Category Archives: Critical Thinking

Fanaticism and Brain Damage

Posted on by

FanaticalWhen I look around I see a lot of anger and hatred in the world and yet there are relatively few people going out and murdering as many others as they can. There is certainly the perception that such attacks are on the rise but I wonder if statistical evidence supports this idea?

What I really want to look at in this topic is if people who do such things have actual brain damage. The textbook case for brain damage leading to mass murder happened in 1966 when a former marine named Charles Whitman climbed a tower at the University of Texas in Austin. An autopsy later revealed a highly aggressive brain tumor.

However, Whitman was court martialed from the marines, suffering from familial stress, abusing drugs, and suffering pain so it’s not clear that the tumor played a role in the attacks.

There does not seem to be a correlation between traumatic brain injury and violent behavior. There have been documented cases of behavioral changes but no particular bent towards violence. There isn’t even a correlation between schizophrenia and violence despite popular culture’s claims.

There are actually several studies that suggest interpersonal violence has decreased in modern society.

I would conclude that the targeted violence we see today towards people of one particular party, religion, or country in the form of terrorism, school attacks, work attacks, or other such behavior is largely not the fault of brain damage. It is the fault of failure in thinking mechanisms.

Wikipedia’s article on violence includes a prevention section which mentions several things that make sense. Children who are well nurtured by parents or caregivers are far less prone to violence. Children who learn coping skills to deal with stress are likewise less violent. There is also a very important intervention component. When someone sees a person starting down the road of fanatical violence an early intervention can do much to prevent it.

I’m of the opinion that this intervention can be very subtle. When a person is heading towards fanaticism simply conversing with them in a non-violent way and offering alternative points of view can be helpful. I talked about this concept at length yesterday so I don’t want to repeat myself too much.

I guess in conclusion; we can’t blame brain injury for fanatical violence. People who are raised in violence are prone to act in such a way and they’ll find a cause to support their insanity one way or another. There also seems to be a correlation with drug or alcohol abuse.

I’m left with the idea that what drives people to such madness is lack of critical thinking skills. Certainly violence in childhood, learned hatred of other groups, and drug abuse play their role but I’m of the opinion that if we can teach strong reasoning skills that we’d reduce such violence. Maybe I’m a dreamer.

Tom Liberman

The Road to Fanaticism

Posted on by

FanaticalToday I want to talk about how people become fanatical.

I do want to make it clear that I’m not talking about a light-hearted fanatic behavior. Perhaps someone is “fanatical” about a particular sports team or clothing designer. This use of the term has roots in aberrant fanatical behavior but there is an important distinction.

Someone who is passionate about a particular team or food or author is not to the point of killing someone who likes another team or food or author. Although, sports fanaticism can rise to the level of violence. I want to be clear that liking something passionately does not meet the criteria of fanaticism that I’m talking about here. Also, to be very clear, I’m not talking about religious people. It’s more than possible to be deeply religious and not be fanatical. Fanatics transcend the sport, religion, or other thing to which they profess their fanatic love. They are violent, they are unthinkingly loyal, they are certain that those who oppose them mean to destroy their way of life.

Finally, I also want to state that people who rise to violent fanaticism are not forced into it by any of the things I describe below. They, and they alone, are responsible for their actions. I think people who commit actions like this have brain damage of some kind. I just think, as I’ll talk about, that an environment that emboldens such maniacs can be limited through our own behavior and educational methods.

We see fanaticism currently in Anders Breivik who argues that his murder of seventy-seven children was self-defense because they represented a threat to his way of life.

This pathology shows us the means and methods of becoming a fanatic.

A fanatic is convinced that they must act to preserve their way of life. The way to achieve this conviction is to simply stop thinking about the possibility that you could be wrong. This is the very definition of Faith Based Thinking. I believe it is true and therefore it is. Without this, there is no fanaticism. So, how is that people can be convinced they need not look at evidence that doesn’t support their theory of the world?

Again, I don’t want to seem to be picking on religion in this post because, for once, I’m not. Fanatics transcend the religion they often, but not always, use to fuel their fury. They latch onto something and that something is often religion but it doesn’t make religion the villain. It comes from a mindset that looks at things in a very black and white fashion. I’m right, you’re wrong. There is no reason to consider your point of view, your feelings, your right to live.

So, how do we get people who think like this? How do we end up with fanatics who were “such nice, quiet boys” just a few weeks ago. Who are loving family members, good friends, contributors to society? People who “we could never imagine would do such a terrible thing?”

We fill them with faith-based ideas and more importantly fail to school them on critical thinking skills. That’s the road to fanaticism. All of you, my most religious friends, you don’t use faith-based thinking when it comes to the next big purchase. You use critical thinking. You don’t use faith-based thinking when it comes to an important work project, you use critical thinking skills. Everyone is capable of doing it but when we encourage people to ignore facts, to ignore science, to yell down those who disagree, to insult them, to attack them, then we teach fanaticism.

The talking heads on media are trying for ratings but are actually laying the foundation of fanaticism when they shout down and ridicule those with different opinions.

Again, don’t get me wrong. Even with encouragement most people don’t turn into fanatics. Most people maintain their critical thinking skills well enough to know not to kill a bunch of other people. But, the more we teach people to laugh at, ridicule, attack, and belittle those of opposing points of view the more we are fueling fanatics. Words like Repukicans, Libtards are vicious attacks against those we disagree with. You mean them as harmless verbal jousting but there are people out there who don’t see it that way.

I’m not blaming you. I’m not blaming me. Nut job fanatics have only themselves to blame but can’t we try rational discourse to set an example?

Next time someone espouses a position you disagree with try asking them this question: “What facts do you have to support that position?” And, here’s the crazy part, listen to their answer and think about it. Even if they don’t convince you at least you’re setting an example for those around you and I think we all know how important it is have good role-models.

The guy sitting next to you when you launch into a diatribe about how President Bush/Obama is destroying America might not be as rational as you imagine. They might not be a “nice, quiet guy”. They might find fear in your words. Fear of losing their way of life. This fear might embolden them to act.

So, I say stand up for critical thinking. Listen to the other side. Be a shining example to your family and friends. If everyone did that I suspect the world would be a better place and isn’t that the goal of any rational person?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Fanatics Week – Fanaticism

Posted on by

FanaticalI’m going to spend a week talking about fanaticism because the trial of the self-righteous murderer Anders Breivak is in the news. I’m not going to focus particularly on that case but on the nature of fanaticism and some of the psychological factors that play into it. I’m going to start off with a simple look at what fanaticism is and why it is so dangerous. And, believe it or not, I think my opinions here will be disputed by a great number of people. Read on and see for yourself.

Ok, back to fanaticism. Wikipedia defines it as a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause or in some cases sports, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby.

For those of you follow me regularly I hope you can see where I’m going to have a problem. Involving uncritical zeal. The key word being uncritical. The very nature of fanaticism is tied up in Faith Based Thinking with a complete absence of Critical Thinking. It’s important to understand that Faith Based Thinking is not merely the belief in god or some particular religion or another. It is a method of thinking that is dangerous.

I think that it is largely impossible to behave like Anders without faith-based thinking. It is impossible to become a fanatic without faith-based thinking. It is impossible to become a monster without faith-based thinking. It is this abandonment of critical thinking that leads to much ill. I’m certainly not saying that those who engage in faith-based thinking are destined to murder seventy-seven children on a camp retreat but I am saying, loudly and clearly, that those who abandon critical thinking and embrace faith-based thinking are going to make mistakes in every aspect of their lives.

Fanaticism largely stems from giving into your fears. When you fear something completely; you are willing to abandon reason and allow the violence that swirls beneath the surface to emerge. We all have that violence. It is important to understand the capability for humans for violence. I could, at any moment, kill my cat. I could easily grab a child around the neck and throttle him. I could push a pedestrian in front of a moving bus. We have that in us at all times and it is our reasoning, critical thinking skills, and rational fear for our own safety and well-being that keep us from doing it.

Here is where someone will say it is fear of eternal damnation or faith in god that keeps us from doing violent things. I disagree. If I behave violently, if I kill seventy-seven kids on their camp retreat, the odds are I will face terrible repercussions immediately. My freedom will be lost, my friends and family will abandon me. The only reason I can do such a thing is if I feel my situation is without hope, that I’ve given into fear and turned off all rational thought. fanaticism.

I’ll be doing a deeper examination of fanaticism, good and evil, and right and wrong as the week progresses but I think it’s important to understand that the root of this thing is the abandonment of reason and of critical thinking. While fanaticism might be born of fear and utter hopelessness it is driven to action by faith-based thinking.

Tell me what you think!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Emotional Intelligence

Posted on by

Social GracesAfter yesterday’s post summing up my conclusions on intelligence I got a comment asking my opinion on how I thought “Emotional Intelligence” factors into success. So that’s today’s topic. I admit a complete lack of knowledge on this subject but that isn’t going to stop me from telling you all about it!

A quick perusal of Wikipedia reveals the following definition: Emotional intelligence (EI) is the ability to identify, assess, and control the emotions of oneself, of others, and of groups.

I’m willing to get over my initial distaste at the combination of the words “Emotional” and “Intelligence”, as the two things are paradoxical in many respects, and try to break down the concept. It seems to me what is being said here is equivalent to social graces. People who are good at judging others’ emotions get along in social gatherings. They are good at “reading” what another person is feeling and are able to respond appropriately. As a card-carrying member of the Aspberger Team this is not exactly my forte but I can certainly recognize the trait in others.

This is supposedly testable using something called the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT … for short (insert eye roll here)). Event this admits it is testing against social norms. I don’t want to get into a big debate about testability. It is pretty clear that getting along socially is part of success in life, in answer to the original question.

So, if we say high intelligence leads to success are we not also bound to say that high emotional intelligence, or social graces, also tend to lead to success in life. My answer is … yes. Sadly.

Why sadly? I’ll tell you why. Because being good at social graces doesn’t mean you are good at achievement. People who are good at social graces get far in life. They convince people to trust them, they achieve positions of power, but they do not have the ability to actually achieve great things once they get there. There are exceptions, naturally. Some, rare, people have both high intelligence and high social graces. But, by and large what we are talking about here is The Monkeys or Milli Vanilli. Fake musicians who make millions of sales without doing anything other than being socially adept.

How many times have you lamented “politics” at work? This is someone using social graces to achieve promotion. Why do we call it “politics”? Because that is what politicians do. They get elected not on their actual qualifications but upon their ability to manipulate the emotions of voters.

Do I sound bitter? Maybe … well … probably. My social graces are next to nil. But, I think I make a valid point here. We want people who have the talents to get things accomplished in positions of power. Would you rather hire a charming plumber or a competent one?

I’ll wrap this up with a test question I’ve been asking for year. How you answer it is telling in this social intelligence versus intelligence debate.

Place in order your preferences for the checker in your lane at the grocery store:

  1. Friendly and Fast
  2. Friendly and Slow
  3. Surly and Fast
  4. Surly and Slow

My order is 3-1-4-2.

Yep, I prefer Surly. Why? Because I don’t want to have a conversation with the checker. It is rude to the people waiting in line and, frankly, I’d rather be at home analyzing my chess games and planning my next Dungeons and Dragons session.

In all seriousness, the issue isn’t black and white. Everyone has shades of Intelligence and Social Intelligence. But, I stand by my conclusions. I’d rather have competent people working with me than socially adept ones.

Tell me what you think!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

How to make More Intelligent People

Posted on by

IntelligenceI’ve been discussing intelligence all week long and now it’s time for my conclusions. Brace yourself because, as usual, I’m not out to make friends.

It is clear some people are more intelligent than other people and that intelligence plays an important role in the advancement of both individuals and societies. The Bell Curve speculates that government policies that allow poor people, who do less-well on IQ tests, to have more children has a negative effect on the average intelligence of the United States  and thus is detrimental to the health of the nation.

I have serious problems with almost all of the principles of both measuring intelligence by IQ tests and trying to determine, through government policy, the best way to breed for intelligence. IQ tests, it seems to me, are most certainly culturally biased. Immigrant groups will always do poorly but as they become amalgamated with the culture, or as the culture changes with immigration, they will drift towards median scores.

Blacks traditionally do poorly on IQ tests and I can tell you exactly why. Black culture largely associates education and success with being “white”. It has nothing to do with intelligence potentials. I went to a highly mixed race school. Far and away the most brutalized students were the “smart” black kids who took upper level courses with the white kids. They were assaulted for trying to be “white”. Many prominent blacks have pointed this out over the years and things will not change for blacks until they overcome this cultural belief.

A culture that values education will produce kids that score high on IQ tests. Bottom line. Perhaps there is something to be said for inheritable intelligence but this limits the potential ceiling of achievement. By this I mean that I can play offensive left tackle as an eight year old for my block football team but I cannot play that position for the St. Louis Rams because I am limited in my ceiling by my physical stature. Everyone, with the exception of the mentally handicapped, is capable of thinking at a reasonable level and scoring reasonably well on IQ tests. So, in all practical terms intelligence has nothing to do with wealth, race, creed, or anything else. If parents and community value education and intelligence then the results will follow.

I absolutely agree that intelligence, or high IQ, is a predictor of success. Success is good. We want people who achieve. The more people who achieve the better for society. I don’t really much care about whether high IQ scores are exact predictors of intelligence or not. They are close enough I suppose but it doesn’t matter. If you are intelligent you will likely do better in life. If we threw IQ tests away we’d still have intelligent people, just not a snobby way to quantify them.

So, that’s the bottom line. We want intelligent people. We want to encourage all people of all cultures to value education so they will get good jobs, produce, achieve, elevate society. How do we do it? Reward achievers! That’s Ayn Rand, that’s Objectivism, that’s Critical Thinking. That is everything I talk about in this blog.

There’s nothing wrong with making sure our schools have the best equipment, that our teachers have all the aids necessary to be great, to encourage parents to be a part of their child’s schooling process, and to find the best ways that people learn and implement those methods. I’m all for those things.

The thing we can’t do, and this is where I’m in partial agreement with The Bell Curve, is reward stupidity. There should be a safety net. There are disabled people, mentally retarded people, people who fall on hard times, and we do not want to become a nation where those sorts of people are discarded and brutalized. But, we can’t continue to reward failure.

When it comes to wanting to stop rewarding failure so-called Conservatives seem to focus on the poor, and I agree that changes must be made with welfare, but the reality is that far and away most rewards to stupidity go to business. Our failed politicians, Democrat and Republican, still rake in massive amounts of bribes, er campaign contributions, in the hopes that they will pass laws to give one business an unfair advantage or bail-out yet another round of failed enterprises. Stop the madness!

Government get out of the tax-break business and social engineering. It leads to failure. Let good business succeed on its merits, let educated people succeed because of their intelligence.

And parents, most of all, take a hard-core, hard-line, day-to-day interest in your child’s education. Smart is good. Dumb is bad. And I’ll stand by that until the day I die.

Tell me what you think in the comments and share if you feel like it!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Windows 8 (Metro) Developed on Mac – CTF

Posted on by

Windows on MacMaking the rounds lately all over Facebook, Twitter, and everywhere else is the “fact” that the new Windows Operating System from Microsoft, Metro, was developed on a Macintosh computer. If you do a search on the internet this “fact” is everywhere.

Here’s the real scoop but I’ll sum it up for you and then you tell me if the people passing around the Mac article are guilty of Critical Thinking Failure.

A fellow named Bill Flora worked at Microsoft and was one of the key developers in Windows 8. About a year ago he moved on from this position and started his own company. With Windows Metro being released soon he was the subject of an interview by CNET. In the interview a current picture of him with a Mac computer on his desk ran with the story. Thus, to Apple fans everywhere, Windows 8 was developed on a Mac. Naturally Flora laughs when he hears this bit of nonsense.

Anyway, you tell me, was it a Critical Thinking Fail to pass along this story?

[polldaddy poll=6118593]

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Critical Thinking

Posted on by

Critical THinkingI spend a lot of time in my various blogs talking about using my Critical Thinking skills to analyze a situation but I realized that I haven’t really defined the concept. So, today I am to rectify that issue.

Critical thinking is a process of thinking that questions assumption. Basically, instead of assuming something is true it is often best to examine the assumption with an eye towards facts. It’s pretty easy to hear something that you believe in general principle and immediately take it as fact without examination.

Often when I get into discussions with friends and families they make a statement that turns out to be untrue. I don’t think they are lying. I think, largely, they heard something they wanted to be true and therefore didn’t examine it critically but simply repeated it.  This is particularly dangerous because other people told this “fact” then repeat it down the line. This can be an incredibly powerful form of propaganda.

As a quick example, when President Bush began to mention Iraq and the September 11 attacks together people immediately began to believe that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were behind the terrorist activity. How many of you repeated this lie?

More recently I’ve had several friends say that six witnesses corroborate George Zimmerman’s story in the Trayvon Martin slaying. This is also false. Have you repeated it?

My point isn’t that you’ve made mistakes because I’ve certainly made many myself. My point is that it is important to examine propositions from a Critical Thinking point of view.

Critical thinking comes from something called the Socratic Method. This is the examination of an idea through questions. It basically involves doing the following when presented with an idea:

  • Recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems
  • Understand the importance of prioritization and order of precedence in problem solving
  • Gather and marshal pertinent (relevant) information
  • Recognize unstated assumptions and values
  • Comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discernment
  • Interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments
  • Recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions
  • Draw warranted conclusions and generalizations
  • Put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives
  • Reconstruct one’s patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience
  • Render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life

This is a tough list to parse but it basically is the idea that you should always demand evidence. Just because something sounds true is not good enough. This is where it is diametrically opposed to Faith Based Thinking which demands no evidence. In Faith Based Thinking we do not question, we simply assume truth without evidence.

What I find particularly fascinating is that most people engage in critical thinking when it comes to home decisions, work decisions, and shopping decisions. We go to great lengths to make sure the decisions we make about our life are correct by looking at all the facts, examining multiple ideas, researching online, and otherwise avoiding bad decisions.

Conversely, it seems almost a given that in regards to social issues, political issues, and religious issues that Faith Based Thinking dominates. If a politician of the party I identify with says something then I immediately turn off my brain and support it. If someone from a group that I don’t normally agree with says something I immediately disagree without any examination.

I would suggest that we should put as much effort into making political and social decisions as we do to that next major purchase. That is if we want to make an accurate decision. If we want to be wrong a lot then continue to simply take whatever the politicians from your party say at face value.

So, there it is. Critical Thinking. I’ll probably revisit this topic using a real-world example soon.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Free Will – Does it Matter?

Posted on by

Free WillLast night I was having a philosophical discussion on my Chess Site waiting for my Dungeons and Dragons game to get started … yes, it’s true and not an April Fool’s Joke. I am a nerd.

Anyway the topic turned, as it often does, to Free Will or the lack thereof. The debate usually gets fairly heated and there are strong opinions on all sides.

The arguments go that we humans have the ability to choose our way or that the future is immutable. I sort of spoke about this issue in my post Everything Happens for a Reason during my dumb platitude week. Philosophically it seems to be an extraordinarily important question but the more I think about it the more it just doesn’t matter.

No matter what decision is made the final outcome is always the final outcome. The choices that are discarded never happen.

What I’m saying is that we can debate whether or not I chose black tea over green this morning or whether it was immutably decided that I would take the black but what difference does it make? I’m drinking my East Frisian Broken Blend ordered from my favorite Tea Merchant and there is no changing that fact. I’m not drinking South India Singampatti Organic and there is no way that I can go back and change my decision. So, what matters that I made the decision or the choice was destined from the beginning of time?

The key is that I have the illusion of free will. I think that my decisions have consequences and attempt to make as many good choices as possible so as to enhance my station in life. As long as I have this reality or illusion of reality then I’ll continue to make my best effort. The only danger is in people who think they have no control over their lives and simply let the world run them over. But, as long as you try to think through your decisions with Critical Thinking analysis then it just doesn’t matter as to whether free will exists or not.

So, that ancient philosophical question is finally solved! You’re welcome.

Perhaps a real philosopher or two will tell me how terribly, terribly wrong I am in the comments. I eagerly await.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery philosophy with a Libertarian Twist

Open Source

Posted on by

Most of you probably haven’t heard of the Open Source movement. Boiled down, Open Source is a philosophy that promotes free redistribution and access to an end product’s design and implementation details. On the surface is it inimical with capitalism and therefore something I’ve always viewed with strong suspicion.

Today I aim to look at it with a critical eye. To be honest, even as I’m sitting here writing this article I’m not sure of my conclusion. I might have some misconceptions and hopefully in doing my diligent research I’ll come to objective answers.

The reason Open Source comes at the conclusion of Internet Week is that the concept has its strongest backing in the software world and I benefit greatly from it. As do many people, likely you. As some of you may have gathered from reading my posts over the last couple of months I’m somewhat (read completely) nerdy. I play role-playing games like Pathfinder. As adults we find it increasingly difficult to get people together physically. Well, a group of fellows got together and created an Open Source Virtual Table where my friends and I can gather from all over the world (on the computers sitting at our desks) and play. It’s called MapTool and it’s free. Free. We talk to each other using Skype. Also free.

This idea goes far back in time as Wikipedia states when it suggests that cookie recipes have been shared (thank goodness) since people first started baking the delicious treats. Mmmm, cookie.

This Open Source model helped DARPA create the internet which I spoke about earlier in the week. Benefit from that much? Anyone who uses the Linux operating system is benefitting from the model. WordPress where you read this blog is Open Source as is a computer language called php. A piece of circuit board called Arduino powers hobbyists electronic equipment. It’s free. OpenCola is a soda dispensary system where the formula is freely available. Wikipedia is free and open to the public to contribute to its pages. Open Source education includes instructive videos on YouTube and the Khan Academy. The people who produce these type of things do so on their own time for the pleasure of it. They largely work collaboratively with many thousands of ideas being suggested to improve the product. I spoke about this concept earlier in the week as well.

Here is the question though. These Open Source projects clearly benefit the consumer but do they actually help capitalism as well? It seems an impossible proposition that a free product could stimulate economies and certainly those opposed to Open Source agree. But there is another argument. Let’s get back to my role-playing games. In order to play the games we do not only need to get together but must also have material by which to play, rule sets, adventures, background material, etc. If we didn’t play, because we cannot physically get together, then there is no need to purchase these items. But, with MapTool we do get together and this stimulates the other purchases. OpenCola gives the recipe away but equipment and ingredients still must be purchased.

The other benefit is that the creators of the items get to use their creation. These types of projects are often labors of love trying to fill something that is currently missing from their experience in life. They see something they would like to have and, with the help of thousands or millions of others, make it.

So, I think in the end, Open Source is a wonderful idea although I’m certainly not suggesting that people should stop trying to make money. It’s an interesting topic and we’ll see the reality of it played out in ever greater instances over the coming years.

Tell me what you think in the comments and share away!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Internet Week – DARPA

Posted on by

World Wide WebIt’s hard to believe that there was no such thing as the Internet and the World Wide Web not that long ago. I’m going to take this week to praise some of the men and women who are responsible for our ability to communicate and transfer information via things like this blogs.

Let’s start with DARPA. According to Wiki, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is an agency of the United States Department of Defense responsible for the development of new technology for use by the military. It was originally created as a way to avoid being surprised by foreign nations’ technology as had happened with Sputnik. Telling aspects of DARPA are its size and management philosophy. It currently employs about 140 highly skilled people, only two levels of management, and the freedom to hire and fire who it desires without standard government rules. All positions are rotated regularly and people are hired generally for four to six-year terms. They understand failure is a necessary component of innovation and eventual success.

Now, onto how DARPA invented the internet.

A computer scientist named J. C. R. Licklider conceived the idea of sending information from computer to computer as a network and became a project director at what was then named ARPA. He assembled a team to see this vision through. One of his team members, Bob Taylor, then created a plan and opened it up for bidding to contractors. A company called BBN Technologies won the bid.

The first network messages was routed on the campus of UCLA on Oct 29, 1969 about a year and a half after Licklider conceived the idea. It caused the system to crash! In November of that year UCLA connected permanently with another station at Stanford. By 1973 foreign countries, Norway initially, began to connect to the system. In 1975 it was declared operational and turned over to the Department of Defense.

A lot has happened between then and now and I’ll talk about that as the week progresses but for the moment I want to focus on the ideas behind DARPA and some of its successes and past projects.

DARPA is probably as close a thing as we have to Ayn Rand’s concept of Galt’s Gulch in Atlas Shrugged. It is a place where intelligent and motivated people are allowed to pursue their dreams. The ideas brought to reality by DARPA include the Internet, The Aspen Movie Map (think about every movie you watch on the internet), drones and other unmanned vehicles which are increasing in use both private, public, and government, something called the Semantic Web which helps us find information more easily and was pioneered by a fellow you’ve never heard of named Tim Berners-Lee. You’ll hear a lot about him later in the week. Well, the list goes on and on.

My point here is to think about what kind of world we would live in if everyone worked in a DARPA like environment. The problem is that most people don’t have the ability of the chosen few in Galt’s Gulch and DARPA. I’ve discussed this before but the way to make it happen is through proper education. It’s important to teach children to think critically about everything to which they are exposed. Critical thinking leads to everything else. We must reward people for achievement and understand failure is a part of that process. This, by the way, is one of my biggest problem’s with Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand’s philosophy in general. Her characters are too archetypal and seem to me to be unrealistic. There are no John Galts in the world but we do everyone a service when we give the John Galt wannabes an opportunity to fail and to succeed.

Dare to dream but make a plan of action, envision obstacles and solutions, hire competent people, reward achievers, and make the world something beyond imagination!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Black and White

Psychology Sunday – Splitting

Posted on by

Black and WhiteToday I’m going to talk about the psychological phenemonon called Splitting. It seems innocuous enough verbally but it’s a huge problem particularly seen in people’s voting rational. It is defined generally as the splitting of mental concepts (or black and white thinking). This sort of thinking has, in my opinion, caused the country to become driven into two different camps when in actuality most people are nearer the center of political ideology.

It is encouraged by the two viable parties, Democrats and Republicans, because it assures that if one doesn’t win the election the other will and this keeps out those who threaten their dominance of power. It is also encouraged by yellow journalists in their endless pursuit of ratings which, naturally, is a product of our viewing habits. I’ll probably talk about how we drive the media and not the other way around in a future blog.

Splitting is a dangerous way to think in many ways. It occurs not only in the political spectrum where you are inclined to believe a candidate not because of what they say but because of what party they are affiliated with but also in personal relationships when you attribute a person with particular virtues or vices. A person lies to you once so they are forever a liar or a person tells the truth once and so you believe everything they say. This is a natural phenomenon to some degree but it should be tested constantly. You should try to critically analyze each event in your life so as to properly judge it.

Splitting was first described by Pierre Janet and later analyzed by Sigmund Freud and his daughter Anna. However, in the sense that I am using here today we have Melanie Klein to thank. She argues this comes from when we are babies and there are good things and bad things and this mode of thinking haunts us into adult life.

Otto Kemberg argues that the ability to overcome splitting is one of the important developmental tasks of children. This ability to view the world in more complex shades is important for our overall development as adults. Generally things are complex and when we view them as simply good and bad we are acting like babies. This is the view that politicians would like us to have. They don’t want us to examine their propositions closely. They sieze upon relatively innocuous statements and turn them into full blown splitting insanity. President Obama says 57 states instead of 57 elections and he must be a moron. Newt Gingrinch mentions moon bases and he must be a lunatic. A political ally of Mitt Romney says Etch-a-Sketch and that means Romney will totally change everything he believes in after the primaries.

This sort of thinking leads us to vote for politicians who are uninterested in deep thought and real solutions. Simple splitting is the act of babies. Babies. Grow up and examine situations with an adult, critical mindset and we will get politicians who cater to that mindset. Keep thinking like babies and we’ll keep getting politicians who think the same way. And the country will suffer.

Tell me what you think!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Critical Thinking Fail – Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

Posted on by

I originally hoped that I wouldn’t have to post critical thinking fail articles frequently but, in all honesty, I find that I have to use restraint lest I pester you even more than normal. But, I couldn’t stop myself when I read about VHEM. Never heard of it? Neither had I.

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Yep. You heard right.

The basic concept is that in order to prevent human suffering we need to stop giving birth so the human race goes extinct.

Hmmm, let me try to come up with the flaw in that attempt at critical thinking.

Yes, true, there will be no human suffering if there are no humans. Can’t really argue that one. You’ve got me there.

Um, well, if we wanted to eliminate the suffering of say the Southern Long-nosed Armadillo then the solution would be to …? I suppose the ultimate would be to destroy everything so that nothing suffered? The point isn’t to alleviate suffering by destroying everything. The point is to alleviate suffering by achieving great things! Lions alleviate the suffering of hunger by killing wildebeest, wildebeest alleviate the suffering of being eaten by avoiding lions. Let’s kill them all and avoid any suffering? Madness.

Even if you’re of the opinion, I’m talking to you Jim, that humans are a net negative on the world you still can’t give up hope and quit. So, VHEM, you win today’s Critical Thinking fail award.

Oh heck, just for the fun of it, fill out the poll.

[polldaddy poll=6073539]

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Critical Thinking Fail – Apple Factories

Posted on by

Critical ThinkingHere is the second in my Critical Thinking Fail series. I just read this article at Yahoo about a story that broke last January on the radio show This American Life. In it a man named Mike Daisy made some pretty serious allegations about the condition of the factory workers in China working on Apple products.

It turns out he made up at least some of the allegations. That’s fine and dandy. He’s a liar, good to know. Keep track of the liars in your life and understand their words in that context.

My critical thinking fail is this. Daisy told This American Life producers that he “lost the phone number” of the translator who took him around to the factories in question. When tracked down said translator put Daisy’s stories into doubt. Subsequently, Daisy admitted to making up some of the allegations although he largely stands by his story.

So, my question is, did This American Life fail to think critically when they went ahead with the story without meeting with the translator to corroborate the story?

[polldaddy poll=6049628]

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Super Powers

Super Powers – Debunked

Posted on by

PsychicIn this final installment of my talk about Super Powers I’ll explain how some truly great people have spent much of their lives debunking those who hope to defraud us by claiming abilities beyond the normal. Yesterday I talked about the tremendous amount of fraud that is based on people who make such claims particularly in the realm of religion. Today I hope to demonstrate that the people who claim super powers are largely interested in stealing your money.

This sort of fraudulent behavior goes back as far as the written word as soothsayers in ancient Greece like the Oracle at Delphi made their living with fake prophecies for the desperate and gullible. The skeptics of the world have always doubted such nonsense and tried to debunk them.

I consider Gaius Julius Caesar one of the most admirable and remarkable men in history. In ancient Rome it was common for a soothsayer to look at the entrails of a recently slaughtered goat to determine if good or bad things were in store for the day. Suetonius attributes this quote to Caesar about that very subject: The entrails will be more favourable when I please; and it ought not to be regarded as a prodigy that a beast should be found wanting a heart.

Suetonius is trying to vilify Caesar but of course elevates him. Caesar knew this sort of fortune-telling was nonsense and makes no pretense about it.

In any case, let’s move forward in time to another of the greats, Harry Houdini. Mr. Houdini is best known as a magician and escape artist but he spent a great deal of life as a skeptic attempting to expose frauds who claimed super powers. He was a member of a Scientific American committee that offered a cash prize for proof of super powers. Prize never paid.

Here’s the rub, if someone had super powers, they could prove it in two seconds. If I could fly it’s easy to prove. If I can read your mind, it’s easy to prove. Sure, there are tricks that seem to indicate this ability but under controlled environments no one has ever succeeded. Ever.

Mr. Houdini’s friend, Arthur Conan Doyle of Sherlock Holmes fame, was a firm believer and tied himself in knots trying to figure out how Houdini was proving all these other psychics wrong. It’s an interesting story should you care to read further. But, it illustrates how invested are people who want to believe in Super Powers. Again, religion comes to the forefront here as people want to believe so badly they are willing to suspend their reason and end up defrauded.

Before Mr. Houdini died he hired his friends H. P. Lovecraft and C. M. Eddy Jr. to write a book called The Cancer of Superstition. Sadly, Mr. Houdini passed away and a great book was never written. I mourn.

The modern inheritor of Mr. Houdini’s assault on mysticism and super powers is James Randi. He has offered a $1,000,000 reward for anyone who can prove  paranormal powers. You’ll be stunned to learn, unclaimed. A million dollars!

Now, most of the true believers claim those that really have the power keep it a secret and don’t try for the reward. This is a common argument tactic of faith-based thinking. It is a fallacy called Argument from Ignorance. Essentially, a proposition is true because it hasn’t been proven false. A great man named Bertrand Russell came up with an excellent example to prove the unsound nature of this argument. He suggested that there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. You can’t prove it’s not there so it must be there. Be alert to Arguments from Ignorance when dealing with people who claim Super Powers exist in one form or another.

Back to Mr. Randi. He wrote a book calling Uri Geller a fake and subsequently won a lawsuit filed by Geller against him. Mr. Randi brilliantly set up a privately financed, fake psychic program called Project Alpha to show how flawed were the efforts to prove Super Powers. In a famous television appearance he debunked James Hydrick who claimed to be able to turn pages of a book with his mind. Mr. Randi simply put packing kernels around the book to prevent Hydrick from blowing the pages. Debunked!

In 1987 Mr. Randi wrote an important book called The Faith Healers as an outlet for his anger rising from compassion for the helpless victims of fraud. Sick people manipulated, defrauded, used. Well done, Mr. Randi! Well done, indeed.

Mr. Randi’s inspired a young magician named Penn Jillette who continues this good work today with books, a television show, and a Las Vegas show.

The point here is that when someone claims to have Super Powers they are trying to defraud you. Whether this is religious powers, supernatural powers, or comic book style super powers their goal is to steal something from you. Use your skepticism, your powers of logic and reason, inspire those around you to do the same.

We skeptics, we logical thinkers, can’t snap our fingers to make the world a better place but we can lead by example. We can show people better methods of thinking and inspire children. If we can raise generations of skeptics, of critical thinkers, then, we will change the world.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Super Powers

Super Villians

Posted on by

Super VillianYesterday I spoke about the apparently natural human desire for Super Powers be they psychic, religious, or comic book. Today I’m going to talk about how our desire for Super Heroes inevitably leads to Super villains. We want people, or ourselves, to have super powers for use for good but those that claim such powers almost always end up using them for selfish purposes that take advantage of others.

It’s fairly easy to disprove someone who claims they can fly or turn invisible so outside of the realm of magicians there aren’t that many super villains of the comic book type littering history but even then there are some examples. Mostly it is people who insanely thought they had super powers and used that as an excuse to tyrannize other people. What comes immediately to mind here is the supposed practitioners of magic. Be they witches, voodoo priests, or African witch doctors. These people take money from desperate, hopeful people in order to fulfill their wish of love, vengeance, murder, etc.

The problem here is that desperate people are being used and abused in a fraudulent manner. practitioners of many alternative medicines are taking money from people with the promise of a cure when none is forthcoming. This is truly despicable. Today, in the United States, fake doctors inject their patients with cement with the promise of better looks. Awful, criminal, hideous. I’m not even talking about aromatherapy or a host of other alternative medicinal practices that have no evidence of efficacy.

The much more common super villain we see is associated with psychic powers. It is generally the same concept in that they purport to help someone but in actuality simply take their money and provide no useful service. Often times the lies told by the psychic do further damage because the victim believes the lies and acts accordingly. The police even believe the lies and arrest innocent people.

Finally, the most common super villain we find is the one who claims religious inspiration. I’m not talking about Jesus and Muhammad but people who use religion to defraud true believers. This problem is immense because when it comes to religion people have a tendency to use faith-based thinking instead of critical thinking. I’ve spoken of these subjects at length in the past but a quick recap never hurts.

A faith-based thinker believes something to be true without evidence whereas a critical thinker examines evidence to make a decision. Faith based thinking is particularly prone to religious fraud because they so desperately want something to be true.

The personal story I have is a woman who was getting a patent for her invention. I happen to know a patent attorney (when’s the next lake house party, Clyde?) and the general costs of such a process. When this woman told me what she was paying for her patent I immediately informed her that perhaps she should use a different patent company. She replied that they were “a good, Christian” company. I knew there was no hope of changing her mind at that point. She was defrauded for tens of thousands of dollars.

There is an important lesson to be learned here. In order for a Super Villain to take advantage of us we must be willing participants who have abandoned our critical thinking skills. No confidence game works without the participation of the victim.

When someone tells you they can do something “Super” then immediately be on alert. The odds are strong they want something from you. Your money, your job, your wife, or who knows what else.

Keep your critical thinking cap firmly in place and don’t let a Super Villain hurt you or anyone you know.

[polldaddy poll=6045843]

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Critical Thinking Fail – The Curve Ball

Posted on by

Curve BallI pretty frequently come across an article where I see a failure in critical thinking skills. I don’t think there is really enough to write an entire topic about the article but I want to call attention to it so I’ve decided to start a Critical Thinking Fail series. I’ll basically post the article whenever I spot something that strikes me as meeting this criteria. I’ll post a link to the article and what I think is the failure and you can decide if you agree with me or not. I’ll include a poll with the article.

So, here is the first:

The Curve Ball

Basically, there was a study to determine the danger of young kids throwing curve balls. They have long been banned for fear of damage to young arms. The study indicates that curve balls are no more dangerous than other pitches for young arms. The real danger seems to be the total number of pitches thrown with higher numbers causing more damage.

The critical thinking fail comes from Dr. Timothy Kremchek who is a surgeon and doctor fo the Cincinnati Reds. He lambastes Little League’s decision to not outlaw curve balls, based on the evidence of the study, as “irresponsible”. It makes him “sick to his stomach” and he’s “pretty sure” curve balls cause the damage. I’m sure he’s a well meaning fellow but evidence is evidence. Science is science, studies are studies.

So, Dr. Kremchek, you win my Critical Thinking Fail Award!

Read the article and tell me if you agree or not!

[polldaddy poll=6038403]

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

You can do Anything if You Set your Mind to it

Posted on by

PlatitudeThe final day of my weeklong attack against Facebook Platitudes has arrived and I like to think I’ve save the best, and by that I mean most egregious, for last.

You can do anything if you set your mind to it.

I can do no better than to quote the magnificent Penn Jillette, “Eat the sun”.

I’m fairly certain I could simply call it a blog right there but I’m going to analyze the idea behind the platitude, the well-intentioned hopes, and the disastrous results.

There are two thoughts behind making this statement one of which is well-intentioned and the other is malicious. The first is to encourage a person to be adventurous and try things. This is excellent advice. Life is better if we enjoy it broadly rather than narrowly. There is much that is good in this world and being afraid to try things leaves us with a less than full life. It’s great to encourage a person to try things. This is just a poor platitude to do it.

Parents encourage their children with this platitude in the hopes the kids will leave their fear behind and experience life to its fullest. Again, excellent sentiment, I wholeheartedly approve.

The negative situation where I see this platitude thrown around is to blame people for failing to complete a particular task. It is often used when the failure is beyond the person’s control and is the tactic of a bully to deflect their own culpability in the events leading up to the failure.

You didn’t finish the job? Why not, you can do anything if you set your mind to it.

The bullies of the world take over when the achievers are not allowed to succeed. This is one of the central messages of Randian Objectivism and I’ll talk about it in another post.

Now let’s move onto why this idea is not only silly but dangerous.

If we tell children they can do anything they might actually believe us. A child that is told they can do anything is doomed to disappointment. They cannot do anything. They can accomplish more than they think they can, they can do amazing things if they plan and execute with realistic, objective thinking. But, this platitude sends a ridiculous message of entitlement. I’m going to talk about the sense of entitlement that pervades our culture in a later post. I really do think that telling kids they can do anything leads to adults who are unrealistic and entitled. This is bad for our nation. When we talk about greatness it is usually in reference to people who achieved after a great struggle. People who think they are entitled don’t bother with struggle. They quickly give up. Having to work for something is not a bad thing, in fact it is the opposite.

I’m playing a lot of chess lately and because I live in St. Louis, Missouri with its world-class chess club I get to see guys like Hikaru Nakamura play. Thanks to modern computers I get to watch a fellow with the monikor Chess Network play live on Twitch and actually get to play him now and again. I’m not of the opinion that I can beat either of them. However, I’m working on my game, playing better chess, advancing, and feeling pretty good about that.

This to me is the most important thing of all. We can’t raise a generation of people who have unrealistic expectations about themselves and about the world and hope to see western style democracy finish what the founding fathers started. So, don’t tell your children they can do anything. Teach them to think objectively, to plan, to try new things. And don’t just teach them. Show them. Be the example. It can be something as small as trying a new thing at the restaurant but not with peanuts if you are allergic to them! Be bold but understand the challenges and your limitations. Be prepared!

Tweet, Like, Stumble, Comment, Digg, Pinterest, and otherwise share if you think someone else might like to read this.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

The Secret

Posted on by

PlatitudeToday I take on not a single dumb platitude but the concepts of the book and movie, The Secret, which takes much of its philosophy from the biblical quote: “And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.”

The idea being that if you believe something to be true hard enough you can make it true, particularly by praying for it. What’s interesting about this philosophical idea is that it actually has some pretty firm roots and there are ideas here that are quite worthwhile. But, on the whole it is a dangerously delusional idea to promulgate.

The platitude that I’ll choose from the book/movie, which in all fairness I’ve only read summaries, is the one used on Wikipedia:

“One of the most powerful uses of gratitude can be incorporated in the Creative Process to turbo-charge what you want”

This is one of the main tenants of the Laws of Attraction that are the fundamental backbone of the philosophy. This Laws of Attraction essentially state that our thoughts can change the physical state of the world around us and much of this philosophy comes from books written by Thomas Troward.

First, I want to talk about where this idea has a lot of merit and then I’ll move on to why it is incredibly dangerous. Positive thinking is a great idea. Confidence is good. When I played a lot of golf the last thing I wanted to think before I began my swing was “Don’t hit it in the water”. Much better was “Hit it in the Fairway”. So, the power of thought on our physical actions is, in my opinion, unquestionable. When we do something with confidence the chances are better that we will carry the action through to success than when we move with hesitation.

The physical manifestation of this idea is expressed in the platitude, “Put your head down”. The idea here is to charge forward with confidence rather than with hesitation and, again, this has merit. I really like the concepts of positive thought. Before you try something look at yourself in the mirror and say, “I can do it.” Put your fears away and attack the issue. This is all good and I approve completely.

The idea that things are going to work out helps you become more confident and that confidence in turn leads to actual success. I know, I know, it seems like I’m a proponent of The Secret and the concepts it promulgates. But, here’s where things take a turn to the very bad.

It’s dangerous to tell people that all they have to do is think their way to success. You can’t just put your head down and jump the Grand Canyon. You’ll die. You can’t just tell yourself you’re going to get rich and then get rich. You have to have a plan of action that is based on the real and tangible world. You can’t expect tens of thousands of people to purchase your novels if you don’t write them, publish them, and promote them.

This is where I have the big problem. The movie/book promotes the idea that thought and prayer are the mode to achieve whatever you want in life. This is false.

The way to succeed in life is to critically analyze the situation, come up with an objective plan to achieve the goal, and physically carry out that strategy. Even then, success is not guaranteed, happiness is not guaranteed. Hard work is mandatory!

I’ll make no secret about it. The primary reason I’m writing this blog is to bring attention to my novels to promote sales. If people learn about Libertarianism, Ayn Rand, Objective Thinking, and other concepts that I think are valuable then so be it. But, I’ll tell you this much, I’m not going to get sales by thinking my books will sell or praying they will sell.

So, get out there, think positively, be confident, make a realistic plan, objectively analyze each roadblock as it arises, act on the plan, persevere through obstacles, and find success and happiness! That is the real Secret!

Like, Tweet, Comment, Share, Pinterest, Digg, Stumble and all the rest using the buttons at the under the post!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Everything Happens for a Reason

Posted on by

PlatitudeDay Two of Dumb Platitudes I’ve seen on Facebook continues with this nasty little choice: Everything Happens for a Reason. Interestingly, it is almost always said with the best of intentions. Usually we hear it when a child is pulled from her house, thrown into a field, critically injured, lingers a few days, and then dies. It’s often used in conjunction with God Acts in Mysterious Ways, It was her Time, and other such well meaning phrases.

The idea is that when tragedy strikes it will comfort us to know that there was a reason behind the event. Many people might actually find this somewhat comforting but I think it is important to understand why it is so dangerous.

First, let’s examine the real meaning behind the platitude. It tells us there is a blueprint/master plan for our lives. As if we were a house that must be constructed with an end purpose in mind. You were born for a reason, you contracted strep throat in third grade for a reason, you dropped your dinner knife at the restaurant for a reason, you moved your forefinger slightly to the left at 3:03 p.m. on Monday, March 5, 2012 for a precise and important reason. Everything is an all encompassing word and it must be. If even one thing doesn’t happen for a reason that means that it was an event within our control and invalidates the master plan.

And that, my loyal followers, is why this phrase is so dangerous. It teaches people that someone else controls the events of their lives and this is false. I want to state this as clearly as possible. Things do not happen for a reason. Everything that ever happened – happened. Everything that never happened – didn’t happen. This idea that our lives are steered by a magical hand forces us to relinquish the controls.

Your life is what you make it. Bad things will happen. Good things will happen. You will make decisions and they will turn out well or they will turn out poorly but they are your decisions and it is your life and your life alone. This is Libertarianism, this is Critical Thinking. This is being empowered! I write this blog, I drive with caution, I go to the gym, I eat healthy (or not), but it is always, always, always, me.

There are things out of my control, cancer for example, but it is important to understand that’s okay as well. I control what I can and do my best with the things I cannot control. I don’t give the credit to the master plan and I don’t blame it.

And now I get to what is most important. How to build and maintain a nation that allows people the greatest ability to make their own lives. There is no question a child born in the Congo might be raped and murdered or starve to death and has less chance to make their own lives than a child born in the United States. A perfect government is one that provides the opportunity for education, provides safety, and allows the best and brightest to succeed because it gives us the freedom to make our lives whatever we choose. We fail because of our actions, we succeed because of our choices.

Sounds good, no?

Comment, Tweet, Like, Stumble, Pinterest, Digg, and all the rest!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Don’t ask for a Lighter Load, Pray for a Stronger Shoulder

Posted on by

PlatitudeDumb platitude week starts off with this gem that’s been making the rounds on Facebook of late.

Don’t ask for a lighter load, pray for a stronger shoulder.

First let’s examine the meaning of the platitude and then I’ll move on to why I think it is unhealthy and destructive. Basically, it is saying that life is difficult and rather than proactively trying to make it easier, simply accept the burden.

A charitable interpretation might be that it is encouraging people to struggle past obstacles rather than give up. This is a reasonable platitude but I don’t see that as being the meaning here. To me, this is something that the sadistic boss would say to the meek employee.

The reason I think it is destructive has everything to do with Libertarian ideals. It’s might seem backwards as individual freedom and achievement is one of the main themes of Ayn Rand and the Libertarianism as a whole, but there is nothing in the philosophy that tells a person not to ask for help when it is required.

If we look at this statement in a more objective fashion let’s examine the results.You are given a heavy load to carry. It is too heavy, you aren’t going to make it. Rather than simply ask a friend to help with the load or ask for a lighter assignment you simply struggle through and eventually collapse or injure yourself. Not good.

When I worked at the golf course years ago one of my friends was the assistant pro. At a golf course you work long hours and weekends over the summer and thus miss most of the summer holidays. My friend’s family had a lake house and he complained to me that he never got to go because he was always assigned to work. I simply advised him to ask for Independence Day off but offer to work another day in return. Can you guess what happened? Of course, he got the weekend off and had a great time with his family.

Even more destructive is the idea that prayer can lighten a load. The load is going to weigh the same no matter what (unless we take it to the moon or some other body where gravity is increased or diminished). This, by the way, is a good experiment for those who believe in the power of prayer. Pray all you want the chair on which you sit will turn to gold. Not going to happen. Prayer, like a placebo, can be effective but only when the person praying or being prayed for believes it. The chair doesn’t think and therefore isn’t going to change to gold. It is important to understand this, no matter how many million people pray for that chair to turn to gold – it never will. Never.

If we don’t ask for the things we want then no one is going to give them to us. This is a central theme of Libertarianism. We can’t expect people to give us things and if we work hard and don’t ask for a prize we aren’t going to get it.

So, for this platitude I would substitute: When the load is too heavy, lighten it.

Or: God helps those who help themselves. I strongly urge you to follow this link to learn about that platitude. You will be surprised.

As always, Like, Tweet, Stumble, Pinterest or otherwise share and if you disagree feel free to Comment!

Speaking of which, my mother sent me an email in partial disagreement over a recent post. Hey, mom! I’m trying to drum up publicity for my books, don’t send me a private email, comment! Let’s get some controversy started.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist