation – or how the Oarfish predicted an Earthquake

Posted on November 30, 2013 by Tom Liberman

I was reading a rather silly article today when I stumbled across a great comment about that story and the immediate and negative response that comment received.

The article cited an instance where a pair of rarely seen oarfish washed up along shore in southern California and how people took this to be a sign of impending disaster. The article cited a number of instances where animals exhibited unusual behavior immediately before some sort of natural disaster.

The comments on the article immediately began. Most of these were anecdotal stories about how pets have behaved strangely immediately before a disaster and how this had saved someone’s life. Among all these comments was a missive that was a fine example of laconic wit and which made me very, very happy.

Correlation does not imply causation.

The point of this phrase is that we as humans often see events that happen sequentially as being related to each other in a cause and effect manner. The reason we see this relationship is because there is often, in fact, such a relationship. When my finger pushes down the letter “p” on the keypad, said letter appears on the screen. This is an example of Cause and Effect.

It is vitally important to understand that Event A which occurs immediately before Event B is not necessarily the cause for Event B. Often the two events are completely unrelated.

The reason this is so important to understand is that if you mistake correlation with causation you are going to spend a great deal of time and effort futilely trying to make your life better. If you do not fully understand what it is that caused the thing you are trying to fix, your ability to resolve the problem is deeply inhibited.

This is one of the main ideas of Critical Thinking. The lack of critical thinking is what drives bad decisions in life. Bad decisions in life lead to less happiness for you and those around you.

We have all been victim of the idea that correlation equates to causation and we’ve all wasted time trying to fix a problem in completely the wrong way. What’s important is trying to assign accurate causation to the events of our lives.

The next time you encounter correlated events take a moment to examine them for causation. Get in the habit. It will make a difference in your life.

Each time you practice your Critical Thinking skills you will get better at doing it. Now, repeat after me: Correlation does not equal Causation.

Now, off you go.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Instant News and the Issues it Creates

Posted on November 29, 2013 by Tom Liberman

I just read an update on an ongoing crime story that reminded me that this instant news society we now live in thanks to the internet sometimes carries with it significant issues.

There is such a rush to get a particular news story distributed that the news outlets don’t wait to get a complete story. They immediately publish the story even with only partial information. Even if the main news outlets waited there are a plethora of bloggers like me who want to jump ahead with a story. More than once I’ve reported on news that later turned out to be at least partially inaccurate.

I do my best to immediately update any story which I’ve reported incorrectly but that doesn’t mean the people who read the story also read my correction. This is one price we pay for the luxury of getting immediate information.

People are clearly interested in news. That much is undeniable. People want to read about the story not as soon as it happened by while it is still happening. This being the case we can’t expect media outlets to wait on stories while their rivals go ahead. This, naturally, leads to errors. Stories are reported that are not true. Hoaxers take advantage of the immediacy of news to play games.

Sometimes honest mistakes happen. Sometimes people with agendas lie to reporters and mistakes make their way into the story. People like me unknowingly repeat those inaccuracies. People like you read the information and repeat it to your friends.

Where does that leave us?

It leaves us with a lot of misinformation out there. The amount of misinformation is growing and I don’t see any way to stem the tide. With so much misinformation out there the burden falls to each of us to verify the original the story as best as is possible. We must continue to follow the story and evaluate new information with a critical eye.

The tendency to leap to judgment must be tempered. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with looking at the facts as they are currently understood and making a decision based upon them. What’s important is a willingness to reexamine the situation when new facts arise or old facts prove to be false. This is what is difficult. People do not like to admit mistakes and will defend an original opinion in the face of facts that no longer indicate as much.

In short, we must avoid being defensive about our positions and listen to opposing opinions, evaluate facts with an open mind, be willing to admit errors, and not to gloat when we prove to be right and our opponent wrong.

Anyway, something I was thinking about.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Is a Lopsided Score Bullying?

Posted on October 23, 2013 by Tom Liberman

There’s an interesting case in the news and it’s really not something I’d normally write a blog post about because everyone is pretty much in agreement.

However, I do want to make a point about something in this story that bothers me. First the details.

A powerhouse Texas high school football team defeated another school 91 – 0 in a recent game. The teams play in a division which is the second highest in the state so there are no mercy rules. Usually such rules are designed to stop or shorten the game to prevent such blowouts.

The coach seems to have taken any number of steps to keep the score down but rightly refused to tell his backup players to ease off. I was a backup most of my sports career and when I got in the game I wanted to impress the coaches with my play. By all accounts there was absolutely no attempt to run up the score or to get personal records for the players involved.

Everyone seems to agree the charge of bullying, which came from an email, is unwarranted. So, why the blog?

State law requires an investigation after any charge of bullying. Coach Tim Buchanan of Aledo in the great state of Texas had to go to the superintendent’s office and explain his actions. The school is performing a mandatory investigation and a written report is required within a certain period of time.

The reason these sorts of laws come into existence is because when real bullying occurs, no one takes responsibility. If a responsible person who witnessed the bullying took immediate action there would be no need for laws of this nature. If parents stepped up and disciplined the bully there would be no need for laws of this nature. If the person being bullied socked the bully in the nose there would be no need for these laws.

The problem is that administrators are afraid to step in because parents will file lawsuits. Parents refuse to critically examine their precious child’s actions. Children cannot sock one another in the nose without risk of imprisonment.So, we end up with a state sponsored attempt to prevent bullying.

We have all these laws to prevent bullying which get the state, the school district, and the coaches involved even when the charge is clearly ridiculous. After witnessing the turmoil caused by this one report what will stop agitators from filing bullying claims constantly? It’s quite possible the claim in this story was an example of trolling or a joke gone awry.

Don’t mistake my intention. Bullying is wrong. Running up a score for personal glory is wrong. I’m just not of the opinion that getting the state involved solves much of anything, and generally ends up doing more harm than good.

I’m certain from what little I’ve read that I can call Coach Buchanan a “stand-up guy” without any chance of being mistaken. If he thought one of his players was taunting a badly over-matched opponent, well, I wouldn’t want to be that player. He’s not the sort of man who causes these problems.

Let’s pretend for a moment we have raised a society of critical thinkers who stand-up and do the right thing all the time. When a bully picks on a helpless opponent someone immediately steps in and explains that what the bully is doing is wrong. Generally we’ve stopped the problem right then and there. Let’s say the bully continues and now faces punishment from the school and the parent agrees, extending the punishment to the home. The bullying generally stops. But, let’s say it continues. Now is the time to look for legal and state sponsored remedies.

There’s a case here in Missouri where a girl was allegedly raped but the charges were dropped apparently because the school administration sided with football players. It was a fight but the case has been reopened. The Trayvon Martin case was originally dropped. I’m not suggesting that bullies don’t exist. That discipline sometimes fails to work. That bad people get away with crimes. I’m just saying that with critical thinking and personal responsibility there is need for only limited state sponsored action.

When we become a nanny-state we absolve people of responsibility and open ourselves up to institutionalized corruption. We’re better off leaving these sorts of things in the hands of those closest to the problem. If they fail in their duties then there is a responsibility for the district, county, state, and federal government to become involved.

Greater power to the state means less to the individual. Small problems become big problems. Everyone becomes paralyzed with fear.

There are no easy solutions here. People must learn personal responsibility. Lawsuits against people exhibiting such responsibility must be dismissed by a jury of their peers. People who act responsibly must be praised. The weak must be taught to stand up for themselves. The strong must be taught to behave politely. People must learn to disagree with civility and come up with compromise solutions.

Eat moderately of healthy foods and exercise and you’ll lose weight. No one wants to hear it, but the real solutions don’t fit into sound bytes.

Tom Liberman