Pages

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Dating Advice for the Socially Awkward

Lemme put this right on front street: I'm terrible at dating. Think Steve Carrell in 40 Year Old Virgin. That's how bad I am at it. And yet I've been involved in a relationship of some sort pretty much my entire adult life. Despite my incompetence, I seem to be doing something right.
Yeah


I'm not an expert at dating. Not by a long shot. But the last time I was single I started doing a lot of reading about various components of interpersonal docking procedures, because I figured there had to be some trick to it, and I was determined to understand what that was. I haven't been single for some time, but the idea still fascinates me, so I haven't stopped that reading.

What I present here is the current synthesis of the knowledge I've picked up about it. I hope I'll never need to use this myself, but there's no reason others couldn't benefit from my research.

If you're good at dating, or you've got an approach that works for you, you don't need my advice. Just keep right on doing what you're doing. If you're having a hard time of it, consider trying some of the things I suggest.

Step 1: Know What You're Looking For


This is hard. A lot harder than you may expect. You probably have a shopping list of traits in your head that describe your ideal partner, right? Here's the problem: that list is almost certainly wrong.

Think about it like this: if you've ever used a service like Audible, Amazon Kindle or Netflix (or equivalents), odds are you have a lengthy wishlist of items you "plan" to buy, because they're the sorts of things you like, right? But if you like them so much, why are they still in your wishlist? Because when it's time to actually buy stuff, you buy other things.

As humans we suck at knowing exactly what it is we like. We have an imaginary list of things that we may be interested in, or wish we were interested in. But that's not the list that actually determines our purchasing behaviour. The actual list is hidden from us, down deep in the recesses of our reptile brains,

Amazon and Netflix know this, so they don't bother suggesting new purchases to you based on what you say you like. They look at what you actually buy, compare that to other users who bought the same things, and show you recommendations based on what they bought. And that seems to work pretty well.

Alas, we're no more or less skilled at picking potential mates. We have an idea in our minds of the sort of partner we ought to have, and search for that. Meanwhile we overlook plenty of opportunities with people we would actually like.

Online dating sites are aware of this, and are presumably working on incorporating it into their matching algorithms, But until they they get it right, the most we can do is to be brutally honest about what we actually want in a partner... not just what we think we ought to want.

And the easiest way to start that is to look at your dating history and do a comparison of your previous partners. Ask yourself questions, and answer as honestly as you can. Things like:

  1. What first attracted you to the person?
  2. What annoyed you most about them?
  3. What traits (if any) do all or most of your partners share?
  4. What did I find most rewarding about our time together?
  5. What did I miss most after we broke up?
  6. And so on...
I warn you, this can be difficult emotionally. When I went through this, I had to admit to myself that my answer to #1 for most of my previous partners was "She was nice to me.". Ouch. Take your time and work it through. It's worth it.

Don't be afraid to be superficial or prejudicial. Nobody's watching, and nobody's judging. If you don't like tall guys, that's cool. If blondes do it for you, that's cool too. You're not trying to impress anyone, you're trying to get to know yourself better. If you don't like what you find, make a note to work through it later. This is about knowing yourself, not fixing yourself.


When I was doing this a couple of years ago, I gave into my geeky urges and created a spreadsheet with 34 different listed criteria, each with a comparative weighting, and I rated all my previous partners against each other to derive an overall compatibility score out of 100. I have no idea if it was any good, but the results certainly reflected how I felt about them at the time, so I guess there was some merit to it.

In fact, since I already had the matrix in place, I created an online questionnaire and invited my friends to fill it in... mostly so I could calibrate it better. I wouldn't recommend that to you, necessarily, but I will say that one of my friends who filled out the questionnaire got an impossibly high score. And, well, we've been together for close to two years now. So there's that.

Step 2: Marketing


A lot of people are uncomfortable, particularly when it comes to online dating, with "selling themselves". Not only are we culturally discouraged from singing our own praises lest we sound arrogant, but many people suffer with self-confidence issues. And let's face it: if you're looking for dating advice from me, odds are you're one of those people. Amirite?

But that's okay. You don't need to be a master salesperson or Don Draper to be the director of your own marketing campaign, There are some basic steps you can follow that will get you off to a good start.

  1. Have a good, recent profile photo. I cannot overstate how important this is. Not only should it go without saying that you must have a profile photo, but you want to ensure that you have the best photo possible.

    Humans are visually-driven. It's not worth denying it. We evaluate prospective dates first (but not only) based on their appearance. It's just true. If your profile has no photo, or has a photo of something other than you (your child, favourite cartoon character, a pretty flower or whatever) you won't get any good prospects. You'll get messages, especially if you're female, but they'll only be from random dudes trawling the sites... not from anyone worth talking to. Photo = essential.

    Even if you don't think you're very attractive. If anything that makes it even more important that you have a photo up there. While it's true that there are some global norms of attractiveness among humans, that's highly variable. Even if you look funny, odds are there's someone out there who thinks your look is cool, quirky or cute. You'll never find that person if they can't see your face.

    Not only must there be a photo, but it must be a clear one. Get one taken professionally, if you can. By an actual professional, if possible. Your friend with an expensive camera who photographs her friends' pets on weekends might be able to do a good enough job, but try to get the best you can afford. You want the photo to depict you clearly and honestly, but should also be as flattering as possible. Good lighting, composition, make-up (if necessary) and wardrobe make all the difference. Most people don't look good in bathroom-mirror selfies. Go legit for this one.

    Not only must it be good, but it must be recent. Less than a year old, preferably. There's no point denying it: we all change the way we look as we get older. We put on or lose weight. We change hairstyles and hair colour. We make different fashion choices. Our skin changes hue and texture. Despite what you imagine you see in the mirror, I promise you don't look like you did three years ago. If you set up a date to meet someone who's there to meet the 2011 version of you, and they see the 2014 version of you instead (even if you think the 2014 version is more attractive), they'll be disappointed, because they won't be getting what they signed on for. Putting up an outdated (or heaven forbid, heavily photoshopped) photo is dishonest. Don't do it.

    Have a few other photos too, preferably in a variety of settings, doing things you enjoy.
    No duckface selfies
  2. Give yourself a good blurb. Most dating sites require you to say something about yourself in your own words. Be honest and direct, but try to keep it positive and light. For example:

    Instead of saying "I've been single for 3 years now and I desperately need to get laid."
    Try "I've spent some time enjoying life on my own, getting to know myself. But now I feel ready to share my life with someone special."

    Good, eh?

    Don't hide important things about yourself. Put them right out there. Especially if it's something unusual. If you collect snakes, can't go a week without watching an old episode of Magnum PI or only ever eat fruit that died of natural causes, you need to put that stuff out upfront. Those could be nasty surprises for someone who wasn't expecting them, or they could be the exact things a potential partner is looking for.
  3. Don't limit yourself. If you're unaccustomed to the online dating thing, it may be daunting to sign up for even one site. But in for a penny, in for a pound. If you're going for one, may as well go for as many as you can: DatingBuzz, OKCupid, eHarmony, Match.com... don't stop until you've got a hook in as many ponds as you can handle.

    There's no reason to limit yourself just to dating sites either. Social media sites like Google+, Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram and Meetup are also good platforms to get yourself out there. For all you know, your next romantic partner has been your Facebook friend since 2009, but they just didn't know you were available. There's no need to go overboard and spam your friends list with flirty messages, but you can incorporate some elements from your dating profiles into your ordinary social media profiles without it being weird.

Step 3: Get out of the house


Online dating is cool and all, but as popular as it is these days, you still have a much higher chance of meeting a good match when you're offline.

Now, I've been there: when you're single, there's a strong temptation to go to places where single people go: night clubs, pubs, birthday parties of loose acquaintances... but that's a tactical error. If you're the sort of person who ordinarily goes to a pub often, then go to a pub. Because the people you'll meet there are people like you: people who go to pubs. 

But if you're not normally a pub-goer, going to a pub to meet people doesn't make a lot of sense. Do you really want to meet someone who wants to do something regularly that you don't like doing?

Instead, go to the places you normally go. If you don't normally go to places, use Google to find out where people like you go. Are you new to Joburg? Join the Joburg Expats Meetup. Are you an atheist? Find out when the next atheist picnic is. Are you a geek? Come to DeeTwenty!

It seems obvious when you think about it, but it doesn't necessarily occur to people: if you want to be in a relationship with someone who shares your interests, hobbies, world-view or values, seek out people that you share those things with, and see who you meet there. You're more likely to meet the right person there than you are in places where other people go.

Step 4: Be patient


This isn't an aggressive sales technique. Nobody's screaming in your ear to make 20 calls by end of business. Relax and take your time. Be comfortable with the idea that finding a good match can be a slow process.

Desperation is counterproductive in these situations. People can pick up on it, and it makes you seem less desirable. 

Instead, focus on enjoying the last days/weeks/months you have of being single. Maybe do some of the things you're unlikely to do when you're not single anymore, like spend a night on the roof with your telescope, take your parents on a weekend away, or go with your buddies to a strip joint. Try to enjoy the single life, and you won't mind as much that it takes a while to happen.

Odds are you'll meet a few people along the way who aren't a good fit. I wish I could give you comprehensive advice on how to deal with that, but the best I can do is: be kind, be honest and be clear. And bear in mind that even if the guy or girl you're with now seems unfathomably awesome, if he or she doesn't feel the same way about you, there are almost certainly are others out there as unfathomably awesome as they are, if not better.



So yeah, like I said, I'm no expert. This is based on stuff I've read (I've linked to my sources when I could find/remember them), and it all makes sense to me. But dating is messy business, and your mileage may vary. I hope you get something useful out of all this.

Oh, and I'm serious about the profile photo. Muey importante. 

Sunday, September 07, 2014

Ad Review: Jameson Whiskey "Henry the Musician"

Since I stopped watching broadcast TV a couple of years ago, I tend not to be subjected to many video ads these days. The notable exception is when we go to the movies at Ster Kinekor, where fast-forwarding or muting the ads isn't an option.

One of the ads I've seen before every single movie I've gone to for over a year now is one for Jameson Whiskey. I facepalmed the first time I saw it, and assumed it was a mistake, never to be seen again, Alas that appears not be the case.

Here's the ad:

Did you see what I saw?

In case you didn't, here's what I saw

We start with an establishing shot of a stage in a small jazz bar. A guy is centre-stage playing a guitar (a Gibson Les Paul Standard, if I'm not mistaken). We're told his name is Henry, and that he loves his whiskey. Cool.

A fire starts in the bar, and a fellow patron is about to do her civil duty, breaking the glass of the fire alarm with the nearest object at hand: a bottle of Jameson Whiskey.

Henry intervenes before the lady hits the alarm thingy, takes the bottle from her hand, and then breaks the glass with his guitar, which we're told is a "65 six-string".

While the patrons enjoy dancing under the simulated rain of the sprinklers, Henry pours himself a glass of whiskey, and the flashback ends. The narrator assures us this is a true story.

Seen it yet?

So as far as we can tell, Henry is a professional musician. It's quite a fancy bar, but playing live music in night clubs doesn't pay well, especially when you have to split it with your band. Odds are Henry doesn't make very much. That means his 1965 Les Paul is probably his most valuable possession... not only because it sells for about R30 000 on auction (equivalent to a small used car), but because it's the tool he uses to earn his living.

When a small fire starts, he prevents a woman from sacrificing a R250 bottle of whiskey to put it out. Fair enough. That's a pretty expensive beverage (compared to around R10 for a similar quantity of Mountain Dew). The bar probably has a few in the back room, but waste not, right?

But then instead of grabbing any of the other objects available: chairs, shoes, ashtrays, or even using his own sleeved elbow to break the glass, he decides to break it with his guitar.

Here's the thing about fire alarms. Although they're usually covered with glass to dissuade people from setting them off when there isn't a fire, the glass they use for that is meant to break really easily should the need arise. It's way thinner and more brittle than a glass table, window or whiskey tumbler. A hard tap with your fingernail would do the trick.

If Henry had tapped it gently with the head of this guitar, it would have easily given way. The worst that might have happened is a bit of a scratch in the lacquer, which could be a conversation-starter if anyone were to even notice it.

But no. Henry caresses the guitar as if to say "goodbye" and takes a full swing at the wall... breaking the glass and presumably utterly destroying his instrument in the attempt.

Sure, Henry stopped the fire and (kinda) saved all the patrons. But to do it, he unnecessarily sacrificed his livelihood. That's right... Henry no longer has his guitar... he's unable to work.

So here's the take-home message:

Jameson Whiskey leads people to make terrible, terrible choices in life.

As part of the same campaign, they could have made ads featuring Jake, the guy who drank too much Jameson Whiskey and didn't notice that the condom he put on was broken, then ended up paying child-support for the rest of his life.

Or Brenda, the woman who couldn't say no to that last Jameson and ran over a pedestrian while driving home. The chronic depression she was drinking to self-medicate got the best of her and she committed suicide three months later.

Awful, right? But those would be entirely consistent with the message of this ad.

I'm glad the good people at Jameson haven't made those other ads. But why is the Henry one still being screened? Am I the only person who's paid any attention to it?

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

How To Contact Owen - 2014 Edition!

I get a lot of flak from people who complain that I'm difficult to get hold of. What they really mean is that I can't be reached in the ways they like to contact people.

What those people seem to fail to realise is that my communication tools are for my convenience, not theirs. But since I'm atypical in my use of those technologies, I'm prepared to educate people on how to reach me. It also changes from time to time, so I may have to make this an annual primer. Here goes the first one.

Telex not supported

If you need to get a short message to me right now:


Google+ Hangouts. Add me to your Google+ circles and you can send me a Hangouts instant message any time. Hangouts sends your message to me, regardless of where I am or what device I'm using at the time. If I'm able to look at a device, I'll get your message.

If you don't have a Google+ account, or you prefer not to use Hangouts, you don't get to send me an instant message.

You can try sending me an SMS if you like (if you're one of the few people who actually has my phone number). But since SMSs only go to one of my devices, odds are smaller that I'll see it any time soon. And since SMSs cost money to send, and I use a prepaid SIM that's often not loaded up with airtime (I generally convert all my airtime to data bundles), odds are even lower that I'll respond to it.

If you need to get a long message to me right now:


Email. All my communication devices are connected to my Gmail, and can pull down email messages for me in real time. If I'm near a device, I'll get it. Whether you send to my personal, STARFLEET or work email addresses, it all goes to the same inbox, so I'm equally likely to see a message sent through any of them.

I don't necessarily read every email as it comes in. But I will check my notifications every now and then to see if there's anything important/urgent.

Smoke signals also not supported

If you need to send me a short message, but don't mind waiting a few days for me to respond, if ever:


Google+ Hangouts or Facebook Messenger. I use Facebook exclusively for work, so I won't respond to personal messages there... They'll just go ignored.

And I also only log in on days when I'm working, so I'll only see your message when I'm at work.

So use Google+ Hangouts rather, but if it's work-related, Facebook is fine.

If you need to talk to me by voice or video:


Google+ Hangouts. I won't answer random calls though. You'll need to make an appointment first using IM or email.

If you're one of the people who has my phone number, same rule applies: no appointment, no answer. And don't bother leaving a voicemail message either... I'll never listen to it. I also won't call you back.

If it's an emergency:


Google+ Hangouts. If I can't see or respond to a message in Hangouts, I can't see or respond to any other messages either. When checking my new messages, I always check Hangouts first, before checking anything else.

But really ask yourself: if it's an emergency, am I really the one you should be contacting? If your car's broken down, your house has been burgled or your computer exploded, I'm not the one who can help you with those things. Try emergency services or Dial A Nerd.

If you want to send me a joke, chain email or cool link:


Strip-O-Grams also not supported
Post it on Google+ and share it with me by name. I'll take a look within a few hours, if not immediately. If I like it, I'll reshare it. If you send me a chain email (or their social media equivalents), I know I need to block you. I don't reshare stuff sent to me via email or Facebook (unless it's work-related, of course).

If you want to see me in person:


Show up at the club during any of our Open Sessions.  I'm almost always at the counter, or at least in the building somewhere.

Outside of club Open Sessions, you'll need to make an appointment via email or Hangouts to see me. If my doorbell rings unexpectedly, I won't even get up to see who's there.

Things to use if you want to make sure I'll never get your message:


  • WhatsApp
  • Skype
  • Voicemail
  • Twitter
  • Fax
  • Telegraph
  • Yo
  • Anything after 23:00 and before 08:00 everyday. My devices all go to sleep mode during those hours, and I don't hear notifications.
And before you ask: there's no point trying to persuade me to change my position on the use or non-use of these systems. I almost certainly know more about them than you do, and I've very carefully arrived at my decision not to use them. Some of them I feel so strongly about (WhatsApp and voicemail, for example), I'll probably get very angry and rude about it if you even try.

Rule of thumb:


If you want to get me a message, Google+ Hangouts is the way to go. Email is a solid second choice. Phoning me will almost certainly fail.

No guarantees (added 2014-07-23)


There's an important point I forgot to make here originally, so I'll throw it in now: Just because I've received your message, that by no means guarantees that I'll respond to it.

I respond to most things that I think need a response, but not all. If I don't want to have the conversation with you, I just won't. If you've been waiting for ages for a response from me, odds are you won't be getting one.

If you really want me to respond to your message, here are some things to consider doing:

  • Make the conversation interesting;
  • Bribes. Cash and/or HeroClix figures accepted.
Threatening, badgering or otherwise nagging me won't improve your odds of getting a response. In fact, they'll only improve your odds of getting blocked and never hearing from me again.


If you think I'm being unnecessarily harsh or restrictive in my communications policies, I refer you to the second paragraph of this post: "...my communication tools are for my convenience, not [yours]." I don't feel obliged to be available to everyone 24/7 in a hundred different ways. If you want me to take the time to have a conversation with you, it's up to you to approach me in the ways I prefer, and to make it worth my time to respond.

If I need to contact you, I'll try to use the ways you prefer, and to make it worth your while too.

It kind of baffles me that this doesn't go without saying. Are we all so accustomed to being connected to each other, that we've forgotten the basic notion that a person's time belongs to them? And that if we want some of it, we have ask politely for it?

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Quote-mine This Post For Teh Win!

For the first time in like, forever, I've finally got access to a decent Internet connection that's up most of the time. And I don't have a nosy boss or corporate IT gestapo watching what I use it for.
"Close those 36 RedTube tabs and step away from the cubicle."

I've also got weird working hours now, which means I have a fair amount of free time on my hands when everyone else is at work. So, that means I've been able to watch all the YouTube videos. If the 'YouTube Suggests' list is full of ones I've already watched, that means I've seen all the videos, right? I'm pretty sure it does.

In all of that watching, something surprised me: although I dealt with many of the basic implications of atheism years ago and moved onto more interesting intellectual pursuits, apparently not everyone on the Internet has moved on yet.

Specifically, I saw a surprising number of YouTube atheists having to respond to the ridiculous theist claim that "Without God, there can be no morality. Atheists just want to sin. If I didn't believe in God, I'd probably be in jail right now."

Really? We're still on that one?

It occurs to me that I don't think I've ever really addressed that point on this blog (because it's dumb), but I figured I may as well put my thoughts down in case the other people who've watched all the YouTubes are also looking for something to do.

So now that I'm an atheist, what's to stop me from going around eating babies, raping children and killing kittens? Well, nothing.

I mean most of those things are illegal, so I could get in trouble if I did them. But that wouldn't stop me from doing them either, it would just make it unpleasant afterwards.

As Penn Jillette likes to say, I eat all the babies, rape all the children and kill all the kittens I want to. It just so happens that the number of babies I want to eat, children I want to rape and kittens I want to kill is the same: zero.

In fact, by the standards of most religious people, I live a rather exceptionally moral life. I don't drink, smoke or do drugs and I'm fiercely monogamous in my relationships. I'm perfectly free to drink, smoke, shoot up or sleep around if I want to, I just don't want to.
The right combo of dijon and brie could change my mind tho.

Unlike most theists, I actually don't consider those moral issues. To me they're more aesthetic than anything else, with the exception of the monogamy thing. I don't consider that moral either, but that's a more visceral, and less aesthetic thing. A story for another post, perhaps.

I don't pretend to be a saint, but I like to think of myself as being a generally okay guy. I was this way when I believed in YHWH, and I'm still like that. My morality (or whatever it is) obviously never came from Jesus, it came from my own brain.
Guess which part!


If the only thing holding you back from eating babies or raping children is your fear of eternal damnation, perhaps I'm not the one with the morality problem.

The real problem with justifying your faith with Pascal's Wager ("If you believe and you're wrong, you lose nothing, but if you don't believe and you're wrong, you go to Hell") is it's a trap. Even if you believe in a god, how do you know you believe in the right one? Until one of the many different religions provides some actual objective evidence that their story is the right one, there's no point assuming that any of them are.

And the cost of belief isn't zero either... it used to cost me my Sunday mornings and Friday evenings to go to church, back in the day. But there are far more interesting things to do at those times (At DeeTwenty Geeking Venue!). Pascal's Wager is like any gambling: the odds favour the house, so your best option is to not play the game.

Friday, February 14, 2014

Why I Won't Wear Shorts in Public

This should probably start with a disclaimer, cos it'll probably sound pretty judgmental. In short: it isn't. I have some fairly unpopular aesthetic opinions (what some people might call "morals", but I don't like to use that word for them) which guide and inform the way I live my life. But I don't expect other people to live by my rules... I try to judge people by their rules, on their terms, not mine.

That said, from time to time I have something to say about those aesthetic opinions. Not because I'm trying to convert anyone, necessarily, but rather because I think someone might be interested in what I have to say about them. That's what's happening here.

I have strong feelings about this.

Have you watched a KFC ad lately? Well here's one.
Heh. Right?

Thing is I kinda have a problem with it. It gives me an icky feeling. It's because these grown-ass men are effectively being depicted as children. They're playing off that old "the only difference between men and boys is the size of their toys" thing, which is offensive and bullshit.

And this coming from someone who spends as much time playing with toy soldiers and spaceships as possible. Because my day job involves a proximity to and involvement with superficially childlike pursuits, I may have a hightened sensitivity to this sort of thing. But that doesn't mean there's nothing there.

It's a pervasive meme in our culture: that men are silly, childlike, untrustworthy and irresponsible. You've seen this kind of thing, right? It's everywhere, in the way people speak, the literature of our time, and especially in advertising.

That's fine. I don't really care about that. It's not as if men are alone in being the target of offensive stereotypes. Women know what I'm talking about here. Turnabout is fair play, right?

Sure. Whatevs. But I don't have to opt into it. I can choose not to brand myself with that stereotype, and I can decide how to present myself to others. If people want to brand me as a giant child, it's their mistake, not mine.

And that's why I refuse to wear shorts in public. Shorts are clothes for children... little boys in particular. Whether that's rational or not is beside the point, it's just the case. In the same way that frilly pink dresses are clothes for little girls. It needn't be that way, but it is.

Cool.


When a grown man chooses to wear shorts out in public, by donning the attire of a small child, he's willingly opting into being cast as that child... he's self-infantalising.

That's fine, if you're into that sort of thing. If you buy into the man-child aesthetic, and like to be treated like a child for some reason. But I don't.
Not cool.

I also make no claims about how shorts look. Some women enjoy a short-panted man. That's cool. I happen to enjoy a short-skirted woman. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily desirable for a woman to walk around in a short skirt all the time. By doing so she's opting into a stereotype, which she may or may not wish to opt into. There's a time and a place, you know?

I also don't deny that shorts are sometimes practical. I happen to own several pairs of shorts that I wear around the house on hot days: working in the garden, that sort of thing. Shorts are also practical to wear on the beach, where the rules of propriety in attire are different to most other places.

But you'll never catch me wearing shorts to the movies or to work. That would be inappropriate, and would indicate my opting into a stereotype that I vehemently reject.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

You Know What Would Be Great?

A little goddam support, that's what.

I know I haven't used this blog for personal gripes in years, but this one has a sceptical angle to it, so bear with me.

I'm in the midst of a row with a person who, only a few weeks ago, I considered a close personal friend, colleague and (kinda/sorta) employee. I had to make some tough decisions about our business relationship, and that led to some pretty lousy behaviour on their part.

Tempers were lost, memes were posted. I'm not particularly proud of one post I made early on, but generally I think I've conducted myself quite well through all of this. Keeping a cool head (despite wanting to lose it) and keeping all my comments and responses on the 'decent' side of the line.

The same cannot be said of my opponent in this debacle, who is going thermonuclear in spectacular fashion. I'm not surprised by their actions in all this (I've known this person to be something of a transuranian element as long as we've known each other), but what has surprised me is the actions of almost everyone else.

You may notice I've avoided any mentions of a name and all gender pronouns when referring to the person in question. If you really want to know who it is, it won't take you long to find out. If you know the person, you already know who it is. But for the sake of keeping this exercise an intellectual one, I feel the need to depersonalise this post. But for the sake of expediency, I will use a pseudonym: "Snowclaw".

Since I first lost my temper on Snowclaw's Facebook wall, they have undertaken a massive campaign to undermine and slander me, in a fashion I can only describe as "grandiose". I'm not the only target of this campaign... my girlfriend Soo and the business we own together are targeted as well. (the campaign actually started before the row did, and led to its commencement, upon which it changed form, but that's a long story)

Snowclaw's campaign appears to have consisted of the following strategy:

  1. Wait for Owen or Soo to say something. Anything, no matter how benign.
  2. Write an essay with poor spelling, grammar and punctuation (so it looks frenzied and hurriedly assembled) bleating about how whatever was said constitutes bullying, harassment or abuse (often all three), how dare anyone speak to them that way, they are completely innocent and sweet and nothing they've ever said or done deserves such a militant response... that sort of thing.
  3. Wait for Snowclaw's friends (most of whom have never met Owen & Soo) to join in on the thread, repeating Snowclaw's accusations while being generally hostile and behaving like a gang of naughty schoolboys kicking a dead cat.
  4. Contact Owen & Soo's friends, wailing about the mistreatment Snowclaw has received and try to convince them to turn against Owen & Soo. As additional ammunition, Snowclaw will refer to the consensus among Snowclaw's own friends that the claims are true.
  5. Repeat.
What you may notice immediately (I certainly did) is how closely this strategy resembles that of religious people from societies where religious privilege is common.


It's a well-worn strategy that seems to serve religious people well, even if it is ludicrous. Luckily the rationally-minded among us have seen it before, and know it when we see it, right?

That's what I would have thought. But the astonishing thing is that doesn't appear to be the case.

You see, step 4 in Snowclaw's strategy above actually works. I've lost a number of friends over the last few days. Some of whom were very close to me for years. The rate of attrition is alarmingly high.

Even more astonishing is every single one of those people is a rationalist! Every last one! Surely someone with a sceptical outlook would be accustomed to rejecting a superficial explanation of some extraordinary claim, pending the results of a more objective inquiry. Even if the claim is only mildly interesting.

And since an objective inquiry is quite easy in this case (all the relevant discussion threads are publicly visible*), I would expect that a 30 second survey of the facts at hand would allow any rational person the opportunity to dismiss the claims presented and accept a more accurate interpretation.

At the very least, if such a person found it difficult to arrive at a conclusive opinion based on that facts at hand, a logical next step would be to approach me (or Soo) to gain an insight into our side of the matter, and weigh that accordingly. Right?

I don't pretend that my interpretation of the situation is an impartial one. It's arrived at through my own set of biases. But surely my side should at least be considered before a conclusion is reached, should it not?

Guess how many of those friends have asked to hear my version. I'll tell you: none. 

Baffling.

I began this post with an emotional outburst which requires some explanation. Although many of Soo's and my friends appear to have accepted Snowclaw's version of events without question, some few have not. Those few have spoken to each of us in private messages, expressing their reassurance and wishing us luck. We're very glad in the knowledge that not all our friends have abandoned us.

But another puzzling thing is this: although Snowclaw's allies seem gleefully eager to express their support and agreement with Snowclaw, loudly and publicly, the same doesn't appear to be true of those who agree with us instead. Snowclaw has a veritable army of trolls, cheerleaders and other assorted flunkies egging them on, but we appear to have few or none of those.

I don't blame our friends for wanting to keep their heads down... drawing attention will also likely mean drawing fire from Snowclaw and their sniper-bullies. But it would be very gratifying to have a few people stand up for us in public. Very gratifying indeed.

It would also send a message to those who cast us aside that not everyone agrees with Snowclaw's assessment, there isn't a widely accepted consensus on the matter, and further investigation is warranted.

If you feel like you could offer us some of that kind of support, please do. It would be great.

* UPDATE: It seems the two threads in question may no longer be publicly visible. Snowclaw has blocked me, so I can no longer see them myself, and I won't resort to sockpuppets or meatpuppets to get around the block. Although it weakens my case that it's not possible for you to verify the facts for yourself, you might ask yourself what exactly Snowclaw has to hide if they are truly the victim in this situation.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

In Which I Am Surprised to Be Called a Rapist

This was originally going to be a very different post. I wanted to cover a number of different topics in one go, but it turns out I have a lot more to say about all this than I'd expected. As a result, I'm going to have to split it up into several posts, the first few laying the ground-work for the later ones.

You'll notice that in this post, I've backed down from my usual tone of 'blood-thirsty mercilessness'. As strongly as I feel about the subject matter, because the people I'm talking about here are allies of mine in the rationalist movement, I feel it prudent to afford them a certain degree of benefit of the doubt I wouldn't ordinarily offer. There won't be any cheap shots, name-calling or hair-pulling here. That's not cool.

Here's hoping I'm actually able to finish a series of posts this time! Fingers crossed!

Rebecca Watson
If you're at all involved in the atheist and sceptic online communities, you'll no doubt be aware of the schism currently underway that originated (more or less) with the "Elevatorgate" incident a year and a half or so ago.

If you're not, I'll try to bring you up to speed.

Noted sceptic and atheist speaker, Rebecca Watson, made a YouTube video in which she (among other things) expressed mild annoyance at having been propositioned by a guy while they were alone in a lift at four in the morning. She found it irritating and a little creepy, and implored all men everywhere to think twice before doing something like that.

Here's the actual video: (the relevant bit is at 4:30 if you want to skip ahead)


I didn't think anything of it at the time. And I still don't think much of it. It was a perfectly reasonable response to a situation that, for whatever reason, Rebecca didn't like. The shitstorm that followed on the blogs, YouTube, Twitter  and at sceptical and atheist conferences since then was, in my view, a ridiculous overreaction to an insignificant incident. Lines were drawn, polarizing labels abused ("feminazis" vs "rape apologists") and the whole thing got pretty messy.

I decided to stay the fuck out of it. I didn't agree with either side, and saw no benefit to sticking my nose in (beyond, perhaps, stimulating downloads for Consilience). But a few days ago I changed my mind about that.

I read this post by Rebecca. In it, she calls me a rapist. To be precise, she claims that if you have sex with someone who is drunk, you are automatically a rapist. "End of story."

How Does That Make Me a Rapist?

I'm a teetotaler. Always have been. But I don't have a policy of dating teetotalers. As it turns out, I've actually never dated one. In most of my sexual relationships I've been in situations where my partner was drunk and I wasn't. One of my longest-running relationships was with a woman who could probably have been considered an alcoholic - she was in some state of inebriation almost every time we were intimate.

We didn't part on the best of terms (it's safe to say she hates me more than any person alive) but if you were to ask her if I ever raped her, she'd say no. Even on some occasions when she was at her drunkest (I'm talking slurred-speech, unable-to-walk-unassisted drunk) the thought never occurred to anyone that our sex was anything but consensual. Everyone involved in the sex was an adult, capable of making his/her own decisions, and did so. Even at her drunkest, if she wasn't in the mood for it, she was perfectly capable of saying "no", and that would be the end of it. No means no.

Am I a rapist?  Of course not. It's absurd and, frankly, offends me that it would even be suggested.

Am I suggesting that alcohol can't be used as a tool by rapists to exert a measure of control over their victims? No. I can't speak to that. Not being a drinker myself I couldn't say how much it compromises one's decision-making ability. But I can categorically state that just because you have sex with a drunk person, that does not automatically make you a rapist.

So What's the Problem?

Rebecca's statement was wrong, and her apparently ideological commitment to that unwavering position of "drunk sex = rape, always" signifies a lack of rational thinking. Moral absolutes are the domain of the religious and other fundamentalists, not of rational, thinking people. I've always considered Rebecca to be a thinking person, not a dogmatist, hence my surprise.

It got me thinking about the whole schism in our movement, and particularly the position of the so-called "Feminist" camp in this fight. I use those quotation marks because I don't believe that their position represents Feminism in any real sense, but more of that later.

Suffice to say that I no longer wish to remain out of this fight, but I do want to be clear that I don't align myself with the rape-threatening trolls any more than I do with the Pseudo-feminists. I predict that my opposition to the Pseudo-feminists will draw (and already has drawn) accusations against me for being a sexist and rape-apologist (in addition to being a rapist, of course). That is the price for getting into this fight: putting up with trolls on both sides.

Shields up. Phasers locked. Ahead one half impulse.

"Sheilds... SHEILDS!!!!" - CAPT Hikaru Sulu


Keep your sensors peeled for the next installment. And check the comments below for the fireworks!


Friday, June 01, 2012

Transhumanism and Me

Transhumanism doesn't get that much air-play in sceptical circles these days. I suppose it's because the underlying premises haven't shifted much in recent years, and the groups on both sides are waiting to have their hypotheses falsified or supported by evidence.

I thought it might spark a bit of debate to air my own views on it, so here goes.


What Is Transhumanism?

It's complicated, but in a nutshell it's the belief that, as humans, we are, or should be, advancing towards a state where we can no longer be considered human.

It's hardly a new idea - Nietzsche coined the term "superman" to describe someone who was better than human. Eugenics was all the rage in the first half of the 20th century - the notion that we could improve our species through selective breeding. (it wasn't just the Nazis)

Transhumanism isn't so much about improving our species as a whole, as it is about improving ourselves as individuals. It's about overcoming the limits of our human bodies and giving ourselves abilities we would otherwise have lacked.

As you might expect, technology is pivotal to this. And I'm not just talking about cyborgs (although that's certainly part of it) - ordinary medical technology is very much involved.

Yep.

The premise goes like this: through technology we have already enhanced ourselves to an enormous extent. A normal person today lives twice as long as those just a couple of generations back. That same person can see and hear things their ancestor didn't know existed, can have conversations with other people over vast distances, can access the sum of all human knowledge in seconds, are immune to diseases that once ravaged whole communities, can travel at speeds previously thought impossible, can fly as far as the moon and back. Compared to our great, great grandparents, we are already supermen (and superwomen).

Pictured: us

Given that we've already conquered so many of our limitations, says transhumanism, why should we assume that the rest of our limitations are insurmountable? Why accept any frailty, obstacle or defiency?


Why Indeed

I agree with transhumanism in this respect. I think it's reasonable, and even desirable, to overcome things like the need for sleep, the inability to subsist in a vacuum, reliance on chemical fuel and even death. Yup, death.

Transhumanists put forward a number of ways of overcoming the termination of the physical body. These range from the indefinite extension of the body's life-span through advanced medical technology (essentially making death itself a thing of the past) to downloading our memories and thoughts into new brains (thus making us redundant and duplicable).

Go on. You were thinking it.
I don't think any transhumanists are advocating living forever. I think we all agree that that would probably be pretty boring. Rather the intent is to introduce an element of choice into something that we previously couldn't choose: Instead of nature deciding when we live or die, we get to choose that for ourselves. A hundred years long enough? Cool. Prefer to live for five hundred? A thousand? A million? It's up to you.

I rather fancy the number 5000. That's my goal. That should give me enough time to get through my daily ToDo list and my list of goals on Schemer. More or less.

That's the point behind transhumanism, though. Not so much making everyone better, although that would be nice. It's more about giving people choices about their lives and the ways they choose to live them. Contraceptive pills have given women the option of having babies or not (some even allow women to choose whether they want to menstruate at all). Cosmetic surgery allows people to choose their own appearance. Stimulants and sedatives allow people to choose their own sleep/wake cycles (with varying degrees of success so far, but they're getting better). These and other choices are the ones advocated by transhumanists.


The Heroes of Transhumanism

There are a few notable figures of champion the transhumanist movement. Although I think they have worthwhile things to say, I'd guard against assuming that they speak for all of us. Everybody has some crazy ideas, and these guys are no exception. Names you're likely to come across include Ray Kurtzweil and Aubrey de Grey. Have a listen, but try not to take them too seriously.

Don't take Aubrey too seriously.

Of course there are all kinds of moral, ethical and practical considerations around the notion of transhumanism, all of which are worth discussing at length. I invite you to use the comments section below to get started on it.

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Googling the Wikipedias

One of the podcasts I listen to every week is the Naked Scientist. In fact, I listen to a number of their podcasts, but the one  I'm referring to here is the one from local radio.

Radio 702 and 567 Cape Talk have a weekly segment every Friday morning on Redi Tlhabi's show. Redi has a half-hour talk to Dr. Chris Smith, the original Naked Scientist during which listeners are invited to call in and ask science-related questions.

Chris is fantastic at it. His instant recall of an enormous variety of scientific facts and concepts is very impressive; And I particularly like the way he handles people who call in with questions about pseudoscientific topics. He's always gentle and sincere, and never condescending. He's really, really good at it.

What drives me up the wall, however, is how many of the questions are stupid.



They say there's no such thing as a stupid question. I disagree. If you're calling into a national radio show and making millions of people listen to you ask a question that you could have answered yourself with 30 seconds of googling, it's a stupid question.

I'd say that about 80% of the questions asked of the Naked Scientist fall into this category, ranging from people who don't know that the Earth orbits the sun to people who think Homeopathy is medicine. I'm assuming that these aren't performance art, like most of the submissions to Yahoo! Answers.

It's politically incorrect to scorn people for being ignorant. And I'm sympathetic to that position. I agree with the sentiment of this XKCD comic, which puts forward that it's more rewarding to tell someone something for the first time, than it is to make fun of them for not knowing it.



And I'm not trying to make fun of anyone here, really. I know full well that the education system failed many of us, particularly when it comes to science. My complaint here is more about the lack of self-sufficiency that seems to be prevalent, at least among the callers of the Naked Scientist.

Let me give you an example. One guy called in a week or two ago and asked Chris "Why is [some everyday occurrence] called a phenomenon?"

Chris was taken aback. The question was so stupid that he didn't understand it. After asking the caller to repeat it, he realised that the caller didn't understand what the word 'phenomenon' meant. Chris graciously told him what it meant, and swiftly moved onto a brief and elegant explanation of the everyday occurrence in question.

Now, this caller was a grown man. Obviously he wasn't educated, but he was at least clever enough to listen to a radio show called The Naked Scientist, to operate a phone, and to formulate a question. Did it not occur to this guy that maybe his understanding of the word 'phenomenon' was incorrect? Could he not have spent 30 seconds looking up the definition of the word in a dictionary or on Google before calling the radio station and wasting all our time?

It occurs to me that I come across this kind of attitude all the time. People I deal with daily (and I probably do this myself) would rather ask someone else for an answer than try to find it themselves. The number of questions I've been asked about obvious and easy-to-find things has driven me, on more than one occasion, to respond with a link to Let Me Google That For You.

I applaud Chris and the rest of the Naked Scientist team for their patience in dealing with callers of this calibre. And if you're thinking of calling the Naked Scientist, do us all a favour: check Wikipedia first.


Sunday, May 27, 2012

The Force As Medicine

Today I shall heap scorn upon Reiki, because it deserves it.


What Is Reiki?

It's an "alternative therapy" modality that involves waving your hands at someone to cure what ails them. Seriously.

But without the dramatic poses

Of course that's not what the Reiki practitioners will claim, They say things like how they're "manipulating the human energy field (aka "ki") and restoring healthfulness and creating wellbeing.". You know what that statement means? Approximately nothing.

And that's what Reiki is: nothing.


Surely There's More To It Than That?

Nope. Not really.

In order to become a Reiki practitioner, you have to go through a course, lasting several weeks. You learn all about reading auras, chakras, healing symbols and all sorts of things like that. And you know how useful any of that stuff is? Zero.

Okay, let's look at it a little more closely. There are a number of basic premises that the practice of Reiki are based on. I'll unpack them a bit:

  1. The human body has an energy field
  2. Illness is caused by disturbances in that energy field
  3. Adepts can manipulate the energy fields of others in order to correct those disturbances, and therefore treat and cure illness.
Premises 2 and 3 are based on premise 1. Luckily for us, premise 1 is a factual statement, and is therefore testable.


The Human Energy Field

People who make this claim generally don't understand what energy is. Which is inexcusable, because it's in early high-school physics text books. Everyone should know it.

Energy is the measurable work potential of an object. It's a measurement of how much a given object can affect the motion of the objects around it. Energy is stored in various forms: chemical (as in food or a battery), potential (as in putting an object in a high place, or setting a fly-wheel spinning) and so on. It can be transmitted to other objects through direct contact or radiation.

Energy is also locked up in mass. Matter is an organised form of energy, and through the right processes, you can destroy matter, thereby releasing the energy it holds. This happens in small measures through ionisation or nuclear fission and fusion, or in more efficient ways through matter/antimatter annihilation.

Pictured: fiction
Energy is not a glowy, sparkly cloud that hovers around things. You've probably gotten that impression from Star Trek, and that's an unfortunate result of lazy writing - it's not a reflection of reality.

So what is an energy field? It's not really a thing. You could describe a magnetic field as an energy field - it's an area where electrons flow around a magnet. Or you could describe the area into which an object releases electromagnetic radiation as an energy field. That's pretty tenuous though, and nobody would take you seriously if you claimed that Neither of those are very good descriptions, and it's certainly not a scientific nomenclature.

The real question is whether or not the human body has anything that can be described as an energy field, and the answer is kind of. The human body uses electricity for internal communication. When electricity flows, it creates an electromagnetic field, the strength of which is proportional to the voltage and or ampage of the current. Human electrical signals aren't very strong, so the EM field we generate isn't either. It may as well not be there.

You can test that yourself: hold a compass in your hand. If the compass points to magnetic North instead of to you, the Earth's (pretty weak) magnetic field is stronger than yours.

This clearly isn't the big, glowy energy field that the Reiki people are talking about. There simply isn't anything in or around the human body meeting that description.

Without an energy field to speak of, the second and third premises of Reiki fall down. There's no there there. But what about epidemiological data? Even if they have the mechanism wrong, are they still doing anything?


Epidemiological Evidence

There's plenty of evidence showing that Reiki fails to perform in double blind trials - indicating that it's not doing anything. Probably my favourite example is one that was performed on a related modaility: Therapeutic Touch.

Therapeutic Touch is basically exactly the same as Reiki, only with a more Western sciencey sound to it. And it was debunked by a 11-year-old girl.

Emily Rosa, a small child from Colorado, devised a test that would show whether or not Therapeutic Touch (and, by implication, Reiki) has anything to it. TT failed the test. It has no effect. 

Smart kid


So Where Does That Leave Us?

Reiki has no mechanism, no effect, and no point. People who practice it probably do so because they want to help people, which is a noble intent. But the most they're doing with Reiki is delivering a placebo. Their time and efforts would be better spent learning an actual skill. Waving your hands at people is only a skill for musical conductors, traffic pointsmen and Jedi Knights.