Skuu Blog

Critical thinking, game design, philosophy, good art, terrible art. Old posts: http://skuu.blogspot.co.uk/

[skuu2]

Unfinished, unhelpful journalism

A change to the way the court system works is to be put to the vote in the Magistrates Association in England and Wales.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24588854

There's an opinion that having people either swear on a book central to their religion, or make a firm oath based on principles if they are secular, makes many people "no more likely to tell the truth".

I wanted to talk about the evidence surrounding this topic, but after a half-arsed google search didn't turn up anything relevant, I've changed it to this: why didn't the journalist provide further reading?

At the bottom of the article are perfunctory links to the magistrates website and the site of the Department of Justice. But surely there's some relevant evidence or research on this matter. Didn't the magistrate proposing the changes supply any? Didn't journalists asks to see any?

Without any evidence presented in the article, or even linked to, the journalist is leaving readers to squabble about it in ignorance. Inevitably both will argue from their feelings; traditionalists that things should stay the same, skeptics and secularists pumping for the proposed change.

This sort of lazy, evidence-blasé reporting is pretty irresponsible. It will significantly lower the quality of debate around this issue in the public. 

This feels a lot like the tedious, faustian journalistic behaviour whereby they try to fairly include 'both sides' of every discussion, even when the 'other side' are just cranks or have no reason-based argument.

We probably all know the sort that often comes up, usually based around firm scientific theories that are rejected by some deniers, but the perpetual one that drives me right up the wall due to its copy-paste style lazy uninnovation is the whole 'iz thar god?', 'religun, shud it?' nonsense that repeats endlessly.

You don't have to be atheist to listen to philosophers and know that the debate has far moved on from the way it is portrayed in such media presentations. People as well as philosophers and even religious institutions are becoming increasingly secular. We all realise it but we have to put on a show of respect for the ignorant or vulnerable minded hold-outs.

I get no more pleasure out of bashing religion or the religious, but I do get immense satisfaction from pointing out the painful level of end-of-their-nose short sightedness on the part of the media when it comes to 'sensitive' issues. The writing has been on the wall for so long, but they, like a North Korean or Chinese news agency, will keep reporting the hopeful news to quell the masses.

[skuu2]

How much should we manipulate?

'Manipulate' sounds like a loaded word, but that's only because we don't want to admit the true nature of our day to day actions.

We alter people's behaviour all the time. In a realistic sense, we are all 'manipulative' as well as being 'easily manipulable'. That's part of being human.

But there are two examples of institutionalised manipulation that are common and usually considered acceptable. One is probably for the best, the other is at least questionable.

When a public agency manipulates us for our own benefit, that is usually OK. When you see an advert for checking your fire alarm that features crying people, intending to convince you emotionally, that's fine. It's one of those things that is justified by considering the 'worst that could happen' on either end. 

Of course there's no serious negative reason for not trying to convince people to check their fire alarm, but you could think of reasons why it might be wrong for public agencies like the government not to be allowed to manipulate you, even if it has been agreed that it would be in your best interest.

Of course this will always be debated in open democratic countries, but in general, when your represenatives have agreed that a small amount of manipulation is justified in order to get you to do something that is clearly in your best interest (stop smoking, don't leave your child in a hot car etc) it's pretty clear-cut to me.

Now, what if the motives are a little more selfish? My last post was about advertising and how it is fundamentally disrespectful of people's self control. The wider issue here is that for-profit organisations happily regularly manipulate us, irrespective of what is in our best interest.

This isn't just about adverts; companies find an infinite number of ways to shove themselves into our lives, usually without us really wanting to. The key problem is, even in a 'free' society, if one 'member' of that society is loaded and influential, it's hard to say the smaller, more naive members of that society are free in relation to that member's actions.

Even small, innocuous things like, a person coming up to you in the street and asking if you'd be interested in giving some money and signing up for something. Companies are rarely interested in winning an intellectual debate. They want to grab any loose-end emotions you have and tie them to their product. Forming a financial bond that benefits them.

I'm not anti-company in that I know a product and a service can potentially benefit both partners, but I'm anti the overwhelmingly used method of getting consumers, sometimes practically forcing them, to become a partner to them.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to be human without being a corporatised human. Our entertainment, our relaxation, our hobbies, our relationships etc are becoming and have become simply profit opportunities.

Typically 'media' entertainments are targeted. Video games, TV, movies etc are rife with promotions and conscious to subconscious manipulation. But it would be challenging to spend a day with a friend, or do a public hobby without a company's selfish message being pushes into our faces.

The reason this is frustrating is that I can't actually see a solution. With critical thinking, at least I can see a potential improvement if the education system is changed. But capitalism seems to function based on maximizing this manipulations, and we rely on capitalism to keep our society affluent and, at this point, afloat.

[skuu2]

Amateur Game Design - No Bullshit

The thing I like about game designing is the 'no bullshit' aspect to it. There are no sacred cows. If something doesn't feel good, and it can't justify its place, it's out.

Whereas things that are fun, interesting, exciting etc, are welcomed with open arms for their genuine contribution. Game design respects the meritocracy to the highest degree. 

Maybe when pricing, costs, marketing and the general 'placating the masses' aspects come in, the design process will start to feel more complicated and compromises have to be made. But at least for now, it feels very good to be the hand that bring forth good design.

Because that's what it feels like. When you're really into the process, the process of producing and executing quality design feels natural. Not to say I'm so amazing at it already that everything I do meets this target, but it comes down to the dedication to partake of this process.

Like science isn't a set of beliefs, but rather an objective process of analysis, game design is a process of exploring mechanics and flavour, searching for good feelings, which are then set up to be sprung upon the player in some consistent way.

It feeds into a general skill of weeding out nonsense (that you may have heard me say just a few words about in previous posts). I really respect any skill that looks to find things that have a shareable utility. Just like science, with a mixture of imagination and careful testing, we can find things that make positive experience for each other.

Art by the talented Marta. Here's her Deviantart. http://merillian.deviantart.com

[skuu2]

Reply to critical-bitz's 'Squabbling versus Deliberation'

'Democratic deliberation' is a process where citizens or their representatives are encouraged to objectively discuss and come to an informed and balanced opinion on topics. Sometimes the results turn into legal decisions, sometimes not.

What sounds like a critical thinker’s wet dream is given a cold shower by the reasonable critique it’s garnered. This revolves around the propensity of humans to manipulate each other, even in the context of an open, informed discussion.

Whether we realise our motivations or not, when we have a skill we will often end up using it to move things in a favourable direction.

So people skilled in rhetoric and who are simply better informed about a topic will often bend the opinion of others, whether justified in doing so or not.

Does this mean critical thinking is doomed beyond a group of enlightened cliques? No, I think there’s another way. Education. New forms of education are harder to introduce than talking workshops, but they will have a greater long term effect. Just as we’ve seen a rather surprisingly quick liberalisation opinions on issues like homosexual and female rights, I believe we can see a similar swing towards objective thought if people are primed in the right way.

Is it really education that brought about these views though? Probably not on its own, but it helps. Even simply smoothing out the anti-thought elements of the current system would help. The two examples of this which leap to mind are the teaching of religion and the target system.

But now I think about it, these are probably sacred cows that would create a massive hubbub if attacked. A better way may be the 'alternative' strategy. Slowly introducing critical thinking as an independent course, isolated from topics that are deemed untouchable, may slowly leave students questioning the topics that they need to on their own. That's the way pro-thought should work!

[critical-bitz's post http://critical-bitz.tumblr.com/post/63538745930/squabblingversusdeliberation]

[skuu2]

adverts and capitalism

Everyone hates adverts, but are they wrong?

Adverts are about making their audience more likely to buy their product. They do this in various ways, but basically it's by manipulating your emotions, subconscious etc.They aren't appealing to your rational side.

Adverts are like a nagging person, constantly trying to make you do what they want you to do, whether you agree with it or not.

Even if you think adverts don't affect you - they do. Even if it's a small effect as making you aware of a product, which you're then more likely to choose over another, unknown product, you're being manipulated.

Why is this bad? Not all loss of control in life is bad. But when it comes to your money and your opinions, that is bad. So companies have been sanctioned to remove self control from you.

What is the alternative? Why not have objective advertisement? Regulations already exist to reign in the nonsense of current adverts, but laws work from the end product backwards. Adverts basically do what they want, then the laws trim the extremes.

Instead, adverts should fit themselves into an allotted legal position for themselves.So, you want your product to sell more/at all? Why should people buy it? Instead of tricking people into buying it, why not convince them rationally to do so?

Your new car, why is it better than the competition? Show me the stats.

In England (at least) we have a company called Which? which tries to objectively compare products to inform consumers. Why can't companies just do this themselves?

[skuu2]

remnants of christianity

Why are sex and certain words considered 'bad' in our culture?

I care about the feelings of others, so I wouldn't do something that would offend someone just to exercise my freedom to do so, but that doesn't mean I have to share their values, or appreciate that their values make restrictions in society that restrict my personal activities.

For similar reasons, I don't mind that films warn viewers of the type of content in the production. But to legally restrict people from viewing a film because of an assumed shared distaste?

Violence is more of a 'fair enough' thing, since even though there isn't strong evidence that viewing violence creates violent behaviour, violence can be disturbing and affect behaviour and opinions. Not stuff you want young people to freely access necessarily.

But when it comes to 'rude words' and sex, there is less of an argument. If there's a make-out session, then it'll probably get a PG. If there's 'strong sexual innuendo' then it's a 15. They have sex? Eww, slap an 18 on it! Wait what? They're actually having sex? That's an R!

As a sort of spectrum of intimacy, it's sort of accurate. But as a protection of children? The fundamental assumption seems lacking. 

Why is sex a bad thing for children to see? A response I've gotten focused on the possible varied portrayal of sex. Most people might admit that a child seeing a penis entering a vagina wouldn't be scarred for life. But that's not usually all that's shown in media.

Violent and varied sexual practices are depicted often. Sex with people you shouldn't have sex with etc are common.And sex isn't usually like violence, in that sex is portrayed seriously, while violence in softer movies tends to be reduced in nature.

But could this just be a product of our contrived cultural norms?

Violence appears in media for all ages, because we are mature enough to understand that it isn't harmful when portrayed in certain ways. Like sex, in real life the vast majority of day to day violence isn't very harmful. Scuffles, pinches and punches are the relatively harmless, expected events of life, much like missionary with your boyfriend is. Or should be.

If we stopped being so uptight about sex, it could be watered down, 'decriminalised' if you will, and made more accessible for all audiences.

You might suggest that the spectrum I mentioned a few paragraphs up is this watering down. No, 'sex' is still basically only for adults when it comes to media. Hell, even 18-rated sex isn't really sex. It's sexier than sex education (although my only memory of sex education was me asking my teacher about the video: 'are they going to have sex?' (no they didn't). But, it's not sex. 

The first time most kids experience actual sex is probably porn, then when they finally get their hands on another person, usually who they have to sneak off to get with, or touch quietly while their parents are in another room. So, society, through parents, media and school, are failing to give an honest, realistic introduction to sex, due to ancient christian values.

So what the fuck would watered down sex be? It shouldn't be everything. Like with violence, impressionable, learning minds could be confused by adults behaving in ways that only adults can understand the details of (extreme bondage, rape-play... you get the idea).

It would just be normal sex. It even feels wrong to me to be proposing this, but we have to get over our deeply ingrained feeling that the nude body and the interactions that nude bodies can have is just wrong. A child would only benefit from seeing a realistic portrayal of sex; they wouldn't be harmed in any conceivable way. 

I suppose Billy could go and try and stick it in Julie as a sort of, monkey see monkey do thing. But, really? Does that warrant a near-complete media prohibition on one of humanity's most common and meaningful activities?

'Rude' words are a lot simpler to go over. Some people are offended by some words sometimes. If you think saying a word that you don't really need to say will hurt someone's feelings, don't say it. Otherwise, go ahead. No words are in themselves bad. End of. And no, because a parent can't be bothered to stop their kid watching tv at certain times, doesn't mean a comedian or public figure can't swear.

It does us well to remember that our society is only now getting over the fact that females and homosexuals are equal to straight males, and that alternative views on sexuality and long-held values shouldn't necessarily forever be taboo.

[skuu2]

HOW BEEG IS YO DEEEEEEEEEEK!!??!?!?!? ~a humble american.

4'1"

[skuu2]

education

Note: The post, more than most, is very ranty and meandering. If it's hard to follow let me know. I'm thinking about my presentation style. I'm interested in whether people like this weird style.

I occasionally hear people blame one of these three groups. Either the big problems of society are caused by people being stupid, the media being irresponsible, or politicians being stupid/greedy/etc. 

The fact is, this is just one circle with a central cause in the middle: bad education. While the richer types probably have a better political and philosophical education, the education system as a whole drastically fails people when it comes to teaching them how to think.

This isn't a sudden revelation from me. Especially since kids started to be encouraged to go to university, the school system has been primarily about targets and superficiality.

Now I can't argue that targets are worthless, and a system without targets would be heaven, puppies, kisses and roses (in that order), but it's fair to point out some of the big problems with what is basicly a target-based system.

I wouldn't even have such a big problem with the system, if pretty important topics like politics and critical thinking were more commonly taught. 

But the mixture of superficiality and a black hole where thinking skills should be taught is leading to (or, has lead to) a new generation who are citizens in name only.

We've got people coming at us from every direction telling us that we ought to be better at one thing or another thing. Watch TV less, play video games less, use the internet less, use your smart phone less, study more, do more exercise, eat better, be better informed about national/international affairs, just be a better person. Stop being a broken person. 

So here I come giving everyone another task that you absolutely must do. I don't want to be that guy, and I don't want my numerous rants to come off as kicks and punches to people already trying to juggle challenges and do their best.

The situation is more challenging than perhaps I give people credit for. Major weaknesses in the function of society have become easy chairs for hard working people. The rag you buy everyday (or pick up for free at the station). Yeah, it's ideological, it's probably feeding me nonsense which, yeah, I might be subconsciously absorbing. But it's a source of entertainment for me.

I'm so bored commuting, and I like that one writer in there...

This is the reason so many problems are just left alone by most people, even if they're aware that it's a big problem. We just don't have the time and energy.

So here's the deal. If you do have some spare time, if you do have some spare energy, and if you do care about the issues I'm talking about, just consider your habits. Even if you don't pay Rupert Murdoch a penny, just by holding one of his rags up in front of your face in a public place, you're helping him spread his ideology.

If you have kids, maybe they should learn a little extra outside of school? Even if you don't understand the nuts and bolts of how politics works, no reason not to encourage your kid to. 

Why isn't critical thinking taught in schools? The closest thing we had in my school was media studies, where we spent a few lessons looking at why headline writers wrote headlines the way they did. Even university did and offered nothing. Even though most university degree courses have a whole year where they offer general modules, they still don't consider thinking skills important enough to devote a single mandatory module to.

I could write another sheet of A4 on 'why aren't we taught to think?' and I won't, because it's the kinda topic that can turn conspiracy theory-y faster than you can say nine-eleven, but basically I think there are two major reasons.

1, religion and politics still enjoy black and white thinking. Be a theist or an atheist, a red or a blue.. as long as we have our loyal base that we can rely on to support us. The ones we worry about are the free thinkers who see identifying themselves with groups as a silly thing to do, and are harder to trick.

2, parents don't like kids challenging things. While a parent has more of a right than a priest or a politician to demand that a person obey them, it needs to be part of a process of learning. I have a hunch that, emotionally, parents want their kids to always agree with their opinions and values.

This is because you wouldn't want to bring something into the world that makes it worse, and it's kind of like having a slave who will be there for you and help you.

[skuu2]

critical thinking #2 - I forgot why I have that box

Religion and alternative medicine are things that have their own special box.

A common view is that religion itself (not talking about religious people) should be respected and given time for discussion. Similarly, alternative medicine and therapies are regularly given their own time, sometimes equal to the science, in public discussions.

But, when such things are put into the same box as normal concepts, they start to look silly, and their proponents baulk, demanding their return to their special box.

The only thing that separates such beliefs from normal concepts is the fact that many people strongly defend them, often with threats and violence.

Long ago, religion and science were considered the same thing. The ancient Greeks saw reflections of gods in their studies of the world, and, visa versa, learnt about what the gods must be like due to the way the world appeared.

At some point science started diverting from some of the immoveable tenants of religious thinking. The fact that religion stuck around, mostly unchanged to the present day, shows that it was different from science (i.e. not real), and that humans really wanted to believe still. So the long history of theological cognitive dissonance (another cool critical thinking term) began. 

For many modern people, religion has slipped away. But the second box is still filled. People's need for solid belief and their ignorance of psychology creates similar nonsensical sacred cows. This can take the form of pseudosciences, or political ideologies, or spiritual beliefs, or even self-help beliefs about how they can control their lives and win over others.

This isn't about a comparison of the evidence for god versus the evidence of no god. This is querying of the validity of a comparison in the first place. 

Stephen Hawking said that philosophy is irrelevant now, thanks to science. I still think there's place for a 'softer than hard facts' look at the way the world works. The problem is that the vast majority of 'soft views' can be critically judged with either hard evidence or logical reasoning.

Whether it's evidence that a personal god doesn't exist, or that the argument that the concept of god doesn't make sense, there's no sensible reason for keeping that old box around anymore.

Religion and alternative medicine are defended in a sort of last ditch effort by the 'feels good' argument. Although homeopathy doesn't actually do anything in itself, it does have placebo effects. Religion can be said to have the same effects.

This defence completely collapses when you remember that belief in real things can have placebo effects too. Having a positive belief about your friends or family makes you feel good, and hopeful for the future. Getting science-based medical attention gives a placebo effect. 

There's nowhere left for that box. It's just taking up room.

[skuu2]

critical thinking #1 - it's needed

I started with this website:

http://www.fastcocreate.com/3018853/infographic-what-beer-and-coffee-do-to-your-brain-and-which-makes-you-more-creative

It has an infographic with a lot of 'facts'. How do I know these facts are reliable? I say 'reliable', because I probably can't reproduce the original experiments which found them, but I can see whether the experiments and scientists involved smell trustworthy.

At the bottom of the image it says 'made by I <3 Coffee.jp', so I go there. The writer there says that he/she made the image based on another person's article, which they link and I dutifully follow.

It takes me here: https://medium.com/what-i-learned-today/f7fcb3b786b1

I scroll to the bottom of that page and it turns out it was originally published here: https://ooomf.com/blog/coffee-vs-beer-effects-on-creativity/

Before I start talking about the source, it's interesting that a handful of information has had such a shelf life and been reproduced so much. A lot of people can benefit from one person's work.

But what work was done?

So I'm finally at the original source and immediately I spot a problem. The writer does cite studies, but he makes a lot of claims that aren't sourced. It's OK not to have underlined words everywhere, leading to evidence, but if you make claims that you want your readers to believe, you should at least have footnotes.

The writer starts his second section with "From a scientific perspective, creativity is your ability to think of something original from connections made between pre-existing ideas in your brain."

A cursory google shows that the writer, Mikael Cho, has some kind of scientific experience. His Linkedin says that he did a B.S. in psychology and was a research analyst at the 'Waisman Lab for Brain Imaging & Behaviour'.

From my point of view, he could have the experience to make generalised claims about what science shows. However, what percentage of readers know this about him? What percentage even tried to find out the source of the information presented in the infographic? Crucially, why didn't the creators of the infographic and Mikael care to take these kinds of things into account?

I feel people's credulity and lack of critical thinking skills are a major problem. It is very common to blame politicians for ideological mistakes and for trying to trick people, but it is the voters who are voting for ideologues, and are so trickable.

It's a civic duty to educate yourself and others about how to think properly. So I'd like to start a series talking about critical thinking skills.

A lot of what I'll be talking about can be found elsewhere, but I'd like to share with my readers my hopefully easy to understand summary of these things.

Enjoy!

[skuu2]

those nothing evenings

I have a habit of doing nothing of an evening.

Most evenings that I'm alone my brain turns into mush and can't do anything. I don't just mean I can't do anything productive, I struggle to entertain myself too.

At this point I usually turn to some guilty pleasures, but these rarely last long - I'm in for another boring evening.

There's nothing wrong with boring bored from time to time.When we're bored our mind reaches out for new entertainment, and can find interesting things that it wouldn't have if it did the same old thing it previously relied on.

But my boredom feels institutionalised. My mushy brain refuses to do anything. The odds things that I enjoy whatever my mood, like chatting to friends, aren't usually available, so I'm left to stew.

I click away at different pages, Youtube... BBC... Facebook... hoping to find something stimulating. I'm writing this in the middle of a brain-stew. I'm probably only capable of this because it's interesting to write about this phenomenon for the first time.

I'm trying to cure it by getting into more constructive habits. Trying to read, or write... study or well anything that keeps me busy.

The strange thing is that there're many things I want to be doing, but just can't.

[skuu2]

WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE INANIMATE OBJECT?

What would an 'animate object' be? Is this one of English's many redundant word pairings I wonder. My favourite object is probably my smart phone, since it's become the computer that I use the most. Although, I think I'd rather not have a smartphone than not have a normal computer. I can get a dumbphone for a tenner that replaces a smartphone's essential functions, but I can't replace most of the useful and fun stuff that my computer does cheaply. 

[skuu2]

the all important nudge

I've found that dedicating yourself to a target is pretty important. I started trying to do something daily. Then that slipped to 'regularly'. Then, in practice, it went to 'when I actually produce something'. Now, without realising, I've fallen back to my perfectionist position, where I'm not writing at all because I can't think of anything really interesting to do.

I feel like I've shown myself that I can produce interesting content on a very regular timeframe. It stopped when I started getting lazy again. 'Eh, I don't have to do EVERY day'. This is a mindset that feels tempting because it seems reasonable. I've been doing daily stuff so far, why not a day off? But decisions made in emotion (in this case, laziness/tiredness) are decisions that turn into habits.

The point of doing something regularly is it make it easier to push through that laziness. People hate going to work but they manage it partly because most of the time it involves doing the same thing they've done before. Humans don't always enjoy habits, but they're good at them. So if you decide a habit is worth doing, then you have to drill yourself into doing it.

My plan is to go back to my original concept for the blog: something daily. Sometimes that will only be a sentence. The only promise that I'm keeping to now is this: all my content will be original, and I will always aim for interesting. You still won't get copypasta or cliché here.