Rationality

This excellent article explains why people respond to sensationalized messages when considering political decisions. From the article:

“A dispassionate mind that makes decisions by weighing the evidence and reasoning to the most valid conclusions bears no relation to how the mind and brain actually work.”

Or, as I like to phrase it, PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS.

For a rational voter (if they actually exist), this leads to the somewhat depressing conclusion that they should not vote for a candidate with an articulate, rational, well-presented platform, because most other people won't and it's a waste of a vote. For a good politician, this leads to the somewhat depressing conclusion that they should focus their platform more on emotional considerations like pride or fear-mongering, and that the rationality of their platform should be secondary at best.

This same phenomenon explains everything from the success of religion to why sex sells to why I post blog titles like "Murdering Babies".

Best. Camera Angle. Ever.

I knew my cat could fly, but this is new. :)

Murdering Babies

Well well.

This article triggers a couple of bullshit alerts (specifically, it hypes its jaw-dropping conspiracy then waits a bit before mentioning it, and mentions numerous "facts" without sources), but then, on the other hand, it seems at least internally consistent, and it's very interesting to think about in a "what if" context even if it IS completely fake.

The basic premise of the article is that mothers routinely murder babies, and that in evolutionary terms, this is a good thing. Furthermore, several researchers allegedly discovered this independently, and covered it up for fear of society's reactions. Even if this is all total crap, it raises some interesting questions in the "what if it were true" sense. In no particular order:

1. Can knowing the truth be an evolutionary disadvantage?
2. Should scientists try to protect us from the truth?
3. Can science ever really suppress the truth?
4. Could the brutal murders of babies be justified by an increased likelihood of survival, on both an individual's family line level and a species level?
5. Could this cast eugenics in a different light?

My answers:
1. Depends on what the truth is. Probably generally no, but yes under some circumstances.
2. No.
3. Depends on the numbers of people repeating experiments, and their willingness to state their findings.
4. Depends on what you consider moral. For me, yes.
5. Maybe. The fact that Hitler implemented an idea doesn't necessarily make it bad. According to my history class, the Nazis were nearly powerful enough to take over the entire world. I'd imagine that eugenics would at the very least give some efficiency gains.

There, I've Godwinned myself. Beat you to it!

OCTOPIG!!!

For one, it's been far too long since I posted, for another, I haven't really showcased my immature side to a proportional extent yet, and finally, I have NEVER had the chance to post about a pig with 6 legs, 2 penises and 2 anuses that has a silly enough name that the name is mentioned in the headline. The caption on the picture is also amusing, since it seems to be true.