I thought about this decision earlier today - would you split or steal? Let me explain the situation: In the UK we have a program called "Golden Balls", a horrifically complicated gameshow that would take approx 3.5 blog posts to explain. but at the end, you are faced off with another person - and the cash prize that you have accumulated at the end of the show has to be distributed to the two finalists. Each player has the choice to "split" or "steal" - if you both choose split, then you halve the money between you - which on yesterday's jackpot meant splitting around £40,000 - a rather nice sum of money. If one of you chooses split, and the other chooses "steal" - the one who picks "steal" takes all the money - but if you both choose "steal" - then you both go home with nothing. So the question is whether or not YOU would split or steal: and I will explain the reason why you should always pick split - and NOT steal - and the reason might be less obvious than you think.
the two of you have the chance to discuss what you will do - we will have two imaginary contestants for this hypothesis - we'll call them Adam and Ben (A and B for short...) - After all, surely, the only way to get the maximum prize is choosing steal, and not split - if Adam chooses split, the maximum amount of money he will take away is 20 grand - it's either 20 or nothing. If he chooses steal, however, then it is either 40 or nothing, depending on the opponent's decision. So the obvious option is to take "steal", as that is the way to get the most money. Adam, however, is not a greedy beggar, and so he chooses split - and here is why. Let us assume that Ben is greedy and wants all the money - if he chose steal, then there is no way that Adam can get ANY MONEY - no matter what he chooses - if he chooses split, then Ben walks away with all of the money - if he chooses steal, then ben walks away with nothing and so does he - therefore, for the benefit of Ben, he might as well choose split - at least someone is better off if ben chooses to steal - however, the decision is made purely in their minds - whilst as they are allowed to discuss the option first, that doesn't mean they will stick to their promises - the discussion always invariably is each other trying to convince the other that they will split, and means pretty much nothing. This is why most people often choose to steal - because if Ben is convincing enough that they will split the cash, then greed will enter Adam's mind and he might choose steal.
Therefore, the discussion is a red herring and should be ignored - because the same "conclusion" is always reached, with each person having made up in their minds if they are going to split or steal.
But back to the argument - if you start with the assumption that the other person will steal, then you get nothing anyway - the only way that Adam will get any money is if Ben splits - and Ben likewise - therefore this is the decision that they both ought to make in their heads "I might as well split - if he steals, well then at least he's got money, and I never was going to have anything" - if both players reach that decision, then they will both end up getting 20k - which is a rather large amount of money anyway!
So how then to proceed with the discussion? The last thing you want to do is make your opponent convinced that you will split therefore - as he could get greedy and take all the money, leaving you penniless - therefore the choice is simple - you have to convince him that you will steal! If Adam were to choose in his mind that he will split, he has the job of convincing Ben to do the same - so if Adam tells Ben that he will steal and that is all he came to do, Ben might as well choose split so that Adam gets the money anyway - and if adam is convincing enough about how he will need all the money, and 20k is just not enough money to help him out of debt, etc, then ben will look like a scrooge if he chooses steal - and nobody wants to do that on national television - so Ben splits, and Adam, being the nice, kind person that he is, chooses to split.
this would certainly be my tactic if I were on the show and I got into the final - I would not want to steal, since the other person rightfully deserves that money as well, you both earnt it throughout the show - and if I split, and the other person steals? Then I guess the 40k will probably cover the cost of cleaning eggs off the side of his house, and improving the security of his house so he can sleep at night, after his whole town finds out what a complete A***hole he is...
My Mum has objections to the game, and the more I think through the problem, the more I think she is right - because firstly, at face value, it is a game of deception - trying to convince the other players that what you claim is true - and trying to hide the truth - but it goes deeper than that - if we just look at this individual problem and ignore the rest of the game:
The base idea (of producing a problem that tempts both players to steal, so they can get the biger money) is poor - it assumes that both players will try to steal - so automatically it is a game that induces greed, and not only that, assumes that players are in themselves, naturally greedy individuals, thus attempting to make a statement about humanity as a whole. Secondly, and this is just at the first level, each player then has to decieve the other that they will split, when in fact, they will steal - so even at the first level of analysis, this is a game based on greed and deception.
But it then gets worse - at the second level of analysis, you both ought to split - good enough, because it is all about focussing on the other person and letting them have as much money as they choose - but in order to reach that certainty that the other person will split the money with you, you have to lie and tell the nation that you will be greedy - when in fact you intend to split all along - so the situation then forces one opponent to go from a state of righteousness to being a liar and a greedy pig - if only for 5 minutes - to force the opponent into a place of rigteousness, away from any greedy desires he may have. Therefore, the only way to be certain of coming to the best decision for the both of you, is to lie about being greedy.
Therefore, I can see where she is coming from - I have, however, seen two people choose to split the money, a whopping £140 jackpot, which they decided between themselves was not worth stealing off each other... I choose to watch it therefore, not because it produces greed, but because it shows up those that are greedy, and those that are good, honest people - and I always like to see it when two people choose to split - though that said, the episode in which they both split, one of them did add that she was relieved when the other person produced a split - meaning that she mostly expected the other person to walk with all the money - thus meaning that she was using something similar to my analysis - if the other person wants to steal, they can do - after all, it is not a large amount of money.
So in conclusion - greed does not pay - greed only offers the possibility that it would not pay - let's take a look at this whole economy shedoodle - the recession that we are a current part of (although latest figures show that we are going up) - it was caused by people getting too greedy - banks lending money that they didn't have, to people who could not pay it back, just so that they could profit from the returns on the loan - and as the whole situation collapsed around us, have we learnt the lesson of greed? Clearly the two contestants faced with the 40k haven't. They both chose to steal and went home empty handed. Greed does not pay.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Sex, Death, and Evolution... and Copernicus.
I am in the middle of reading a great book called "13 things that don't make sense" - this brilliant book talks about the thirteen biggest scientific mysteries of our time, and I have just finished reading the chapters on Sex and Death not making sense in an evolutionary context. Let me summarise for you what the book says.
firstly, there is the problem of death - and we mean natural death here, in terms of a lifeform having a limited lifespan. Eukaryotes (these are the more complex cells that make up you and I, as well as plants and animals) and prokaryotes (simpler cells that make up amoebas and bacteria) have one difference, and that is that Eukaryotes will die of old age, prokaryotes will not. And the reason for this difference is telomeres - every time you create a new cell your telomere will reduce - when this is finished, then you will die. Scientists have been able to switch off this in small animals, but are uncertain of the long term effects on humans to be able to prolong life - and the animals died anyway - we cannot live forever yet. But we know how we die, but the question is why? what evolutionary benefit is there? The argument that death evolved and stayed around because overpopulation can lead to the downfall of a species doesn't work here, since, as Richard Dawkins himself put it, evolution cannot possibly function for the benefit of the entire species or group, it can only function for the purpose of the indivdual organism that has the new mutation.
The second problem is Sex - which is, oddly enough, seemingly linked in with death - since the telomeres came about as a result of sexual reproduction - but the fact of the matter is, is that there are much better ways to reproduce (possibly not quite so enjoyable, but that is a different discussion entirely...) - ones that do not have the cost of death. What evolutionary benefit was there in having sexual reproduction? what made it stick? Why do we now have to reproduce with another organism of the same kind, instead of producing an exact replica of ourselves using our own genes to be passed on? after all, there is another cost - by having to find a mate, our offspring may inherit some bad genes, ones which could damage the chance of the species prolonging it's life.
The Author hits upon a revolutionary idea, refencing ancient astronomy. Back in the greek times, Ptolemy observed the planets and postulated that the plantes revolve around the earth - after all, we humans are special, why would God not have us at the centre of the universe? This seemed to fit with Ptolemy's observations, until some fellow astronomers pointed out some issues with their observations. exception upon exception upon exception was produced, and ptolemy's model was constantly refined and rebuilt so that everything could agree - in the end, it was a complete mess. Copernicus simplified things, and realised that the movements of the planets made a lot more sense if everything revolved around the sun, and not the sun and all the planets revolving around the earth. The new age of astronomy was born on this much simpler and more accurate model.
So the author suggests that this is what we are missing in these problems - be have the wrong basis, the wrong foundations for explaining biology - this is why it doesn't make sense yet... you can see where I am going with this. I personally think the author is right - until he starts talking babble about how they both work around each other, sex and death, and one breeds the other etc.
balderdash - so close, but no cigar, because that still does not explain the WHY in this question. Hence why he still ends the chapter with nothing resolved. Because let us stip down to the bare bones of this - what is the one foundation we are working on? Evolution.
Mental exercise here: If we took evolution out of the equation, and placed in an intelligent creator, everything makes more sense - Let us take death, for example - a lot more sensible to keep populations down, because this time an intelligent designer can actually design a species for the benefit of the whole population - evolution is simply not intelligent enough to design the world we have and live in - second to that, in the bible, during the days where people were living to 900 years old, and God saw the people on the earth getting too numerous for their own good, it says that he decided to shorten their lifespan - intelligent input for the benefit of the group. As for sexual reproduction, this is once again another piece of intelligent design - produce only two people on the earth, and by sexual reproduction a hugely diverse population can be created - diversity means that the whole group can survive - since everyone gains their own individual skill - because they might have inherited better intelligence, or stronger muscles and bones, or more nimble hands - so some can provide the law and development of the community, some can be the soldiers to defend the group, while others can be the craftsmen who can build houses and shelters - if you only have a group of intelligent people or strong people, then you are missing other skills - again, evolution is not intelligent enough to explain everything in this world - and as a hypothesis, clearly does not meet up to the standards of what we have discovered in science - and like the ptolemaic astronomic model, should be scrapped before we keep adding any more ridiculous ideas to explain what the hypothesis is just not up to scratch enough to explain.
one final thing I wish to address, and that is that you might discover another problem that we have if you look at the question that was asked - they both start with the same word, "WHY" - WHY have we evolved sexual reproduction? WHY have we evolved death? science has already answered the WHAT and the HOW - but it is simply not built to answer the why - because then it has to fall on evolution - why have we EVOLVED these traits? This is no longer scientific question, but philosophical - and it is after the origins of man - this is not philosophy of science, but the philosophy of religion - the scientific community is now touting evolution as it's new god - the new being that is the answer to all, our creator, that which is untouchable - which is why the author of my book did not question this as the foundation - Evolution is UNFALSIFIABLE - it cannot be falsified! Modern scientific method and assumption does not allow us to try and find fault with evolution. Because as soon as we come up against some evidence, or some argument against it, we immediately do not question evolution as the problem, but we look to find other reasons - despite evolution being the only missing link - we are like the greek astronomers who once they find an anomaly with the position of the planets and stars from where they should be in our earth-centred model, we find a possible addition to the model to overcomplicate things, because it cannot possibly be that our initial premise is wrong.
The search for man's origins by the path of science has become a new religion - and Evolution is it's god - the battle of creation versus evolution is a battle of religions - so for true science to keep to the evolutionary hypothesis is to tout a god as the answer to our origins - so no argument that we should find out where life came from without god is applicable, because evolution is a god in it's own right - atheism, in it's attempt to live life without God, has turned full circle to develop a new one. so how do we answer this? Well, the decision is up to science - we can choose to now rebuke evolution and carry on living our lives to develop new cures, beat cancer, discover new species and new planets, develop new technological advances - and keep god, in whatever form it comes in, out of the science books and in the religious texts, or we have to allow creationism to have a chance in the scientific world - to be credible as an alternative to evolution - and long then may the battle of which theory is right continue. If scientists choose neither and to keep evolution, then I now name you as members of earth's most modern religion, scientism (despite your religious text being 150 years old and "messiah" being 200).
Thank you. Rather important and poignant rant over.
Please note, that Scientism is not to be confused with the rather misleadingly named Scientology, which has actually has no scientific fact behind it at all)
firstly, there is the problem of death - and we mean natural death here, in terms of a lifeform having a limited lifespan. Eukaryotes (these are the more complex cells that make up you and I, as well as plants and animals) and prokaryotes (simpler cells that make up amoebas and bacteria) have one difference, and that is that Eukaryotes will die of old age, prokaryotes will not. And the reason for this difference is telomeres - every time you create a new cell your telomere will reduce - when this is finished, then you will die. Scientists have been able to switch off this in small animals, but are uncertain of the long term effects on humans to be able to prolong life - and the animals died anyway - we cannot live forever yet. But we know how we die, but the question is why? what evolutionary benefit is there? The argument that death evolved and stayed around because overpopulation can lead to the downfall of a species doesn't work here, since, as Richard Dawkins himself put it, evolution cannot possibly function for the benefit of the entire species or group, it can only function for the purpose of the indivdual organism that has the new mutation.
The second problem is Sex - which is, oddly enough, seemingly linked in with death - since the telomeres came about as a result of sexual reproduction - but the fact of the matter is, is that there are much better ways to reproduce (possibly not quite so enjoyable, but that is a different discussion entirely...) - ones that do not have the cost of death. What evolutionary benefit was there in having sexual reproduction? what made it stick? Why do we now have to reproduce with another organism of the same kind, instead of producing an exact replica of ourselves using our own genes to be passed on? after all, there is another cost - by having to find a mate, our offspring may inherit some bad genes, ones which could damage the chance of the species prolonging it's life.
The Author hits upon a revolutionary idea, refencing ancient astronomy. Back in the greek times, Ptolemy observed the planets and postulated that the plantes revolve around the earth - after all, we humans are special, why would God not have us at the centre of the universe? This seemed to fit with Ptolemy's observations, until some fellow astronomers pointed out some issues with their observations. exception upon exception upon exception was produced, and ptolemy's model was constantly refined and rebuilt so that everything could agree - in the end, it was a complete mess. Copernicus simplified things, and realised that the movements of the planets made a lot more sense if everything revolved around the sun, and not the sun and all the planets revolving around the earth. The new age of astronomy was born on this much simpler and more accurate model.
So the author suggests that this is what we are missing in these problems - be have the wrong basis, the wrong foundations for explaining biology - this is why it doesn't make sense yet... you can see where I am going with this. I personally think the author is right - until he starts talking babble about how they both work around each other, sex and death, and one breeds the other etc.
balderdash - so close, but no cigar, because that still does not explain the WHY in this question. Hence why he still ends the chapter with nothing resolved. Because let us stip down to the bare bones of this - what is the one foundation we are working on? Evolution.
Mental exercise here: If we took evolution out of the equation, and placed in an intelligent creator, everything makes more sense - Let us take death, for example - a lot more sensible to keep populations down, because this time an intelligent designer can actually design a species for the benefit of the whole population - evolution is simply not intelligent enough to design the world we have and live in - second to that, in the bible, during the days where people were living to 900 years old, and God saw the people on the earth getting too numerous for their own good, it says that he decided to shorten their lifespan - intelligent input for the benefit of the group. As for sexual reproduction, this is once again another piece of intelligent design - produce only two people on the earth, and by sexual reproduction a hugely diverse population can be created - diversity means that the whole group can survive - since everyone gains their own individual skill - because they might have inherited better intelligence, or stronger muscles and bones, or more nimble hands - so some can provide the law and development of the community, some can be the soldiers to defend the group, while others can be the craftsmen who can build houses and shelters - if you only have a group of intelligent people or strong people, then you are missing other skills - again, evolution is not intelligent enough to explain everything in this world - and as a hypothesis, clearly does not meet up to the standards of what we have discovered in science - and like the ptolemaic astronomic model, should be scrapped before we keep adding any more ridiculous ideas to explain what the hypothesis is just not up to scratch enough to explain.
one final thing I wish to address, and that is that you might discover another problem that we have if you look at the question that was asked - they both start with the same word, "WHY" - WHY have we evolved sexual reproduction? WHY have we evolved death? science has already answered the WHAT and the HOW - but it is simply not built to answer the why - because then it has to fall on evolution - why have we EVOLVED these traits? This is no longer scientific question, but philosophical - and it is after the origins of man - this is not philosophy of science, but the philosophy of religion - the scientific community is now touting evolution as it's new god - the new being that is the answer to all, our creator, that which is untouchable - which is why the author of my book did not question this as the foundation - Evolution is UNFALSIFIABLE - it cannot be falsified! Modern scientific method and assumption does not allow us to try and find fault with evolution. Because as soon as we come up against some evidence, or some argument against it, we immediately do not question evolution as the problem, but we look to find other reasons - despite evolution being the only missing link - we are like the greek astronomers who once they find an anomaly with the position of the planets and stars from where they should be in our earth-centred model, we find a possible addition to the model to overcomplicate things, because it cannot possibly be that our initial premise is wrong.
The search for man's origins by the path of science has become a new religion - and Evolution is it's god - the battle of creation versus evolution is a battle of religions - so for true science to keep to the evolutionary hypothesis is to tout a god as the answer to our origins - so no argument that we should find out where life came from without god is applicable, because evolution is a god in it's own right - atheism, in it's attempt to live life without God, has turned full circle to develop a new one. so how do we answer this? Well, the decision is up to science - we can choose to now rebuke evolution and carry on living our lives to develop new cures, beat cancer, discover new species and new planets, develop new technological advances - and keep god, in whatever form it comes in, out of the science books and in the religious texts, or we have to allow creationism to have a chance in the scientific world - to be credible as an alternative to evolution - and long then may the battle of which theory is right continue. If scientists choose neither and to keep evolution, then I now name you as members of earth's most modern religion, scientism (despite your religious text being 150 years old and "messiah" being 200).
Thank you. Rather important and poignant rant over.
Please note, that Scientism is not to be confused with the rather misleadingly named Scientology, which has actually has no scientific fact behind it at all)
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Pro-equal oppportunities, anti equality, anti-feminist
Ok, just to clarify before people get the wrong idea - it would probably be more accurate to say I am against Female Chauvinism - which is often passed off as feminism, which not only gives true feminism (which is, in reality, simply equal opportunities) a bad name, but also makes itself look better than it actually is. This is the idea of the dominance of women (as opposed to the dominance of men) in today's society - the idea that men are useless, ignoramuses who do nothing to benefit society - that all men are lecherous, decietful, evil, and that women should have nothing to do with them - except to have sex - but they themselves are the only ones who should be capable of wielding that power - that you can only have sex by a woman's acceptance of it, simply because any man would obviously not care who the woman is, as long as they can get what they are always gagging for anyway. The other danger of female chauvinism is equality - and again, before you all come at me with pitchforks and torches, let me explain what I mean - because as you can see in the title, I am PRO- equal opportunities.
Science has proven that men and women are different - on average, men are physically stronger than women, and women have generally more dexterity than men. Generally speaking, men are better at remembering directions, but women are generally speaking, better at remembering landmarks and places. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume, that in the jobs which would favour a man's body more, such as jobs requiring heavy lifting, you will END UP WITH LESS WOMEN THAN MEN IN THAT POSITION, SINCE OUT OF THE JOB APPLICATIONS, THE MEN WILL BE MORE FAVOURED FOR THE JOB. However, imagine yourself being the interviewer for a job where a lot of heavy lifting is required. A small, weedy little man comes in for the application, and the next person up is a female bodybuilder - who should be accepted for the position? the female bodybuilder of course, since she is best suited for the job. But my complaint is against those people who say that it is discriminating against females that there are more men in that job than women - which is simply absurd, if there is any discrimination, it is purely against those who have the least muscle power - which nature has decided should, GENRALLY speaking, be women.
But this also flows out into other jobs - I constantly hear of complaints that there is not an even split of women in the workplace, and that this clearly shows that there is discrimination of women being hired for jobs - not necessarily so, I have done statistics, and you will be unlikely to find a 50:50 split. Besides, we have only just started reaching an age where women are having careers and becominbg breadwinners in their families as well - it will take time to average out - so if you look at the figures, you may well find that if you look at people in the workplace who are 40 years and over, the male-female split will be much greater than if you look at 20-40 age range, or even 20-30. Now that we have laws in place that stop companies from discriminating against gender, colour, age, and disablity, the true feminists should be happy - you have won your fair and just fight, women are equally allowed to get a job and earn money as men are - and I side with you, I believe they should, women were previously an untapped resource for today's world of business.
There is, however, one gripe that has come to my attention on which I must side with the feminists, and that is equal pay - even in huge sporting events such as wimbledon, the women tennis players get a smaller reward for winning than the men - and on average, women are paid less in the same jobs as their male counterparts - this is wrong and does need sorting, the sooner we get a law against this the better - but then that is another war won - no need to keep on harping on about it...
If I finally get back to my first point, which was that you get feminists who can do without men, who are effectively female chauvinists. Your behaviour is dangerous and worse, hypocritical - this is precisely what you criticised us for during the anti-male-chavinist movement - and I say that it is dangerous because you alienate the male gender of your own species - you turn us away from you, and to call yourselves feminists gives feminism a bad name and causes us to decide whether or not giving you this equality was such a good idea - maybe things were better when they were solely in our control. (of course, this is not true, equality is the better thing). But I would guess that the reason you have this idea is because of mistreatment by another man - this man was too a chauvinist, and outright revenge and rebellion is not the way to do things - rise above chauvinism, and fight for equality of every person on this earth.
Science has proven that men and women are different - on average, men are physically stronger than women, and women have generally more dexterity than men. Generally speaking, men are better at remembering directions, but women are generally speaking, better at remembering landmarks and places. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume, that in the jobs which would favour a man's body more, such as jobs requiring heavy lifting, you will END UP WITH LESS WOMEN THAN MEN IN THAT POSITION, SINCE OUT OF THE JOB APPLICATIONS, THE MEN WILL BE MORE FAVOURED FOR THE JOB. However, imagine yourself being the interviewer for a job where a lot of heavy lifting is required. A small, weedy little man comes in for the application, and the next person up is a female bodybuilder - who should be accepted for the position? the female bodybuilder of course, since she is best suited for the job. But my complaint is against those people who say that it is discriminating against females that there are more men in that job than women - which is simply absurd, if there is any discrimination, it is purely against those who have the least muscle power - which nature has decided should, GENRALLY speaking, be women.
But this also flows out into other jobs - I constantly hear of complaints that there is not an even split of women in the workplace, and that this clearly shows that there is discrimination of women being hired for jobs - not necessarily so, I have done statistics, and you will be unlikely to find a 50:50 split. Besides, we have only just started reaching an age where women are having careers and becominbg breadwinners in their families as well - it will take time to average out - so if you look at the figures, you may well find that if you look at people in the workplace who are 40 years and over, the male-female split will be much greater than if you look at 20-40 age range, or even 20-30. Now that we have laws in place that stop companies from discriminating against gender, colour, age, and disablity, the true feminists should be happy - you have won your fair and just fight, women are equally allowed to get a job and earn money as men are - and I side with you, I believe they should, women were previously an untapped resource for today's world of business.
There is, however, one gripe that has come to my attention on which I must side with the feminists, and that is equal pay - even in huge sporting events such as wimbledon, the women tennis players get a smaller reward for winning than the men - and on average, women are paid less in the same jobs as their male counterparts - this is wrong and does need sorting, the sooner we get a law against this the better - but then that is another war won - no need to keep on harping on about it...
If I finally get back to my first point, which was that you get feminists who can do without men, who are effectively female chauvinists. Your behaviour is dangerous and worse, hypocritical - this is precisely what you criticised us for during the anti-male-chavinist movement - and I say that it is dangerous because you alienate the male gender of your own species - you turn us away from you, and to call yourselves feminists gives feminism a bad name and causes us to decide whether or not giving you this equality was such a good idea - maybe things were better when they were solely in our control. (of course, this is not true, equality is the better thing). But I would guess that the reason you have this idea is because of mistreatment by another man - this man was too a chauvinist, and outright revenge and rebellion is not the way to do things - rise above chauvinism, and fight for equality of every person on this earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)