Thursday: Hili dialogue

October 29, 2015 • 4:56 am

Weather for Chicago, cloudy with a chance of rain, high of only 51°F (11°C). I can hear the wind howling outside as I lie abed, but soon I must venture out in it. The sun will not be back until Sunday. In Britain, a couple has put together a “safety video”, like the airlines, telling visitors to their home how to deal with their cats Cole and Marmalade. Be sure to watch it. Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is espousing some rare empathy, and you will be heartened (if you like d*gs) to see their friendship:

Hili: Isn’t love better than hate and fear?
Cyrus: Absolutely.

P1030525

In Polish:
Hili: Czy nie lepsza jest miłość od nienawiści i lęku?
Cyrus: Zdecydowanie.

Wil Wheaton rebuffs the odious and stingy HuffPo

October 28, 2015 • 2:00 pm

Wil Wheaton, who became famous for his teen-star appearance on Star Trek, and who now appears regularly on The Big Bang Theory (a show I’ve never watched), was asked by PuffHo if they could re-post one of Wheaton’s own website posts, “Seven things I did to reboot my life.” Here they are, if you’re interested:

  • Drink less beer.
  • Read more (and Reddit does not count as reading).
  • Write more.
  • Watch more movies.
  • Get better sleep.
  • Eat better food.
  • Exercise more.

That’s good grist for PuffHo’s “life improvement” mill, so it’s no surprise that they wanted it, especially because Wheaton’s so well known.

What then happened to Wheaton is exactly what happened to me: PuffHo asked if they could re-publish one of my website posts, and I asked them, “What are you paying?” And their response—the same one they gave to Wheaton—is that they don’t pay but they can give you valuable exposure. Thus the title of Wheaton’s post describing his run-in with Arianna’s site, “You can’t pay your rent with ‘the unique platform and reach our site provides‘.”

His account of his interactions with the Odious Site, and one of his tw**ts:

A very nice editor at Huffington Post contacted me yesterday, and asked me if I would be willing to grant permission for the site to republish my post about the seven things I did to reboot my life.

Huffington Post has a lot of views, and reaches a pretty big audience, and that post is something I’d love to share with more people, so I told the editor that I was intrigued, and asked what they pay contributors.

Well, it turns out that, “Unfortunately, we’re unable to financially compensate our bloggers at this time. Most bloggers find value in the unique platform and reach our site provides, but we completely understand if that makes blogging with us impossible.”

I translated this on Twitter thusly:

Screen Shot 2015-10-28 at 1.23.43 PM

Although Wheaton isn’t sure he “made the right call,” I think he did. As the Wall Street Journal points out, HuffPo may be worth a billion dollars, and is projected to bring in $168 million in revenue this year. (While it has yet to turn an operating profit, HuffPo says that’s because it’s plowing the revenues into growth.) But what this journalistic octopus is doing is completely devaluing professional writing. Hopeful writers will write for free, counting on getting the exposure on PuffHo needed to turn their avocation into a profitable career.

That usually doesn’t happen, and so we see a bunch of young writers giving PuffHo the means to earn its millions, and all they get is unproductive exposure. But exposure, as Wheaton says, won’t pay the rent. This is what’s killing serious journalism all over the U.S., and driving down the wages of those who do earn money.

I won’t write for HuffPo until they pay for my words, and neither will Wil. Yes, I write here for free (it cost me money to keep the site up), and I get no revenue from ads. That’s because I write for my own amusement, and to expel my thoughts into the ether. But if other people want to make money from those thoughts, they’ll have to pay me.

Blogger Raif Badawi reportedly scheduled for second flogging

October 28, 2015 • 12:48 pm

Most of us have heard of Raif Badawi, one of the most prominent victims of Islamic blasphemy laws. Badawi, 31, was convicted by a Saudi court in 2013 of apostasy (he was supposedly insulting Islam on his website), and was later sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1000 lashes, to be doled out in 20 sessions of 50 lashes each. This is no light punishment, for a lashing is a severe beating that can severely injure or even kill a prisoner.

In January of this year, he was given his first flogging, publicly, in a mosque in Jeddah. Badawi was severely injured, and further floggings were postponed because his medical condition—diabetes and hypertension—might kill him if he were whipped again.

Now the soft-hearted Saudi government is set to resume this inhuman punishment, at least according to Badawi’s wife, who lives in Canada with their children. CNN reports:

In a statement published on the Raif Badawi Foundation website Tuesday, [Ensaf] Haidar said that an “informed source” told her that Saudi authorities had approved resuming the floggings.

“The informed source also said that the flogging will resume soon but will be administered inside the prison,” Haidar said. The sentence originally called for the floggings to be carried out in public.

“It is worth mentioning that the same source had warned me of Raif’s pending flogging at the beginning of January 2015 and his warning was confirmed, as Raif was flogged on 9th January,” she said.

Haidar, who has been granted political asylum in Canada along with the couple’s three children, urged the Saudi King to show mercy.

The new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has joined Haidar in requesting Badawi’s release:

Sadly, Obama has refused to condemn this inhumane punishment, ducking the question when asked about Badawi. It’s a blot on the U.S. that we can’t even bring ourselves to criticize such barbarity by our “allies.”

I’m still hopeful that this torture can be stopped, for not only is it cruel and unusual punishment, but it’s been imposed solely because the Saudi theocracy doesn’t like what Badawi said. Remember, too, that this crime and its punishment would not exist without religion, for the very meaning of apostasy depends on the hegemony of Islam. This one can’t be pinned on the West, or on colonialism.

Let’s hope that three children don’t go fatherless much longer, and that Badawi can find asylum in Canada.

This is supposedly a photo of Badawi being flogged, but I can’t verify that it’s him. But it doesn’t matter, for it can stand for the Saudi’s barbaric form of justice, which normally mandates death for apostasy.

flogged

Ghost hunting in Norway: Have other superstitions replaced religion in Scandinavia?

October 28, 2015 • 11:15 am

“Reader Mark” sent me a link to an article from Saturday’s New York Times, “Norway has a new passion: ghost hunting,” with a somewhat challenging line in his email:

You might want to think twice before ever again holding up those ‘Scandinavian countries’ as role models of rationality.

Now I don’t know whether to construe that as a lighthearted comment or a rather snarky one, for the Times article doesn’t much affect my opinion that Scandinavian countries as more rationally run than, say, the U.S. First of all, the article is about only one country, Norway. And what it says is that belief in ghosts, spirits, and woo is increasing:

Ghosts, or at least belief in them, have been around for centuries but they have now found a particularly strong following in highly secular modern countries like Norway, places that are otherwise in the vanguard of what was once seen as Europe’s inexorable, science-led march away from superstition and religion.

Sadly, there are no survey data supporting that claim, just anecdotes like the popularity of a Norwegian television show called “The Power of Spirits”. Here are all the “data” that the article gives:

While churches here may be largely empty and belief in God, according to opinion polls, in steady decline, belief in, or at least fascination with, ghosts and spirits is surging.

And, of course, ministers rush in to argue that this belief in ghosts is a sign that atheists must replace abjured religion with some kind of woo, with the implication that Ghost Woo is worse than Holy Ghost Woo:

“God is out but spirits and ghosts are filling the vacuum,” said Roar Fotland, a Methodist preacher and assistant professor at the Norwegian School of Theology in Oslo. Instead of slowly eliminating religion, as Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx and other theorists predicted, modernity has only channeled religious feelings in unexpected ways, Mr. Fotland said.

“Belief in God, or at least a Christian God, is decreasing but belief in spirits is increasing,” he added, describing this as part of a general resurgence of “premodern religion.”

And that, of course, is the point of “reader Mark,” who claims that I’m no longer entitled to argue that Scandinavia is more rational than the U.S., even though the article’s about Norway and the head of the nation’s Humanist Organization says that this is all tripe—that religion’s still dying out.

Well, first of all, how pervasive is Norway’s belief in ghosts compared to, say, the hyper-religious U.S.? We don’t know. What we do know is that many Americans believe in ghosts and woo. A 2005 Gallup poll shows that 32% of Americans believe in ghosts, while 19% are unsure, while 37% believe in haunted houses. If the article’s thesis is right, that should be lower than similar beliefs of Norwegians. A HuffPo/YouGov poll from just two years ago showed that 45% of Americans believe in ghosts or the notion that the spirits of the dead can return to stalk the Earth. A Pew Research poll, also taken in 2013, shows that 29% of Americans feel they’ve been in touch with the dead, and 18% that they’ve seen a ghost. How does that compare with Norway, much less with Scandinavia? I have no idea, and neither does Reader Mark.

Before we can claim that belief in ghosts has replaced the decline in religion in Scandinavia, we need to have surveys of such beliefs when religion was more pervasive in Scandinavia, and compare that data to beliefs now. Until we have those data, we can’t credibly claim that as religion wanes, the vacuum is filled with woo.

But of course it’s entirely possible that there’s been an uptick in woo. I don’t doubt for a moment that some people have a need for “spiritual” stuff, and if they give up their faith, or as society becomes less religious, love of woo may rise. But I do doubt that it would increase tremendously, which would have to be the case since the proportion of atheists in Norway is estimated by Phil Zuckerman as between 31% and 72% (see p. 56 of link). So I’ll simply ask Scandinavian readers (those from Norway in particular) to weigh in with their own beliefs and experiences, for that is all the Times article gives.

Finally, belief in ghosts isn’t near as inimical to human welfare as is belief in God and His moral strictures. I think American society, not to mention many Muslim lands, would be greatly improved if they’d give up Allah for Caspar. After all, we know that religiosity is negatively correlated with societal welfare across many lands (and in states within the U.S.), and as well-being wanes from year to year, religiosity increases a step behind. So yes, even granting the dubious premise that Scandinavia is ridden with ghostophiles, it’s still an area that is more empathic and run far more rationally than is the U.S.

Note to readers (again): fill in your blanks

October 28, 2015 • 10:10 am

Most people have already become aware of a WordPress glitch that has removed the autofill feature of comments, so if you make a comment, please be sure that your name and email address is filled in before you post it. I’m still getting way too many comments from “Anonymous”.  I am in touch with WordPress and they are aware of the problem.
Thanks.
—Management

Oh, and read the post on ravens just below. That’s an order.

Canny corvids curb cooperation after they’ve been cheated

October 28, 2015 • 9:30 am

Excuse the alliteration, as I’m tired this morning. But not too tired to report on a new paper in Nature Scientific Reports by Jorg Massen, Caroline Ritter, and Thomas Bugnyar (free access and pdf, reference below, popular summary at IFL Science). It shows something heretofore unknown in birds: a recognition that they’ve been cheated and a resulting reluctance to cooperate with anyone after that.

The paper begins with a useful literature survey of animals that cooperate with others (killer whales, Harris’s hawks, chimpanzees), animals that wait for another individual to arrive to help them perform a cooperative task (capuchins, bonobos, Asian elephants), and animals known to discriminate with respect to partners, choosing to work with those that have been more helpful (chimpanzees and coral trout [!]).

But that kind of partner discrimination hadn’t been described in birds. Now it is, thanks to a clever experiment in which ravens (Corvus corax), already known to be wicked smart, were forced into a situation where they had to cooperate to get food.

The experimental setup is shown below: ravens are put in a cage, and on the other side of the wire is a wooden platform containing two pieces of cheese. There are two strings threaded through grommets on the platform, and to pull the cheese toward the cage and get noms, two ravens have to pull at once; if only one pulls, the string simply slips out of the grommets and birds no can haz noms.

srep15021-f1
(From paper): Figure 1. Experimental set-up. Two birds have to pull the two ends of the string simultaneously to move the feeding platform in reach. If only one bird pulls, the string will just go through the two metal loops anchored to the feeding platform and become unthreaded, while the platform remains stationary. Picture drawn by Nadja Kavcik-Graumann.

There were two sets of experiments, involving in total 9 juvenile hand-reared ravens. The first conclusion is that ravens can’t figure out the task on their own; that is, they can’t spontaneously realize that there have to be two birds pulling together to get the noms. This was discerned from the failure of ravens to wait for the arrival of a partner before pulling the strings, and from their tendency to pull the string when there were no other birds present. As the authors note:

With regard to the control trials, in 243 out of 288 solitary trials (84.38%) individuals pulled the string even though this had no effect. Similarly, only 2 birds waited in 5 (out of 288: 1.73%) waiting trials for their partner to arrive at the apparatus and subsequently cooperated successfully. These data suggest that the ravens did not understand the need for a partner to solve the task in this experimental set-up.

So they’re not THAT smart!

However, the two experiments did give some intriguing results:

  • The ravens eventually did learn that joint pulling did get them noms. In the first study, using groups of ravens in the cage, there was spontaneous cooperation in 397 out of 600 trials, and every bird was successful at least 32 times.
  • Using knowledge about the age of the birds, their rank in the raven dominance hierarchy, sex, and kinship (relatives or not?), as well as “inter-individual tolerance” (the distance at which birds could tolerate each other’s presence when both were pulling on individual strings connected to cheese), the only predictor of cooperation was inter-individual tolerance (IIT). Here are the data, with the left graph showing the correlation between IIT and successful joint pulling when groups of birds were tested, and the right the same graph, but when only pairs of birds were tested. The correlation between IIT and joint success is significant, and shows that birds recognize each other, preferring to cooperate with those they can tolerate better:

Screen Shot 2015-10-28 at 7.11.51 AM

  • The experiment was repeated using pairs of birds in all possible combinations, except for those ravens at the top of the dominance hierarchy, who simply didn’t let any other ravens get the cheese. This experiment showed two things. First, some ravens cheated in the dyadic cooperation: after two of them pulled in the cheese bar, one would shove the other out of the way and eat both pieces of cheese. These were the CHEATERS. When the authors analyzed the results, they found that a raven was less likely to cooperate in subsequent trials if it had been victimized by a cheater. Here are those results with the caption:
Screen Shot 2015-10-28 at 7.17.12 AM
(a) Proportion of trials in which two birds cooperated successfully subsequent to an equal or unequal reward devision after the previous successful cooperation trial

As you see, the proportion of trials in which two birds worked together successfully was lower when the previous trial gave an unequal division of rewards compared to trials where both birds got the cheese (left bar compared to right). There was also an effect of kinship: kin cooperated significantly more than non-kin, but the p value wasn’t impressive (0.02), and the kinship effect wasn’t seen in the group experiment.

  • A final analysis tested the notion that, given the above results, cheaters who got two pieces of cheese would be even more likely to cooperate the next time. But that didn’t pan out: ravens who were cheaters, and got two rewards in a trial, were just as likely to successfully cooperate as those who got only one reward, as shown in the following plot. But again we find that if a raven gets no cheese, it’ll be less likely to cooperate in future trials:
Screen Shot 2015-10-28 at 7.29.58 AM
Proportion of trials in which a bird pulled the string after it had received zero, one or two rewards in the previous successful cooperation trial.
  • Finally, the authors tested whether cheaters became more fair—that is, allowed their pulling partner to get a piece of cheese—in subsequent trials. One might expect this if, because ravens cotton on to cheaters and don’t cooperate thereafter, the cheaters have to reinstate themselves in the esteem of their comrades by being fair. For if you’re marked as a cheater, nobody will cooperate with you and you might get less cheese in the future. Sadly, cheaters kept on cheating. I’m not sure if this is disadvantageous to them: after all, some birds get duped into cooperating with cheaters, even after they’ve been duped, so it may be generally advantageous to cheat.

Overall, then, this experiment shows that ravens can recognize individuals, have a tendency to cooperate with those whose presence they tolerate more easily, and can recognize cheaters and avoid cooperating with them in the future.

This is intriguing, but of course these are hand-reared ravens tested in a highly rarified experimental situation, so the relevance of the study to the behavior of these birds in nature is unclear. How often do ravens cooperate in the wild? Are flocks semi-permanent, so birds have a chance to recognize and avoid cheaters? Do flocks include relatives? These are questions that may already have an answer, but you’ll have to ask Bernd Heinrich.

Oh, I forgot: the experiment also shows that ravens love cheese. In a serious scientific omission, the authors don’t identify the type of cheese they used.

67_1ravens_ice_

h/t: Scott G.

________

Massen, J. G. M., C. Ritter, and T. Bugnyar. 2015. Tolerance and reward equity predict cooperation in ravens (Corvus corax). Nature Scientific Reports, 15021, doi:10.1038/srep15021

Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ context

October 28, 2015 • 8:30 am

The new Jesus and Mo strip, called “Value”, arrived with an email note:

OK, last Koran one for a while. Don’t want to be accused of Koranophobia! Mind you, searching for good bits in the Koran is like fishing for prawns in a sewer: it’s hard work, and even if you find one, it’s tainted by the context.

The panel clearly refers to the illiteracy of most of the population then (including Muhammad), but I’m not sure whether failure to understand its words would inspire more conquest. After all, the Qur’an explicitly calls for the killing of nonbelievers.  Or maybe I’m missing something again.

2015-10-28