Book 66
OTHER IN SPACE (13-23)
BOOK 66: OTHER IN SPACE
13. On Morality
Physicist, Stephen Hawking, once mocked Intelligence Quotient (IQ) ranking as an idiotic system where those who take pride in their IQ rating are “losers”. He wasn’t entirely wrong because IQ testing has yet to provide laymen with a proper understanding of its worth as a measure. The reality is that if an individual took an IQ test for the first time, they would likely score around thirty points lower than after taking an IQ test every day for a year and then recording their score. Did they get that much “smarter” by the end of the year? No, but they have learned the logic of abstract patterns which are privileged in the standardized IQ testing method. Therefore, IQ testing measures only one kind of intelligence, and arguably, does a poor job of that.
A “cold score” for IQ tests would be more appropriate if someone were attempting to impress others with proclamations of their high intellect. A cold score would be the score that you receive on an IQ test having not prepared at all in at least ten years.
Furthermore, who the hell cares about IQ? The rating which should concern everyone is a person’s Moral IQ score. What does it matter to us if someone is the best at completing calculus problem sets if they are also serial child murderers? Do we revere them for their intelligence? How perverse! However, Moral IQ can measure intelligence that serves good thought and pro-social action. There would be utility for raising the prestige in society of those with high Moral IQ. Moral IQ test questions would focus on gauging a respondent’s ability to understand complex issues related to hypocrisy, prejudice, deferral, persuasion, introspection, dignity, dogma, and utility, to name a few.
13. On Morality
Physicist, Stephen Hawking, once mocked Intelligence Quotient (IQ) ranking as an idiotic system where those who take pride in their IQ rating are “losers”. He wasn’t entirely wrong because IQ testing has yet to provide laymen with a proper understanding of its worth as a measure. The reality is that if an individual took an IQ test for the first time, they would likely score around thirty points lower than after taking an IQ test every day for a year and then recording their score. Did they get that much “smarter” by the end of the year? No, but they have learned the logic of abstract patterns which are privileged in the standardized IQ testing method. Therefore, IQ testing measures only one kind of intelligence, and arguably, does a poor job of that.
A “cold score” for IQ tests would be more appropriate if someone were attempting to impress others with proclamations of their high intellect. A cold score would be the score that you receive on an IQ test having not prepared at all in at least ten years.
Furthermore, who the hell cares about IQ? The rating which should concern everyone is a person’s Moral IQ score. What does it matter to us if someone is the best at completing calculus problem sets if they are also serial child murderers? Do we revere them for their intelligence? How perverse! However, Moral IQ can measure intelligence that serves good thought and pro-social action. There would be utility for raising the prestige in society of those with high Moral IQ. Moral IQ test questions would focus on gauging a respondent’s ability to understand complex issues related to hypocrisy, prejudice, deferral, persuasion, introspection, dignity, dogma, and utility, to name a few.
BOOK 66: OTHER IN SPACE
14. On Generalization
Two “researchers” from the University of Delaware received funding to publish in peer-reviewed journals their “work” on a confirmation-biased study to prove the Cultural Marxist tenet and generalization that “all white people are racist”. Their method involved measuring facial dimensions which they connected to testosterone levels.
Cesar Lombroso would be proud because centuries earlier he pioneered work in criminology when he used cadavers in city morgues to measure the skull sizes of dead prostitutes to determine physiognomic characteristics as indicators for criminal behavior. Experts in the field of criminology promptly debunked Lombroso’s work once that discipline began to emphasize science and empiricism – proving something without relying on prejudice.
I can’t say for sure what has gone wrong with the University of Delaware and why that institution has supported instances of regression in pedagogy. They aren’t the only university guilty of such things. However, the racist study at the University of Delaware does bring me to a point on generalization, and what activists refer to as “everythingism”.
Generalization appears to be a heuristic device for structuring perception of the world. Generalization is a method for making more accurate predictions on happenings in the world. We generalize for the purpose of experiencing life in a more stable way. Thus, generalizations can be understood to promote rational thinking.
However, generalizations themselves have to be articulated rationally to achieve their goal. The generalization that “fish stinks” can be a rational one if the individual stating this prejudice also knows themselves to have a weak immune system whereby exposure to the bacteria of stale fresh is very dangerous at a personal level. This generalization about fish serves that individual positively. Can the same be said for the generalizations, “whites are racist”, “blacks are lazy”, or “women are bad drivers”? It is unlikely, although to check for rationality of the prejudice one would have to be familiar with the specific details of the life for the person subscribing to that generalization.
Prior to condemning someone for their generalizations, we should consider whether it would be a justifiable prejudice, if the shoe was on the other foot for us.
14. On Generalization
Two “researchers” from the University of Delaware received funding to publish in peer-reviewed journals their “work” on a confirmation-biased study to prove the Cultural Marxist tenet and generalization that “all white people are racist”. Their method involved measuring facial dimensions which they connected to testosterone levels.
Cesar Lombroso would be proud because centuries earlier he pioneered work in criminology when he used cadavers in city morgues to measure the skull sizes of dead prostitutes to determine physiognomic characteristics as indicators for criminal behavior. Experts in the field of criminology promptly debunked Lombroso’s work once that discipline began to emphasize science and empiricism – proving something without relying on prejudice.
I can’t say for sure what has gone wrong with the University of Delaware and why that institution has supported instances of regression in pedagogy. They aren’t the only university guilty of such things. However, the racist study at the University of Delaware does bring me to a point on generalization, and what activists refer to as “everythingism”.
Generalization appears to be a heuristic device for structuring perception of the world. Generalization is a method for making more accurate predictions on happenings in the world. We generalize for the purpose of experiencing life in a more stable way. Thus, generalizations can be understood to promote rational thinking.
However, generalizations themselves have to be articulated rationally to achieve their goal. The generalization that “fish stinks” can be a rational one if the individual stating this prejudice also knows themselves to have a weak immune system whereby exposure to the bacteria of stale fresh is very dangerous at a personal level. This generalization about fish serves that individual positively. Can the same be said for the generalizations, “whites are racist”, “blacks are lazy”, or “women are bad drivers”? It is unlikely, although to check for rationality of the prejudice one would have to be familiar with the specific details of the life for the person subscribing to that generalization.
Prior to condemning someone for their generalizations, we should consider whether it would be a justifiable prejudice, if the shoe was on the other foot for us.
BOOK 66: OTHER IN SPACE
15. On News
There has been much ado about the stigma of “fake news”. Yellow journalism is whatever you want it to be based on how you feel. People have their news sources that they trust and others which they reject or despise. Very few people “triangulate” their news sources. Triangulation for how you receive local or global news is a strategy for fact-finding and for attaining genuine political enfranchisement.
For example, there is an event which has happened – a school has been shot up and the domestic terrorist has already been killed by the law enforcement authorities. Conservative news sources are focused on the fact that the shooter was transgendered, the liberal news sources suppress aforementioned detail and highlight lax gun control regulations and laws, and socialist news sources key in on the brutality of how the police dealt with the terrorist who was an “oppressed” and “vulnerable” individual.
To rely on a single news source with a particular political bent is to only learn part of the story. Arguably, you cannot consider yourself truly politically enfranchised if your knowledge of current affairs comes from single news sources, or multiple sources which all have the same political alignment.
Fake news is a phenomenon of postmodern hysteria derived from lack of political enfranchisement, and this phenomenon would have little significance and import to contemporary discourse if people were willing and able to triangulate how they received news of current events.
Fake news as a phenomenon is a form of interpretation rather than there actually being such a thing as “fake” news. News is news – it is a story spun on a particular event. However, the interpretation of news can lead to a conclusion that the news is either to be subscribed to, or rejected (and thus, fake). The only truly fake news would be akin to Orson Welles’s 1938 radio broadcast of H.G. Wells’s War of the Worlds, whereby some naïve listeners panicked believing that the science fiction story was being reported as an actual occurrence.
How contemporary society uses the term “fake news” keys in on a process of misperceiving opinions as facts. A news source is knowingly spouting opinions and dressing them up as facts – this is fake news. Of course, this notion is almost always a matter of interpretation. There is also an aspect of the fake news phenomenon as a mode of interpretation that is currently repressed in our contemporary discourse. What I am referring to is that fake news is a process of disavowing facts as being mere opinion. Therein lies the true danger of the fake news phenomenon.
15. On News
There has been much ado about the stigma of “fake news”. Yellow journalism is whatever you want it to be based on how you feel. People have their news sources that they trust and others which they reject or despise. Very few people “triangulate” their news sources. Triangulation for how you receive local or global news is a strategy for fact-finding and for attaining genuine political enfranchisement.
For example, there is an event which has happened – a school has been shot up and the domestic terrorist has already been killed by the law enforcement authorities. Conservative news sources are focused on the fact that the shooter was transgendered, the liberal news sources suppress aforementioned detail and highlight lax gun control regulations and laws, and socialist news sources key in on the brutality of how the police dealt with the terrorist who was an “oppressed” and “vulnerable” individual.
To rely on a single news source with a particular political bent is to only learn part of the story. Arguably, you cannot consider yourself truly politically enfranchised if your knowledge of current affairs comes from single news sources, or multiple sources which all have the same political alignment.
Fake news is a phenomenon of postmodern hysteria derived from lack of political enfranchisement, and this phenomenon would have little significance and import to contemporary discourse if people were willing and able to triangulate how they received news of current events.
Fake news as a phenomenon is a form of interpretation rather than there actually being such a thing as “fake” news. News is news – it is a story spun on a particular event. However, the interpretation of news can lead to a conclusion that the news is either to be subscribed to, or rejected (and thus, fake). The only truly fake news would be akin to Orson Welles’s 1938 radio broadcast of H.G. Wells’s War of the Worlds, whereby some naïve listeners panicked believing that the science fiction story was being reported as an actual occurrence.
How contemporary society uses the term “fake news” keys in on a process of misperceiving opinions as facts. A news source is knowingly spouting opinions and dressing them up as facts – this is fake news. Of course, this notion is almost always a matter of interpretation. There is also an aspect of the fake news phenomenon as a mode of interpretation that is currently repressed in our contemporary discourse. What I am referring to is that fake news is a process of disavowing facts as being mere opinion. Therein lies the true danger of the fake news phenomenon.
BOOK 66: OTHER IN SPACE
16. On Literacy
The human eye experiences constant involuntary fixational eye movements called microsaccades, and these movements teach us that the eye is always doing work when the person is conscious and observing their environment. However, new digital media forms have increasingly relied on mobile framing and fast-cut editing to produce a dramatic effect and sense of immersion for a viewer. The apparatus begins to do the work for our eye, and arguably, our eye becomes more passive in its mode of operation and observation.
Early cinema was nothing more than recorded theater and the camera was static, positioned ideally as if it were a single audience member in the theater with the best seat in the house. Later, mobile framing (camera movement) and fast-cut editing brought about a dynamic happening as represented through the apparatus of audiovisual media.
Professional wrestling has been increasingly reliant on this new form of representation as a means of translating kinetic force through cinematic style as opposed to through actual physical bodies crashing together in the “squared-circle” of a wrestling ring. For pro-wrestling this “invention” of pseudo-impact for their form of audiovisual entertainment was a matter of necessity because class-action lawsuits regarding long-term injury for the wrestlers threatened the viability of the entertainment form. The camera moves fast in pro-wrestling whenever there is a high impact move, and this means the wrestlers don’t have to give it their all to “sell” the move.
However, in televised pro-wrestling the camera’s movement is also movement done for the viewer instead of forcing their own eye to translate the kinetic effect through active visual analysis. Online web browsing has also developed a “windows” principle for easy-to-navigate user interface, and surfing through social media posts is often akin to a rapid montage edit sequence in movies or the shaky zoom effect in pro-wrestling television spectacles. Traditional media required that the eye do the work whether by reading words across the lines of a page in a book or analyzing the ‘tableau’ of early cinematic mise-en-scene. Whereas new digital media forms do the work for the eye.
Through constant exposure to new digital media forms, the eye becomes lazy. Later, the eye is easily fatigued when engaging with traditional media, such as books. In time, it becomes psychologically painful to engage with traditional media because it feels like arduous work which the eye has not been training for. This effect may explain the rise of illiteracy among youth, as well as the decreasing rates of reading for adults.
If humans become acclimated to having the work done for them in all things, then this spells disaster for our species because when it comes to meaning-production generally, the form that does the most work for you without asking you to do anything is propaganda. A less literate society is also one prone to propaganda, ideology, and activism.
16. On Literacy
The human eye experiences constant involuntary fixational eye movements called microsaccades, and these movements teach us that the eye is always doing work when the person is conscious and observing their environment. However, new digital media forms have increasingly relied on mobile framing and fast-cut editing to produce a dramatic effect and sense of immersion for a viewer. The apparatus begins to do the work for our eye, and arguably, our eye becomes more passive in its mode of operation and observation.
Early cinema was nothing more than recorded theater and the camera was static, positioned ideally as if it were a single audience member in the theater with the best seat in the house. Later, mobile framing (camera movement) and fast-cut editing brought about a dynamic happening as represented through the apparatus of audiovisual media.
Professional wrestling has been increasingly reliant on this new form of representation as a means of translating kinetic force through cinematic style as opposed to through actual physical bodies crashing together in the “squared-circle” of a wrestling ring. For pro-wrestling this “invention” of pseudo-impact for their form of audiovisual entertainment was a matter of necessity because class-action lawsuits regarding long-term injury for the wrestlers threatened the viability of the entertainment form. The camera moves fast in pro-wrestling whenever there is a high impact move, and this means the wrestlers don’t have to give it their all to “sell” the move.
However, in televised pro-wrestling the camera’s movement is also movement done for the viewer instead of forcing their own eye to translate the kinetic effect through active visual analysis. Online web browsing has also developed a “windows” principle for easy-to-navigate user interface, and surfing through social media posts is often akin to a rapid montage edit sequence in movies or the shaky zoom effect in pro-wrestling television spectacles. Traditional media required that the eye do the work whether by reading words across the lines of a page in a book or analyzing the ‘tableau’ of early cinematic mise-en-scene. Whereas new digital media forms do the work for the eye.
Through constant exposure to new digital media forms, the eye becomes lazy. Later, the eye is easily fatigued when engaging with traditional media, such as books. In time, it becomes psychologically painful to engage with traditional media because it feels like arduous work which the eye has not been training for. This effect may explain the rise of illiteracy among youth, as well as the decreasing rates of reading for adults.
If humans become acclimated to having the work done for them in all things, then this spells disaster for our species because when it comes to meaning-production generally, the form that does the most work for you without asking you to do anything is propaganda. A less literate society is also one prone to propaganda, ideology, and activism.
BOOK 66: OTHER IN SPACE
17. On Expertise
Imagine a man who works out at the gym six days a week, including vigorous cardio, and free weight sessions where he lifts to the point of “failure”. A few years later, with a good diet, you might expect this man to be extremely fit and strong. He did the work to attain that result. Another man jogs on Sundays and when he visits the gym two times a week, he quits the cardio workout halfway through and does a few chin-ups before heading home. We imagine this second man to be relatively wimpy as compared with the beastly fitness fanatic.
To continue this musing, let us imagine that the beast and wimp meet in a bar on the weekend. Do we expect the wimp to challenge the beast to a physical contest? No. We all know the result – a bloody nose and sore ass for the wimp. We could all see the inevitable result beforehand just through a visual evaluation of their respective physiques.
However, in recent decades, intellectual wimps have challenged intellectual beasts shamelessly and often, especially through online forums. Author, Tom Nichols, has noted this phenomenon as the “death of expertise”. Why is this happening? It seems to me that several major transitions have caused an “average” thinker (our wimp) to believe that their mental strength equals that of a tireless thinker and one who has trained hard in intellectual-based pursuits (our beast).
Firstly, the Industrial Revolution caused a social shift from rural to urban development thus provoking a certain kind of social indoctrination best achieved through standardization of education in schools. Secondly, the post-war ideology beginning in 1945 shifted the age-old priority of killing young men on the battlefield to fostering their potential as useful cogs of industry through post-secondary education programs. Thirdly, the Reagan-era shift from manufacturing-based industry to service-based industry in the West provoked an emphasis on more intellectual-based post-secondary programs given that service work is more intellectually-engaged than that of manufacturing work.
All in all, people became smarter, and they know it – and good for them, sincerely. However, the historical imagination for intellectual superiority has become a fetish which operates through disavowing the fact that the average intellect remains mediocre overall. The average person is much smarter today than the average person in 1930, 1750, or 300 BC. Yet, the average person today is just as dumb as compared with geniuses or experts of today as was the case for average people in previous centuries when they compared their intelligence with the geniuses and experts of their day. The death of expertise phenomenon highlights that this fact about the historically consistent discrepancy between average and superior intelligence tends to be denied by average thinkers today.
The good news is that all it takes is tireless intellectual work to be the equivalent of the gym beast – and almost anyone can do it if they put in the hours.
17. On Expertise
Imagine a man who works out at the gym six days a week, including vigorous cardio, and free weight sessions where he lifts to the point of “failure”. A few years later, with a good diet, you might expect this man to be extremely fit and strong. He did the work to attain that result. Another man jogs on Sundays and when he visits the gym two times a week, he quits the cardio workout halfway through and does a few chin-ups before heading home. We imagine this second man to be relatively wimpy as compared with the beastly fitness fanatic.
To continue this musing, let us imagine that the beast and wimp meet in a bar on the weekend. Do we expect the wimp to challenge the beast to a physical contest? No. We all know the result – a bloody nose and sore ass for the wimp. We could all see the inevitable result beforehand just through a visual evaluation of their respective physiques.
However, in recent decades, intellectual wimps have challenged intellectual beasts shamelessly and often, especially through online forums. Author, Tom Nichols, has noted this phenomenon as the “death of expertise”. Why is this happening? It seems to me that several major transitions have caused an “average” thinker (our wimp) to believe that their mental strength equals that of a tireless thinker and one who has trained hard in intellectual-based pursuits (our beast).
Firstly, the Industrial Revolution caused a social shift from rural to urban development thus provoking a certain kind of social indoctrination best achieved through standardization of education in schools. Secondly, the post-war ideology beginning in 1945 shifted the age-old priority of killing young men on the battlefield to fostering their potential as useful cogs of industry through post-secondary education programs. Thirdly, the Reagan-era shift from manufacturing-based industry to service-based industry in the West provoked an emphasis on more intellectual-based post-secondary programs given that service work is more intellectually-engaged than that of manufacturing work.
All in all, people became smarter, and they know it – and good for them, sincerely. However, the historical imagination for intellectual superiority has become a fetish which operates through disavowing the fact that the average intellect remains mediocre overall. The average person is much smarter today than the average person in 1930, 1750, or 300 BC. Yet, the average person today is just as dumb as compared with geniuses or experts of today as was the case for average people in previous centuries when they compared their intelligence with the geniuses and experts of their day. The death of expertise phenomenon highlights that this fact about the historically consistent discrepancy between average and superior intelligence tends to be denied by average thinkers today.
The good news is that all it takes is tireless intellectual work to be the equivalent of the gym beast – and almost anyone can do it if they put in the hours.
BOOK 66: OTHER IN SPACE
18. On Privilege
The concept of “privilege” has always been one that I find vexing. Sure, I have privilege and some aspects of my life have given me a great advantage over others. However, I have resisted accusations of being privileged that are based purely on superficial markers, such as, being white, being male, being hetero, etc.
So, I’m a white, heterosexual male – that makes me privileged? I can’t remember any Rockefellers cutting me cheques, or Clintons inviting me to galas, or Trumps handing me jobs. It would feel absurd to me if I accused Lori Lightfoot of privilege because she is a gay black woman – no, she is privileged because she had a powerful position as mayor of a major metropolis in America.
Privilege is associated with what you do socially, and not what you are superficially. If the human race had some kind of fantastic machine that could bring people back from the dead, and we decided to resurrect Bruce Lee, would he feel privileged? Of course! But would he feel privileged because he had martial arts and acting going for him, or would he feel privileged because he was Asian? The latter is absurd, and it wouldn’t be on his mind whatsoever.
In fact, if he discovered that he was selected as a ‘token’ Asian over several other candidates that might have been chosen for resurrection then one might imagine Mr. Lee feeling deeply insulted. For Bruce, his sense of privilege was related to the hard work he had done and the talent he had honed. There is no privilege in what we are superficially, and each of us can ameliorate or worsen our position in life through how we act, and not how we appear generally.
Any society which would privilege a notion of “privilege” that is geared for judging people superficially should be questioned on their basic values and their shadowy intentions. Discrimination is real – it is action taken against someone based on that individual’s superficial markers. That would seem to suggest that accusing people of “privilege” based on their superficial markers is a form of discrimination.
Can a progressive society justify engagement in a two-wrongs-make-a-right philosophy? Would that society driven by lex talionis ideology not simply become the example that M. Ghandi warned us against where “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”? Such a system seems to epitomise regression.
18. On Privilege
The concept of “privilege” has always been one that I find vexing. Sure, I have privilege and some aspects of my life have given me a great advantage over others. However, I have resisted accusations of being privileged that are based purely on superficial markers, such as, being white, being male, being hetero, etc.
So, I’m a white, heterosexual male – that makes me privileged? I can’t remember any Rockefellers cutting me cheques, or Clintons inviting me to galas, or Trumps handing me jobs. It would feel absurd to me if I accused Lori Lightfoot of privilege because she is a gay black woman – no, she is privileged because she had a powerful position as mayor of a major metropolis in America.
Privilege is associated with what you do socially, and not what you are superficially. If the human race had some kind of fantastic machine that could bring people back from the dead, and we decided to resurrect Bruce Lee, would he feel privileged? Of course! But would he feel privileged because he had martial arts and acting going for him, or would he feel privileged because he was Asian? The latter is absurd, and it wouldn’t be on his mind whatsoever.
In fact, if he discovered that he was selected as a ‘token’ Asian over several other candidates that might have been chosen for resurrection then one might imagine Mr. Lee feeling deeply insulted. For Bruce, his sense of privilege was related to the hard work he had done and the talent he had honed. There is no privilege in what we are superficially, and each of us can ameliorate or worsen our position in life through how we act, and not how we appear generally.
Any society which would privilege a notion of “privilege” that is geared for judging people superficially should be questioned on their basic values and their shadowy intentions. Discrimination is real – it is action taken against someone based on that individual’s superficial markers. That would seem to suggest that accusing people of “privilege” based on their superficial markers is a form of discrimination.
Can a progressive society justify engagement in a two-wrongs-make-a-right philosophy? Would that society driven by lex talionis ideology not simply become the example that M. Ghandi warned us against where “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”? Such a system seems to epitomise regression.
BOOK 66: OTHER IN SPACE
19. On Decisions
MIT produced a rudimentary game with a single mechanic – a choice between making a car swerve into pedestrians on the sidewalk, or instead collide with other pedestrians using a crosswalk directly ahead. This game was named the Moral Machine, and it was designed to present moral dilemmas.
For example, the Moral Machine sought to learn whether players would decide to swerve into an old man on the sidewalk in order to avoid hitting children using the crosswalk. Effectively, the Moral Machine tested how people value other human lives based on superficial markers. It sounds idiotic, right? Were MIT researchers measuring moral competence, or instead reinforcing prejudices?
The Moral Machine was considered to have import to car manufacturers who are currently developing an array of self-driving vehicles. How do we “teach” the car to “target” if collision is inevitable with there still being some opportunity to direct the vehicle at the site of the collision? Does the car’s computer know to hit the elderly man on the sidewalk by swerving when it is an available option and all to avoid hitting the little girl at the crosswalk?
My question is the following: do we want to teach computers who have no inherent human bias, our bias? The machine should not be expected to judge, nor be programmed based on our ever-shifting, and often irrational, prejudices. Human prejudice changes with the wind – a hundred years ago the boogeyman was Jews, then twenty years after that it was homosexuals, forty years ago it was young black males, and today it is white heterosexual males. Tomorrow, the boogeyman might be old lesbians, or Asian men who own cats, or people who wear green underpants. What a fiasco to keep up!
The answer is clear: the car should never swerve. Pedestrians have a responsibility to remain aware at crossings, whereas they are not expected to walk down the sidewalk paranoid that they might be taken out by a swerving vehicle. Cars that swerve and hit people usually kill those people because they were completely unaware. A pedestrian at a crossing might have a chance to jump back, or at least prepare their body for the collision.
In conclusion, a machine should always be programmed to operate in such a way that is most consistent with people’s anticipatory strategies against error or fault in that machine’s operation. Machines can’t make moral judgments and should never be expected to.
19. On Decisions
MIT produced a rudimentary game with a single mechanic – a choice between making a car swerve into pedestrians on the sidewalk, or instead collide with other pedestrians using a crosswalk directly ahead. This game was named the Moral Machine, and it was designed to present moral dilemmas.
For example, the Moral Machine sought to learn whether players would decide to swerve into an old man on the sidewalk in order to avoid hitting children using the crosswalk. Effectively, the Moral Machine tested how people value other human lives based on superficial markers. It sounds idiotic, right? Were MIT researchers measuring moral competence, or instead reinforcing prejudices?
The Moral Machine was considered to have import to car manufacturers who are currently developing an array of self-driving vehicles. How do we “teach” the car to “target” if collision is inevitable with there still being some opportunity to direct the vehicle at the site of the collision? Does the car’s computer know to hit the elderly man on the sidewalk by swerving when it is an available option and all to avoid hitting the little girl at the crosswalk?
My question is the following: do we want to teach computers who have no inherent human bias, our bias? The machine should not be expected to judge, nor be programmed based on our ever-shifting, and often irrational, prejudices. Human prejudice changes with the wind – a hundred years ago the boogeyman was Jews, then twenty years after that it was homosexuals, forty years ago it was young black males, and today it is white heterosexual males. Tomorrow, the boogeyman might be old lesbians, or Asian men who own cats, or people who wear green underpants. What a fiasco to keep up!
The answer is clear: the car should never swerve. Pedestrians have a responsibility to remain aware at crossings, whereas they are not expected to walk down the sidewalk paranoid that they might be taken out by a swerving vehicle. Cars that swerve and hit people usually kill those people because they were completely unaware. A pedestrian at a crossing might have a chance to jump back, or at least prepare their body for the collision.
In conclusion, a machine should always be programmed to operate in such a way that is most consistent with people’s anticipatory strategies against error or fault in that machine’s operation. Machines can’t make moral judgments and should never be expected to.
BOOK 66: OTHER IN SPACE
20. On Work
You have probably had hundreds of coworkers in your life (at least dozens), and they each came and went providing a unique profile of helpfulness and hindrance. However, perhaps, there are truly only four types of workers: workhorse, flake, grinder, and parasite. These types are categorized across two primary dimensions: effort and capability.
The workhorse exerts great effort but is also highly capable – they typically become a team leader. On the other hand, the flake constantly requires greater motivation to work and although they too are capable, the effort isn’t there. A flake may try to fill a leadership position in order to redefine a project’s goals to better meet their ever-shifting expectations. Those attempts may increase their motivation, and thus, the flake puts in more effort at work. If the flake leadership works out, they likely convert to a workhorse, but if it fails, coworkers are left in the lurch.
There are two other types of workers, and neither are apt for leadership roles, with the first being the grinder. The grinder puts in the effort, but they lack capability. Grinders are put on simpler tasks because they lack the ability to be autodidactic at work. Grinders require clear instructions and appropriate supervision.
The final type of worker is the parasite, who puts in little to no effort as well as demonstrating low capability on tasks and projects. The parasite does not adapt, they are not autodidactic, and they require constant supervision. They drag down other coworkers, and they can be identified through their shameless boasts about “fucking the dog” at work. They come in late and knock off early. The parasite will rely on nepotism, bullying, or sycophantic behavior to retain jobs.
Most importantly, the parasite with target flakes and deflect attention from their own poor performance by exposing minor lapses for uninspired flakes. If a parasite has the second least seniority to a flake it is assured that the flake will be “shit-canned” even if they were capable of becoming a workhorse at that job because the parasite will relentless target that flake who lacks seniority.
The approach seems intuitive: identify parasites and remove them from the workforce. But watch out for when grinders become the boss because they usually keep parasites around to deflect anyone noticing that the new head honcho has low capability. An important reminder for any employer is that the presence of the parasite may be the reason that the flake lacks motivation in the first place and has yet to transform into a workhorse.
20. On Work
You have probably had hundreds of coworkers in your life (at least dozens), and they each came and went providing a unique profile of helpfulness and hindrance. However, perhaps, there are truly only four types of workers: workhorse, flake, grinder, and parasite. These types are categorized across two primary dimensions: effort and capability.
The workhorse exerts great effort but is also highly capable – they typically become a team leader. On the other hand, the flake constantly requires greater motivation to work and although they too are capable, the effort isn’t there. A flake may try to fill a leadership position in order to redefine a project’s goals to better meet their ever-shifting expectations. Those attempts may increase their motivation, and thus, the flake puts in more effort at work. If the flake leadership works out, they likely convert to a workhorse, but if it fails, coworkers are left in the lurch.
There are two other types of workers, and neither are apt for leadership roles, with the first being the grinder. The grinder puts in the effort, but they lack capability. Grinders are put on simpler tasks because they lack the ability to be autodidactic at work. Grinders require clear instructions and appropriate supervision.
The final type of worker is the parasite, who puts in little to no effort as well as demonstrating low capability on tasks and projects. The parasite does not adapt, they are not autodidactic, and they require constant supervision. They drag down other coworkers, and they can be identified through their shameless boasts about “fucking the dog” at work. They come in late and knock off early. The parasite will rely on nepotism, bullying, or sycophantic behavior to retain jobs.
Most importantly, the parasite with target flakes and deflect attention from their own poor performance by exposing minor lapses for uninspired flakes. If a parasite has the second least seniority to a flake it is assured that the flake will be “shit-canned” even if they were capable of becoming a workhorse at that job because the parasite will relentless target that flake who lacks seniority.
The approach seems intuitive: identify parasites and remove them from the workforce. But watch out for when grinders become the boss because they usually keep parasites around to deflect anyone noticing that the new head honcho has low capability. An important reminder for any employer is that the presence of the parasite may be the reason that the flake lacks motivation in the first place and has yet to transform into a workhorse.
BOOK 66: OTHER IN SPACE
21. On Prostitution
The “oldest profession” is rife with mythology, and one particular bias against prostitutes which we are familiar with is that they don’t choose the profession, but rather, they are exploited through abusive men which results in those women trading sex for money. Should this prove to be true then it would present a significant social problem.
However, what if most prostitutes choose that profession not even for the money as much as for the risk? – they are adrenaline junkies. We certainly recognize that some people by nature (or by accident) are lacking in nerve sensitivity physically, and this can often result in these people seeking out activities that provide a surfeit of sensation, or a “rush”. Excitatory homeostasis is a scientific explanation to guide our understanding of the habits of these adrenaline junkies.
The comedy-prank troupe known as “Jack Ass” may have members who mutilate themselves during stunts or pranks in order to achieve a measure of physical sensation that would undoubtedly traumatize people with normal sensitization levels. There is a sense that the physical nerves of Jack Ass members, Johnny Knoxville or Steve O. are pretty dead.
There could also be psychological low sensitivity due to defects of the amygdala, basal ganglia, or limbic systems of the brain. Men seek out increased sensation through stunts, backyard wrestling, policing, firefighting, military service, or mixed-martial arts fighting – some women as well. Could strip teasing and prostitution be added to that list of risky professions that raise physical and psychological sensation to affect a homeostatic state?
The strip club and brothel are fraught with emotional and physical danger. The women who work in these environments may very well be freely choosing that line of work for the thrills that satisfy their sense of re-sensitization, both physically and psychologically.
This hypothesis should not encourage society to excuse exploitation in the sex industry, but rather, become more attuned to those who are in fact vulnerable and do need assistance.
21. On Prostitution
The “oldest profession” is rife with mythology, and one particular bias against prostitutes which we are familiar with is that they don’t choose the profession, but rather, they are exploited through abusive men which results in those women trading sex for money. Should this prove to be true then it would present a significant social problem.
However, what if most prostitutes choose that profession not even for the money as much as for the risk? – they are adrenaline junkies. We certainly recognize that some people by nature (or by accident) are lacking in nerve sensitivity physically, and this can often result in these people seeking out activities that provide a surfeit of sensation, or a “rush”. Excitatory homeostasis is a scientific explanation to guide our understanding of the habits of these adrenaline junkies.
The comedy-prank troupe known as “Jack Ass” may have members who mutilate themselves during stunts or pranks in order to achieve a measure of physical sensation that would undoubtedly traumatize people with normal sensitization levels. There is a sense that the physical nerves of Jack Ass members, Johnny Knoxville or Steve O. are pretty dead.
There could also be psychological low sensitivity due to defects of the amygdala, basal ganglia, or limbic systems of the brain. Men seek out increased sensation through stunts, backyard wrestling, policing, firefighting, military service, or mixed-martial arts fighting – some women as well. Could strip teasing and prostitution be added to that list of risky professions that raise physical and psychological sensation to affect a homeostatic state?
The strip club and brothel are fraught with emotional and physical danger. The women who work in these environments may very well be freely choosing that line of work for the thrills that satisfy their sense of re-sensitization, both physically and psychologically.
This hypothesis should not encourage society to excuse exploitation in the sex industry, but rather, become more attuned to those who are in fact vulnerable and do need assistance.
BOOK 66: OTHER IN SPACE
22. On Preference
Children understand their mother and father as having separate and distinct natures. Fathers appear non-essential, through the lack of necessary physical attachment, whereas mothers are essential – we grow inside our mothers, and then we feed from their bodies. Fathers play up the role of being unattached and mothers do the same for their role of being attached to the child.
In nature, many animals develop similar relationships with their offspring as a matter of survival – males are unattached allowing their bodies to be used for defending the mother and offspring, while the male is also free to move to the next territory to ensure that there is no regressive incestuous breeding.
For human beings, the lack of inherent attachment for the male or father as well as the necessary attachment for the female or mother has resulted in a kind of “birth cult” mentality for the woman. The birth-cult mentality is based in strong feelings for the woman that having a baby qualifies as a significant life achievement such that other achievements aren’t necessary. Meanwhile, men develop a “death cult” mentality whereby their inherent lack of attachment is fetishized, and they pursue significant life achievement through death, hence, the historical war machine of the human race.
However, we still develop debates about gender inequality, yet studies show most inequality is in fact a matter of preference – men choose risky jobs that have critical elements of detachment, while women choose stable jobs that emphasize bonding. These preferences emerge in childhood during the stage of self-play, where girls play with dolls and “play house” in recognition of their nature to bond, while boys play with soldiers or cars which present death (absence) or detachment (mobility). In time, these natural preferences are fetishized and become perverse expressions of either a birth-cult mentality for females, or a death-cult mentality for males.
The disappearance of the male is built-in to male psychology from birth and although it has positive effects such as promoting ingenuity (make what is absent appear), it also compels a fascination with self-destruction (absence through death). The risky jobs that require travel or being holed-up in a lab may have paid more money historically than jobs which emphasize bonding and interpersonal relations (such as, service industry work where women have prospered), however, it has been a pyrrhic victory for men given its connection to the death-cult mentality.
22. On Preference
Children understand their mother and father as having separate and distinct natures. Fathers appear non-essential, through the lack of necessary physical attachment, whereas mothers are essential – we grow inside our mothers, and then we feed from their bodies. Fathers play up the role of being unattached and mothers do the same for their role of being attached to the child.
In nature, many animals develop similar relationships with their offspring as a matter of survival – males are unattached allowing their bodies to be used for defending the mother and offspring, while the male is also free to move to the next territory to ensure that there is no regressive incestuous breeding.
For human beings, the lack of inherent attachment for the male or father as well as the necessary attachment for the female or mother has resulted in a kind of “birth cult” mentality for the woman. The birth-cult mentality is based in strong feelings for the woman that having a baby qualifies as a significant life achievement such that other achievements aren’t necessary. Meanwhile, men develop a “death cult” mentality whereby their inherent lack of attachment is fetishized, and they pursue significant life achievement through death, hence, the historical war machine of the human race.
However, we still develop debates about gender inequality, yet studies show most inequality is in fact a matter of preference – men choose risky jobs that have critical elements of detachment, while women choose stable jobs that emphasize bonding. These preferences emerge in childhood during the stage of self-play, where girls play with dolls and “play house” in recognition of their nature to bond, while boys play with soldiers or cars which present death (absence) or detachment (mobility). In time, these natural preferences are fetishized and become perverse expressions of either a birth-cult mentality for females, or a death-cult mentality for males.
The disappearance of the male is built-in to male psychology from birth and although it has positive effects such as promoting ingenuity (make what is absent appear), it also compels a fascination with self-destruction (absence through death). The risky jobs that require travel or being holed-up in a lab may have paid more money historically than jobs which emphasize bonding and interpersonal relations (such as, service industry work where women have prospered), however, it has been a pyrrhic victory for men given its connection to the death-cult mentality.
BOOK 66: OTHER IN SPACE
23. On Religion
If one were to meet a man at the end of his life who then claimed that he had had a very satisfying sex life, you might be expected to pat him on the back and congratulate him. However, this same man then reveals to you that the only sexual experiences he ever had was when he was told by a porn actor graphic detail of the intimate acts. Now, you would pity that man, having realized that he didn’t truly know anything about sex – he had no true sex life.
How is collectivist-based religious faith any different than the man with no sex life? The believer in collectivist-based, or “organized” religions is told by an “expert” the nature of faith, God, the afterlife, etc. At no point does the believer develop the understanding themselves through constructing their own personalized faith. The believer of collectivist-based religion witnesses the minister running to first base – then to second, third, and finally across home plate – all while the believer watches from a seat in the stands without ever going up to the batter’s box and swinging their own bat. It is a balked opportunity like no other.
23. On Religion
If one were to meet a man at the end of his life who then claimed that he had had a very satisfying sex life, you might be expected to pat him on the back and congratulate him. However, this same man then reveals to you that the only sexual experiences he ever had was when he was told by a porn actor graphic detail of the intimate acts. Now, you would pity that man, having realized that he didn’t truly know anything about sex – he had no true sex life.
How is collectivist-based religious faith any different than the man with no sex life? The believer in collectivist-based, or “organized” religions is told by an “expert” the nature of faith, God, the afterlife, etc. At no point does the believer develop the understanding themselves through constructing their own personalized faith. The believer of collectivist-based religion witnesses the minister running to first base – then to second, third, and finally across home plate – all while the believer watches from a seat in the stands without ever going up to the batter’s box and swinging their own bat. It is a balked opportunity like no other.