Science, Banking, and Computer Flim-flam

 The following article by Gregory Wrightstone appeared on PJMedia today:

Corruption of Climate Science Supported by Flawed Models

Oddly, this reminds me of the S&L failures in the 1980s. Most economists will tell you about rising interest rates due to inflation outpacing the income from long-term mortgages at lower fixed-rate interests. Fewer will tell you about the S&Ls attempts to recoup these losses with riskier loans. And fewer still will tell you what I know to be the case... these "riskier" loans didn't look risky to the S&L loan managers at the time due to the introduction of a new factor: Lotus 1-2-3. 

The electronic spreadsheet made it very easy for entrepreneurs to paint rosy pictures of their future earnings, which were easily swallowed because they were the result of "computer models". Computers were new, therefore magical, and their pronouncements were gospel even though they merely output the wishful thinking of the modelers.

Fifty years later, computer models are no less "magical" to the general population; even more so now that they are so complex that laymen have no hope of wrapping their heads around them. But they are no less the output of the wishful thinking of the modelers. And I say this as someone who spent his entire career designing software.

Big Boys Don't Cry

 I am always impressed by Caroline Furlong's blog posts. She's a writer, and writes about writing. Today she posted the following:

Big Boys Don’t Cry! – A Look at Male Vulnerability in Fiction

I think that everything she says here is pretty spot-on from her perspective. But it is a female perspective, and I hope here to give a little more insight by showing you the other side of the coin. 

Here's a secret from the unpublished manual that all men keep in their heads:

Speaking as a male veteran of the US armed forces, it's not that men aren't ALLOWED to cry. People who write this type of fiction aren't concerned about pushing some agenda about what you are or aren't ALLOWED to do. In fact, it's quite the opposite: male characters frequently break rules and ignore social norms.

The plain fact is, men rarely cry. We will mope. We will cope. We will turn introspective and distant. We will deflect. We will process, prioritize, and focus. We will immerse ourselves in work, a hobby, or the task at hand. As any woman who has emo-dumped on a man knows, a man does not validate her feelings. Rather, he will search for causes and solutions. That's NOT what the woman wants. She will tell him he's being dismissive. But he's no more dismissive of her feelings than he is of his own. From personal experience, negative emotions are a PROBLEM to be SOLVED. Sorry, ladies; it's what we do. That's the nature of a man.

When we DO cry, 99% of the time it's in private or in the company of other men... and if you're a very lucky guy, you might have only one or two friends with whom you have that privilege, even in a company of soldiers. And when we do talk about a problem, there's not much crying. It's likely to come out emotionless and flat. But I assure you, that lack of tone coming from a close friend hits us like a brick. It's as if you physically saw the color drain out of someone's soul, life, and surroundings. You can NOT express the depth of that emotion with a lurid display. The one exception is that if a man is in a healthy marriage -- not some social contract, but a real, honest-to-God marriage -- he will cry in the embrace of his wife. And when that happens, this is the case where the woman gets to be the rock... his anchor.

Again, nobody forces us to do that. It's in our nature. Even sobbing in complete privacy doesn't happen much. It's far more likely to take the form of sitting in a dark room and quietly letting tears fall.

This doesn't apply to just grown-up men, either. Boys are incredibly unwilling to admit to having been bullied. Boys are more likely to address the problem through circumvention, withdrawal, or taking up a study of self-defense. If he still has the slightest glimmer of hope that he can solve the problem by himself, a boy will deny to others that it exists.

Note that all of the above applies to the majority of males whether they are physically strong or not; dangerous or not; intimidating or not. They're not consciously dialing things back for the sake of those around them. You might say they evolved that way for the long-term benefit of the species. And obviously there are those, both weak and strong, who are emotionally immature. But they're the minority.

Authors who write strongly believable male characters don't force them to weep on cue because that would not be believable. Being mostly men, the authors know that. Being mostly men, their readers/viewers know it, too.

Sophie's Choice is a Crock.

 I saw this on FaceBook:

My response:

Just because you didn't think through the "conundrum" doesn't mean it exists. It's a common tactic for the villain to do a villainous thing and blame it on the hero. "And it will be YOUR fault," they say. NO. It's the VILLAIN'S fault. By posting this villainous pseudo-conundrum in which YOU take direct action, you choose to be a villain. The proof is above. It doesn't matter that you don't agree. ALL villains delude themselves into thinking they're the hero.

And the answer is, without hesitation: According to your scenario, you're going to drop ONE. I will try to save THE ONE YOU DROP. But if you drop either one, I will drop YOU, whether or not I manage to save one of the others. Still your choice.

To be perfectly clear about this scenario, you're willing to injure a baby to make a point. That's what terrorists do. I do NOT have to negotiate with terrorists. I do NOT have to play the villain's game. And I do NOT have to choose which evil you're going to commit for you. If you want to be the bad guy, suck it up, be the bad guy, and take the consequence. There's no outcome here where you're not on the wrong side of ethics and morals.

Everyone from Nazis to Islamic terrorists to the Green Goblin has tried this nonsensical argument. I don't play their evil, repugnant game. 

This is no different from any hostage situation.  Since they were very young, my sons knew that if such a situation arose, I'd tell the terrorist to put them on the line. I would then tell my boys, "I will avenge you." I'd expect them to do the same. The kidnapper would be made to know that he is responsible for their safe-keeping, and if any harm came to his victims, he would instantly lose all negotiating power and be utterly destroyed. Let the villain sort out whose lives they value. And always be prepared to face a no-win scenario with the knowledge that you can't save everyone, but you can dispense justice.

It wouldn't work every time... but if their tactic NEVER worked, they wouldn't do it at all.

I know there are some readers who might think I missed the point of the original argument, which was about abortion, not hostages. ABSOLUTELY NOT. If these people are willing to do that with an born infant, separated from the mother, it tells you everything you need to know about their character and the depths to which they would sink. They are evil to the core, and their choices reflect it. Neither do they have the self-awareness necessary to recognize that fact. Even in principle, they think it's valid to test your supposed hypocrisy against their desire to murder.

Don't let them do it. Call them out.

--==ooOoo==--

I think while I'm at this you might benefit from knowing my actual stance on abortion (as opposed to this crappy scenario). It might take a few words, but big deal. It's my blog.

I'm not taking anybody's choice from them. That's why I specifically insist on putting the choice back on the holder of the baby and the embryo. It's not I who choose FOR you. It's YOU who must make your own choices.

But "choice" does NOT just mean "have an abortion". One option isn't a "choice". You could choose to give life, to sacrifice, to sacrifice another to save yourself... it only seems easy if you've put sloganeering over real thought. The person who posted this scenario wanted this post to be thought-provoking. Fine. But that final "Now admit it" in the original post makes it clear that there's only one thought allowed, and I and one other were the only ones here not thinking as we were told to. Not asked. Not invited. Told.

And what we were told to think is bullshit. It's a bullshit exercise with a bullshit choice and a bullshit foregone conclusion. Anybody who can think can think around it and do laps around the people who were just told what to think.

I'll be quoting results of a survey made by Guttmacher Institute.

You're told to use phrases like "life of the mother", but this accounts for about half a percent of abortions.  "Rape and incest" accounts for 1.5%. These are fringe cases argued only by those who don't have enough votes to make a difference. "Health concerns" -- some of which are significant, and others of which are far-fetched -- account for about 12%. Out of that 12% I was given two sons, whose mother didn't think twice about the CHOICE she made... to sacrifice some of her health to give them life. Other women her age would have made a different choice. That's the thing about choice. There's not just ONE, and anyone who -- whether directly, through implication, or silence -- would have you believe that it means just the one thing is a liar.

4% of respondents... more than rape and incest and imminent danger to the mother COMBINED... gave no reason at all for abortion. They just wanted it. That's a pathetically sad CHOICE. There's no one on Earth empowered to tell me I have to agree with or support such a decision. It's a shitty decision. But it's theirs to make without my support or agreement. Who DID get my support was my wife. She was mostly bedridden for the last decade, and I spent the better part of two decades caring for various maladies until she passed away a little over a week ago. She couldn't take care of herself, so I did. Other men might have made a different choice. I think if you make a promise you should f*cking keep it.

People love to quote "the science"... but the science is that the embryo is a different organism, with different genetics, often a different blood type from the mother. And the mother is a... well.. a mother. It has a biological meaning. Birth isn't parthenogenesis at the last possible instant. That embryo is not "the mother's body" until separation. This part IS NOT a choice. It's biology. It doesn't change with anyone's opinions. Go ahead, try to argue it. But bring citations. Facts, not opinions. See if you don't look the fool.

People love that word "viability". There are many, many people who believe it's a virtue to defend those who cannot defend themselves. For those who do, IF YOU TRIED you couldn't find a shittier, more vile reason to kill something than "it can't take care of itself." If you've ever wondered why you can't convince those folks, I've just revealed that mystery to you. What you hold as a virtue, they see as a vice.

But vices are often seen as virtues by those who have deluded themselves into thinking that sex mainly for pleasure. Ask an evolutionary biologist, if you could stand a little more science. Sex is for procreation; pleasure is a wonderful little evolutionary adaptation that keeps you interested in procreating. You want that thang, and there ARE gonna be babies. Those children are NOT a mere inconvenience. They're the purpose of the act. Pleasure ensures that even the dumbest people pass on their genes.

Intelligent people KNOW that. They don't go around deluding themselves, proclaiming the fantasy that a different organism is "their body" when it demonstrably isn't. They don't claim that the few percent of people with valid risks justify shitty behavior on the part of the overwhelming majority of people who demonstrably do NOT suffer those risks. Intelligent people take precautions. They prevent pregnancies while understanding that sex is an inherently risky business. They are selective with their choice of partners so that when risks are realized they can take responsibility for their actions and live up to those responsibilities. The very few people with legitimate need for abortion don't justify the vast majority who just want to make the same mistakes over and over again. Y'know... that thing called "insanity".

Idiots do delude themselves.

Idiots tell you the purpose of sex is for your own pleasure.

Idiots tell you it's ok to make the same mistakes over and over again. They don't even recognize them as mistakes.

Idiots are insane. 

And they're running the asylum. 

And everything they touch, they ruin. Stable homes, two-parent families, economic stability, even racial economic mobility are all disastrously affected by abortion.

While I won't tell you that you can't have an abortion, I don't have to agree with it, and I don't have to support it. I don't even have to make it easy. These tiny visitors... these little embryos that spring forth that abortionists think magically turn into people when a pair of scissors cuts an umbilical cord... 

... they're people. They were people the whole time.

I don't care if you admit it.

A Primer on Gender and Sex

 At one point in time the conversation around gender and sex was rational. This has ceased to be the case. Therefore, it's necessary that someone re-establish some sanity. Early on, people were under the belief that gender and sex are not the same thing. 

That's true.

Over time this has morphed into the opinion that they are the same thing. This flatly false view is now held by college students, professors, mainstream media outlets, and people who wish to look trendy and cool. Appearing to be ignorant was probably not high on their list of priorities, but that's where they are today.

So let's review.

SEX

Sex is a biological categorization. Examples of sexes are male and female. Despite what you may read in Wikipedia, these categories are synonymous with man and woman. Someone may have indistinct or ambiguous sexual characteristics. This is an astonishingly small minority of people who, due to some genetic factors, have both sets of sexual characteristics (are hermaphroditic), or are perhaps lacking them. Only this set of people are something other than male or female. 

In nature, many organisms have differentiated sexes. There are some dioecious trees that spawn male and female sexes. Examples are cedar, ash, mulberry, oxelder, persimmon, white ash, ginkgo, holly, red cedar, Osage orange, aspen and willow. As you can see, it's quite common.

Males produce sperm (or in the case of trees, pollen). Male humans have XY chromosome pairs.

Females produce eggs (seeds in the case of trees). Female humans have XX chromosome pairs.

None of the above says anything about a person's gender.

GENDER

Gender is a social construct. Without society, gender is meaningless. For instance dioecious trees have sexes; they do not have gender.

Examples of genders are masculine and feminine. Most of the time -- the vast majority -- a person's gender is aligned with that person's biological sex... masculine with male and feminine with female. This is what's meant when someone says cis-gendered. The word itself is an admission that sex and gender are different things. So don't get caught up in the embarrassment of listening to some "learned individual" who can't tell the elementary difference.

But it's possible to be a masculine woman or an effeminate man. This has always been the case. Always.

Although in recent years the word "gender" has acquired the additional meaning of "sexual preference" or "the expression of one's sexuality", it still doesn't mean one's biological sex. And though in the vast majority of cases gender and sex are aligned, it's possible that they're not. Masculine men can be attracted to other men (Google "gay bear"). Effeminate men can be attracted to women. Similar non-alignments are true of some feminine and masculine women.

TRANSITIONING

Some people have gender dysphoria. They think of themselves as a different sex. And some of those people with gender dysphoria undergo chemical and surgical procedures to pass as a member of that sex.  The usual ideal result is that the patient does indeed pass. In this event, no casual observer would guess that the patient wasn't born as what they now appear to be.

As this is not the same as being the opposite sex, the patient is forever dependent upon hormone treatments, and there's no real guarantee that any particular patient will convincingly "pass". But the patient feels strongly enough to make the attempt; and most people will politely acknowledge the attempt.

Other people make no attempt beyond some superficialities like haircut and wardrobe. Realistically, there should be no expectation of passing on will alone.

Whether a person passes or not, their genetics are unchanged. Just as you wouldn't expect your risk of sickle-cell anemia to increase simply because you "identify as" Black, you realistically can't expect your insurance to start paying for cervical exams if you don't have a cervix.

LANGUAGE - PRONOUNS

Until recently the word "gender" was used in language to represent masculine, feminine, and neuter. These are generally aligned with sexual characteristics; but as you already know if you've ever studied gendered languages such as French, Spanish, or German, this isn't always the case. A male cat might still be referred to linguistically as "feminine" despite what the cat thinks of himself. This isn't the only sort of characterization that might happen, though. Linguistic differences might occur on the basis of age, or social position, or whether you're part of a tribe or an outsider, for example.

The point here is that linguistic gender is not an expression of your sexuality. The cat doesn't care that you've "mis-gendered" him. And a woman speaking a genderless language doesn't "disrespect" you when she doesn't use pronouns that don't exist in her language. She's simply speaking her native tongue or dialect.

In English, there is only one pronoun pair that is used when addressing an individual face-to-face: you (nominative/objective cases) and your (possessive case). When someone is addressing you, some form of "you" is the only pronoun you will hear, irrespective of your gender, sex, or any other factor. (I say "some form" as a nod to colloquialisms such as y'all, ya, youse, etc.)

LANGUAGE - FORMS OF ADDRESS

There are other polite forms of address which offer the opportunity for misgendering: words such as "sir" and "ma'am", etc. I will discuss these below.

PROPRIETY

The plain fact of the matter is that your sexual preference makes... or should make... no practical difference in everyday life. No one but your sexual partners gives a damn who it is you sleep with. It's crass, crude, and distasteful to announce it... every bit as crass, crude, and distasteful as it is to be judgmental about your personal choices.

If you arrive at a dinner party with your mate, you'd be taken aback if someone made a big deal out of your choice of partner. This would be as true if you had an opposite sex partner as it would be if you were in a same-sex relationship. You'd expect people to keep whatever thoughts they had on the matter to themselves, just a cis-gendered man expects silence if someone else doesn't like his choice of wife.

Therefore there is no need to announce -- much less demand -- that others use pronouns for you that aren't common in the language. It's walking into a room and blatantly announcing to everyone things that are not their business, to be used in conversations that are none of your business. Remember, the pronouns used about you aren't for you. You will only be referred to as "you" as described above. If some other pronoun is used, you're not part of that conversation. 

I've seen people melt down in public when mis-gendered with a form of address such as "ma'am" or "sir". Such meltdowns are always self-destructive. For one thing, they happen when someone is addressing a person who unsuccessfully presented as another gender. 

Example: putting on a pair of trousers doesn't make a woman into a man... women have been wearing trousers far too long for such a thing to be notable, much less shocking or even informative. It's not some stranger's fault that you unsuccessfully presented as something that doesn't match your self-evident biology. They have no way of knowing whether they're addressing a woman trying to present as a man, one who's just working in the garden today, or one who is simply too poor to wear something else.

For another thing, the strangers used that form of address because they were trying to be respectful. Now, most people will give you a certain amount of respect by default. Saying "sir" or "ma'am" to a stranger is one way of doing that. But they don't owe you that respect... it's a gift. The proper response in such a case is, "It's 'sir', but I appreciate the courtesy." You have a good chance at receiving a "Sorry, sir," in response. Ask any doctor who's been called "mister". A little polite correction is all that's needed.

Remember, what little courtesy you initially receive is unearned. Anything beyond that must be earned. But what little you were given unearned can be lost far more quickly than you imagine if you decide to take a ride through Dicktown in the prickmobile and start shouting and blame-casting in response, particularly if you're not wearing your possible preferred forms of address all over your shirt.

In other words, if you want people to be polite to you, you must always assume that you must be the first to be polite. Simple as that. A good way to start is to remember that you're not special. There are billions of people in the world, and very few of them have sought out your Twitter profile and connected whatever pic is there with your real face, then committed your private language forms of address to your person. 

Notice that I am addressing this to "you", and have not used another pronoun for you in this entire post. See how that works?

---

NOTE: In case anyone is wondering, here's how I manage things, and this is non-negotiable in all cases, no exceptions. Everyone I meet is addressed as "you" in face-to-face conversation. In third-person reference, if someone presents as a woman and makes no stated preference, I use "she/her/hers"; and if someone presents as a man and makes no stated preference, I use "he/him/his". But if someone does make a stated preference then I retain "you" and otherwise refer to that person by name using no third-person pronouns at all. I don't announce my intention or start an argument over it; I just do it. After all, that person has chosen to be crass, crude, and distasteful by announcing things that are none of my business. My response is as respectful as it gets. Simply using a name skirts the issue entirely.