Moral Courage in Politics

Context

Over time, the concept of moral courage has crystallized in my mind to mean an ability to try to see, and accept inconvenient facts, truths and sound reasoning or logic, collectively I call those things the “objective components of politics.” The objective components generally do not include facts, truths and reasoning or logic that already support or fit with existing political or tribe beliefs, self-identity, self-interest or other psychological or social factors. Accepting unpleasant reality and sound reasoning is what takes real courage. Standing up and pounding one's chest about the righteousness one's ideological beliefs and worldview isn’t a matter of moral courage per se. That kind of behavior tends to signal a mindset that denies, distorts or downplays what is inconvenient.

The following was originally posed on another blog in 2016 and reposted here in August of 2019. I repost it again to accompany the post on the science of morality post I did a few minutes ago.

Political Moral Courage

Most core concepts in politics are defined mostly by how people view them. Definitions may exist in dictionaries, but politically different people looking at the same thing often see different or even opposite things. Most (>95% ?) liberals and conservatives who are active in and/or ideological about their politics firmly believe that they stand on great or even sacred political principles or morals. They know that their ideological beliefs have survived the test of time and delivered great benefits to humanity. They know that their politics is firmly grounded in both unbiased truth and clear-headed reason. That mind set tends to see itself as standing in a valiant, patriotic defense of true reason and truth against an onslaught of evil, tyranny, self-deluded stupidity, cynical self-interest or things about like that. That mind set generally sees the political opposition as practicing politics firmly grounded in heavily biased truth and lies, rigid partisan ideology and addle-brained reason that borders on, or is, sheer nonsense.

It’s fair to say that most politically engaged people would sincerely characterize themselves and their efforts as being driven by true moral courage. A Wikipedia discussion about moral courage says this about the concept: Moral courage is the courage to take action for moral reasons despite the risk of adverse consequences. Courage is required to take action when one has doubts or fears about the consequences. Moral courage therefore involves deliberation or careful thought. Reflex action or dogmatic fanaticism do not involve moral courage because such impulsive actions are not based upon moral reasoning.

Given the common, opposing views that the left and the right have of each other as people mostly unable to deal honestly with truth, both sides would no doubt consider their own side to employ moral courage in their own politics. Many people on one side may see most people on the other side as having only some or no moral courage at all.

Does that thinking and belief by either side stand up to scrutiny? Not according to cognitive and social science. And not according to simple logic.

The science disconnect: Science finds that most or all people see political issues and think about them through a lens of intolerant, self-righteous personal morals or ideology. Facts and logic that undermines or contradicts those moral beliefs are usually either flatly rejected or rationalized away. One scientist, Johnathan Haidt, put it this way: “We do moral reasoning not to reconstruct why we ourselves came to a judgment; we reason to find the best possible reasons why somebody else ought to join us in our judgment. . . . . The rider (conscious reason) is skilled at fabricating post hoc explanations for whatever the elephant (unconscious moralistic thinking) has just done, and it is good at finding reasons to justify whatever the elephant wants to do next. . . . . We make our first judgments rapidly, and we are dreadful at seeking out evidence that might disconfirm those initial judgments.”

The logic disconnect: If it is true, as partisans on the left and right argue, that the opposition’s thinking and perceptions of reality is heavily distorted by a reality- and reason-distorting ideology or mind set (or other things such as self-interest), then neither side practices moral courage in politics. That’s an example of impulse actions that are not based upon moral reasoning. No authority says that both the left and right cannot be mostly correct in arguing that the other side acts on ideological impulse instead of deliberation or careful thought, i.e., not morally courageous.

The interesting thing about the pure logic argument is that it is supported by science. In that regard, the logic argument isn’t just a thought disconnected from everything else. It’s a hypothesis (theory?) supported by a great deal of research and evidence.

Is moral courage possible at all? 

Practicing perfect moral courage is impossible if it requires perfect knowledge. Perfection in anything is impossible, as argued here before. Nonetheless, it is possible to practice an imperfect but recognizable form of moral courage if one acknowledges one’s own cognitive nature and honestly tries to deal with it. How can that be done? Since existing political ideologies are known fact- and reason-distorters, adopting a political ideology that fosters reductions in ideologically-inspired distortions is a real step toward moral courage. One example of such an ideology has been described here. Obviously, other variants or articulations of that ideology are possible, but the point is to reduce unrestrained fact and reason distortion that underpins standard that underpins standard subjective politics.

Of course, accepting that requires the intestinal fortitude (moral courage) to try to see unbiased reality and unbiased, reasoned argument for what they are instead of accepting the false realities and reason that create the some liberal and many conservative worlds that most partisans now view the world through.


B&B orig: 9/22/16; DP 8/13/19; DP repost 5/31/20

The Science of Measuring Morality

Context

A matters of increasing personal interest in relation to politics is morality and the related concept of moral courage. Over time, morality and immorality appear to be of growing importance to politics. It's not clear if that shifting perception is mostly due to social changes, my own ongoing learning, a combination of both, and/or something(s) else, e.g., increasing social and/or economic stress.

Researchers interested in politics such as Johnathan Haidt are also looking at morality to see if there are correlates between moral and political beliefs. This line of research seems to be moving from a relatively intuitive phase into a more objective and empirical phase. Whether experts would characterize it that way isn't clear, but that's my take on it.

Haidt and others are developing tests for morality and related traits to try to gain insight into what is going on in people's minds. These tests are open to the public so that a big database can be built and analyzed. The main test page is here. I took seven tests out of about 20 to see what insight I could gain about my own mind. For what it's worth, what my mind did, along with with explanations of the tests, are shown below.

I'm not sure what all the results mean, but they do seem to indicate a personal trait of moral concern that seems a bit more pronounced than it is in most others. That includes concern for religious moral values despite being a hard core atheist. Hm. Does that make more more religious than most other people?

Personal Theories of Morality

The scale is a measure of your agreement with five different ideas about what fundamentally determines whether particular thoughts and actions are moral or immoral. These different ideas were related to the following factors: 1) benevolent consequences, which is the idea that thoughts or actions are immoral when they do not result in positive outcomes for other people; 2) normative standards, which is the idea that thoughts or actions are immoral when they violate what is generally believed to be acceptable in society; 3) emotional experiences, which is the idea that thoughts or actions are immoral when they lead to negative feelings and emotions; 4) religious principles which is the idea that thoughts or actions are immoral when they are inconsistent with religious teachings or the perceived will of some higher power, and 5) malicious intentions which is the idea that thoughts or actions are immoral if they arise from harmful intentions, such as jealously or hate.

In the graph below, your scores on each personal theory of morality are shown in GREEN (the 1st bar in each set of 3 bars). The scores of all men who have taken it on our site are shown in BROWN (the 2nd bar), and the scores of all women are shown in ORANGE (3rd bar). Scores run from 1 (the lowest possible score, you completely reject that lay theory) to 7 (the highest possible score, you very strongly endorse that lay theory of morality and use it to decide whether some action or intention is moral or immoral).

Left-wing Authoritarianism Index 

This research seeks to capture the diversity and complexity of the authoritarian personality. Indeed, that the term “authoritarianism“ is so frequently invoked in news media and popular culture may belie the numerous fundamental research questions regarding the construct’s nature that have yet to be meaningfully answered by psychological scientists, including those tied to (a) authoritarianism’s key features and their structure and interrelations; (b) whether these features manifest differently across different populations (e.g., left-wing vs. right-wing groups); (c) how, and why, these features are organized and/or interrelated; and (d) how authoritarian traits can be most accurately measured.

Although measures of right-wing authoritarianism have proved extremely fruitful in generating corroborated hypotheses concerning the psychological correlates of political extremism, the same cannot be said for previous measures of left-wing authoritarianism, a notoriously elusive construct that is sometimes called the “Loch Ness monster of political psychology“ (Altemeyer, 1996, p. 5). The reasons for this may be multiply determined, but we suspect that one key reason is that scholars have yet to elucidate what psychological “glue“ binds right-wing authoritarianism and left-wing authoritarianism. Hence, measuring left-wing authoritarianism in a sound, robust manner may bear substantial implications for the psychological underpinnings of political extremism and generalized prejudice.

The scale is a measure of the six major dimensions of personality 

This test attempts to assess Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness (versus Anger), Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience as explained below.

Honesty-Humility: Persons with very high scores on the Honesty-Humility scale tend to avoid manipulating others for personal gain, feel little temptation to break rules, are uninterested in lavish wealth and luxuries, and feel no special entitlement to elevated social status. Conversely, persons with very low scores on this scale often flatter others to get what they want, are inclined to break rules for personal profit, tend to be motivated by material gain, and feel a strong sense of self-importance.

Emotionality: Persons with very high scores on the Emotionality scale tend to experience fear of physical dangers, experience anxiety in response to life's stresses, feel a need for emotional support from others, and feel empathy and sentimental attachments with others. Conversely, persons with very low scores on this scale tend not to be deterred by the prospect of physical harm, feel little worry even in stressful situations, have little need to share their concerns with others, and feel emotionally detached from others.

Extraversion: Persons with very high scores on the Extraversion scale tend to feel positively about themselves, feel confident when leading or addressing groups of people, enjoy social gatherings and interactions, and experience positive feelings of enthusiasm and energy. Conversely, persons with very low scores on this scale tend to consider themselves unpopular, feel awkward when they are the center of social attention, are indifferent to social activities, and feel less lively and optimistic than others do.

Agreeableness (versus Anger): Persons with very high scores on the Agreeableness scale tend to forgive the wrongs that they suffered, are lenient in judging others, are willing to compromise and cooperate with others, and can easily control their temper. Conversely, persons with very low scores on this scale tend to hold grudges against those who have harmed them, are rather critical of others' shortcomings, are stubborn in defending their point of view, and feel anger readily in response to mistreatment.

Conscientiousness: Persons with very high scores on the Conscientiousness scale tend to organize their time and their physical surroundings, work in a disciplined way toward their goals, strive for accuracy and perfection in their tasks, and deliberate carefully when making decisions. Conversely, persons with very low scores on this scale tend to be unconcerned with orderly surroundings or schedules, avoid difficult tasks or challenging goals, are satisfied with work that contains some errors, and make decisions on impulse or with little reflection.

Openness to Experience: Persons with very high scores on the Openness to Experience scale tend to become absorbed in the beauty of art and nature, are inquisitive about various domains of knowledge, use their imagination freely in everyday life, and take an interest in unusual ideas or people. Conversely, persons with very low scores on this scale are usually rather unimpressed by most works of art, feel little intellectual curiosity, avoid creative pursuits, and feel little attraction toward ideas that may seem radical or unconventional.

Moral Foundations Questionnaire revised 

The scale is a measure of your reliance on and endorsement of six psychological foundations of morality that seem to be found across cultures. This revised scale asks a variety questions related to each foundation: 1) Care/Harm, 2) Fairness/Cheating, 3) Loyalty/Betrayal, 4) Authority/Subversion, 5) Purity/Degradation, and 6) Autonomy/Oppression. We suspect that the Fairness/Cheating foundation may consist of two kinds of fairness. Fairness as equity and fairness as equality. Thus, the revised MFQ attempts to measure both potential forms of fairness.

The idea behind the scale is that human morality is the result of biological and cultural evolutionary processes that made human beings very sensitive to many different (and often competing) issues. Some of these issues are about treating other individuals well and respecting them as individuals (care, fairness, and autonomy). Other issues are about how to be a good member of a group or supporter of social order and tradition (loyalty, authority, and purity). Haidt and Graham have found that political liberals generally place a higher value on the care and fairness foundations; they are very concerned about issues of harm and fairness (including issues of inequality and exploitation). Political conservatives care about harm and fairness too, but they generally score slightly lower on those scale items. The big difference between liberals and conservatives seems to be that conservatives score slightly higher on the loyalty foundation, and much higher on the authority and purity foundations. Libertarians appear to score highly on the autonomy foundation and lower (relative to liberals and conservatives) on the other foundations.

This difference seems to explain many of the most contentious issues in the culture war. For example, liberals support legalizing gay marriage (to be fair and compassionate), whereas many conservatives are reluctant to change the nature of marriage and the family, basic building blocks of society. Conservatives are more likely to favor practices that increase order and respect (e.g., spanking, mandatory pledge of allegiance), whereas liberals often oppose these practices as being violent or coercive.

In the graph below, your scores on each foundation are shown in green (the 1st bar in each set of 3 bars). The scores of all liberals who have taken it on our site are shown in blue (the 2nd bar), and the scores of all conservatives are shown in red (3rd bar). Scores run from 0 (the lowest possible score, you completely reject that foundation) to 4 (the highest possible score, you very strongly endorse that foundation and build much of your morality on top of it).

Need for Cognition

The scale is a measure of a personality variable reflecting the extent to which people engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities. People high in the Need for Cognition are more likely to form their attitudes by paying close attention to relevant arguments, whereas people low in the need for cognition are more likely to rely on peripheral cues, such as how attractive or credible a speaker is. This variable may be quite relevant to political psychology: many political advertisements try to manipulate people through emotional appeals and poorly reasoned arguments. People who are higher in the Need for Cognition may be less swayed by such commercials. The construct is also used widely in consumer psychology; advertisers use it target their appeals to audiences that vary on the trait.

In the graph below, your score is shown in green. The scores of all liberals who have taken it on our site are shown in blue, and the scores of all conservatives are shown in red. Scores run from 1 (the lowest possible score, lowest need for cognition) to 5 (the highest possible score, highest need for cognition).

Consumer Values Scale

The scales measure six dimensions that we believe predict a large amount of variance in terms of the kinds of consumption decisions that people make. In this case, we are defining consumption broadly to include not just material goods, but also the experiences one buys, the causes one supports, and the places one travels. The six dimensions we are currently measuring are:
- Achievement: How much one values individual achievement.
- Purpose: How altruistic one is.
- Pleasure: How much one values fun in the present moment.
- Freedom: How much one values independence.
- Security: How much one values security and safety.
- Tradition: How much one values tradition.

The idea behind the scale is that people's values may be related to what they purchase, experience, consume, and desire. For example, in previous samples, we have found that those who are high in self determination, support, and generosity tend to do more research on their purchases. Those who value tradition and wealth are more responsive to ads. We are broadly interested in exploring the relationship between values and spending behavior with an eye towards helping consumers self-actualize through their consumption patterns better.

Engagement with Beauty 

The scale is a measure of your reactions to three different kinds of beauty: natural, artistic, and moral. Moral beauty refers to any action that displays virtue -- acts of love, courage, loyalty, or generosity, for example, often produce in observers a distinct pattern of physical feelings (often in the chest) and social motives (such as to copy the person who did the good deed). Haidt (2003) has called this feeling "moral elevation," drawing on a description of the feeling from Thomas Jefferson.

The idea behind the scale is that philosophers and psychologists have long been intrigued by the connection between beauty and virtue. Are those who are more "sensitive" to beauty and ugliness in the physical world also more sensitive to beauty or ugliness in the social world? Immanuel Kant said "A direct interest in the beauty of nature is always a mark of a good soul." Kant surely overstated things -- Hitler seems to have been quite fond of the natural beauty of Germany. Nonetheless, Diessner has found that scores on the EBS do correlate with scores on measures of gratitude, spiritual transcendence, and happiness. Diessner created the EBS in part to investigate whether feelings of moral elevation (in response to moral beauty) are related to the feelings of spiritual uplift that many people report in response to viewing natural and artistic beauty.

The graph below shows your scores (in green) compared to those of the average male (in brown) and the average female (in orange) visitor to this website. The first green bar shows your average response to the "natural beauty" items. The next green bar shows your average response to the "artistic beauty" items. The third green bar shows your average response to the "moral beauty" items. The scale runs from 1 (lowest) to 7 (highest possible score).

How Billionaires Make Money in Home Ownership When Government Fails

Mnuchin has good reason to be happy - he is screwing people out of their assets

This 53 minute podcast, Homewreckers, goes into the details of how billionaires make money from middle class misery when the free market goes awry and government fails. This is one of the most depressing investigative journalism reports I can recall. It details the tactics that billionaires use to make hundreds of millions deceiving and exploiting average people. It shows that the only moral value that the billionaire class has is profit by any means, including deceit and illegal means. The rule of law is mostly irrelevant because it is an easily side-stepped joke. Law enforcement against billionaires is almost non-existent. Honesty and transparency by everyone involved is a total joke.

This shows just how cynical and corrupt our two-party system can be. The federal government failed. The rule of law failed. Average people were tricked, deceived, fooled and cheated out of their homes. To make it all worse, the podcast plays clips of the president telling his supporters how bad the housing situation is and then putting the people behind the mass misery into positions of power.

This is truly heart-breaking, so if you don't want to be depressed, don't listen to this. If you want to be at least somewhat informed about how the vicious game is played by the big guys, you have to listen to this.

My conclusions 

First and foremost, caveat emptor is the only defense the consumer has against the immorality of the ruthless profit motive running free and wild in corrupt, rigged markets. Do  not look to government for protection, relief or a level playing field. This podcast is well worth 53 minutes of a person's time. It shows once again why it is long past time for regime change. Both parties and their corrupt, morally bankrupt ideologies and incompetent ways of doing business of by and for business have got to go. we need government for the people, not for the corrupt wealthy.

Finally, this shows that the rich do not operate in a meritocracy, unless merit lies in corruption, and heartless lies, deceit, trickery and exploiting incompetent government.


My thanks goes to milo for bringing this sad but infuriating story to my attention.

American Authoritarian Kleptocracy Rising

The last few days have evinced more evidence that the president is moving aggressively toward a more irrational, anti-democratic and authoritarian form of government. The latest hate and incoherence relates to the president's continuing use of dark free speech (DFS)[1] to further polarize and divide Americans along political and racial lines. This looks to be part of the president's 2020 re-election strategy.

The Washington Post writes that Twitter considered one of the president's Tweets to be glorifying violence. In it, the president called for police brutality in response to riots in Minneapolis that had erupted after police there killed a black man in custody. The company limited public access to the toxic Tweet. The president flew into a rage, claiming it was censorship. He threatened that the company would be regulated as punishment. WaPo comments: "Trump and his allies again decried the move as censorship, promising to regulate the company a day after he signed an executive order that could open the door for the U.S. government to punish social-media sites for their handling of political speech online."

That move is blatantly irrational from the president's point of view. The punishment the president wants to impose is elimination of a law that protects companies like Facebook and Twitter from liability for people who post false or defamatory content on their sites. Although experts do not believe that the president has to legal power to unilaterally do that, if the law is eliminated or made to just go away, affected companies would need to be far more aggressive about blocking the kind of dark free speech content that the president routinely posts online.

In essence, the president is so enraged that he blindly wants to get rid of the law that protects companies from liability from his own lies and defamation. If that came to pass, Twitter would likely be forced to delete the president's account and ban him forever.

The New York Times writes:

"The executive order that Mr. Trump signed on Thursday seeks to strip liability protection in certain cases for companies like Twitter, Google and Facebook for the content on their sites, meaning they could face legal jeopardy if they allowed false and defamatory posts. Without a liability shield, they presumably would have to be more aggressive about policing messages that press the boundaries — like the president’s. 

That, of course, is not the outcome Mr. Trump wants. What he wants is the freedom to post anything he likes without the companies applying any judgment to his messages, as Twitter did this week when it began appending “get the facts” warnings to some of his false posts on voter fraud. Furious at what he called “censorship” — even though his messages were not in fact deleted — Mr. Trump is wielding the proposed executive order like a club to compel the company to back down. 

But the logic of Mr. Trump’s order is intriguing because it attacks the very legal provision that has allowed him such latitude to publish with impunity a whole host of inflammatory, harassing and factually distorted messages that a media provider might feel compelled to take down if it were forced into the role of a publisher that faced the risk of legal liability rather than a distributor that does not. 

Mr. Trump has long posted false and disparaging messages to his 80 million followers on Twitter, disregarding complaints about their accuracy or fairness. In recent weeks, he has repeatedly issued tweets that essentially falsely accused Joe Scarborough, the MSNBC host, of murdering a staff member in 2001 when he was a congressman. Mr. Scarborough was 800 miles away at the time and the police found no signs of foul play. The aide’s widower asked Twitter to delete the messages, but it refused."

To the president's Tweet, Twitter added “This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence” in a gray box that hid the tweet from public view unless a user clicks to see it. Twitter also prevented users from liking the president’s tweet or sharing it without adding a comment. A company spokesman commented: “We’ve taken action in the interest of preventing others from being inspired to commit violent acts, but have kept the tweet on Twitter because it is important that the public still be able to see the Tweet given its relevance to ongoing matters of public importance.” Twitter is between a rock and a hard place.

Should the law just go away?

This situation raises a fascinating question. Should congress repeal the law that protects private online companies from liability for lies and defamation that users post online? In my opinion, unrestrained DFS constitutes the single most powerful tool that the president and political extremists of all stripes have at their disposal for getting what they want. The president relies heavily on DFS to build public support for his goal of establishing a generally weak central government that operates as some sort of police state that operates as a kleptocratic tyranny heavily tinged with vengeful Christian theocratic overtones.

What is the cost-benefit of allowing unfettered DFS in political speech? What is the cost-benefit of normalizing and acceptance of political lies, deceit, character assassination (defamation), crackpot conspiracy theories, anti-democratic norms, e.g., voter suppression, corruption and gross incompetence? What does each of us get that is good that outweighs the social bad that DFS causes?

Maybe I am an outlier, but I don't see any good in essentially all DFS. I do see a lot of personal, social, economic and democratic harm. What am I missing? Why should Twitter, Facebook and Google be protected from liability?


Footnote:
1. Dark free speech: Constitutionally or legally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, misinform, confuse, polarize and/or demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide inconvenient truths, facts and corruption (lies and deceit of omission), (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism, and (4) ideologically-driven motivated reasoning and other ideologically-driven biases that unreasonably distort reality and reason. (my label, my definition)

100,000

Mr. Spock : I've noticed that about your people, Doctor. You find it easier to understand the death of one than the death of a million. You speak about the objective hardness of the Vulcan heart, yet how little room there seems to be in yours.

STAR TREK: 

“The Immunity Syndrome”

DOES THIS NUMBER MEAN ANYTHING ANYMORE?


 DO YOU HAVE A GUT REACTION WHEN YOU SEE THIS NUMBER? 

DOES IT MATTER?

The View from a Social Scientist

Hey All,

I am a fairly new fan of Jonathan Haidt.  This article alarmed me more so than it encouraged me regarding the state of politics in the United States.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/jonathan-haidt-pandemic-and-americas-polarization/612025/


I see factions on Facebook and Disqus.  Social media is making us more tribal and emotional.  Less rational.  It creates experts out of high school dropouts.  Dunning Kruger run amok.

Our town page has members attacking each other over the virus.  Some taking this as a life threatening event while others treat it as some conspiracy theory.

President Dumb Ass is creating chaos with his tweets.  He's using the virus to scapegoat his political opposition.  He is using his office to turn the people against the media.

Questions:

Is this nation being set up for division?  Who benefits from that?  Will we turn on each other?

How bad can this get?

Or will we wake up as Americans?  Value our freedoms and not allow others to take power using such divisive and immoral tactics.

Can we learn to get along while at the same time disagreeing about issues.  Finding a way to compromise?  To listen to others and realize that the good of the nation also means the good of the people of that nation?  To admit that we were wrong?  Then apologize and learn from our mistakes?

Is Haidt too patient?  Are liberals too patient?  Can conservatives rid themselves of Trump and his divisive rhetoric?

As we see in other societies and learn from history those that seek to grab authoritarian power do not back down easily.  They will use every means at their disposal.

If the people don't stand up and fight it and instead are passive or take the high road are they just conceding to this evil.  That's really what it is.  It's evil.

Is Twitter making a stand about one of Trump's points a turning point?  Can the people of this nation back their freedom to not allow lies on their site.  To not allow a president to use their platform to cause division by lying with his tweets?

We can't stop the outlets they own from publishing propaganda.  We don't have to allow them free access to mass media to push more of it on the unsuspecting.

Trump's words today was scary.  It was an action of a dictator.  Demanding free speech while taking it away from others.  He has a right to the government not restricting his free speech.  He can not use his power and government power to restrict the free speech of others.  Twitter was within it's rights.  Trump was not.

Lot's of questions.  Answer one or none.  Give me your own thoughts and theories.

Thank you!

Ellabulldog

Should a Political Party be a Candidate Gatekeeper?

“The tragic paradox of the electoral route to authoritarianism is that democracy’s assassins use the very institutions of democracy—gradually, subtly, and even legally—to kill it. . . . . One of the great ironies of how democracies die is that the very defense of democracy is often used as a pretext for its subversion.” -- Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt commenting on the gatekeeper function of political parties to prevent the rise of demagogues, How Democracies Die, 2018


Demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument

Some people are unhappy with their perception of the role the democratic party played in keeping Bernie Sanders from winning the 2016 nomination and in his withdrawal from the 2018 race. Criticism of the DNC and party insiders are accused of blocking Sanders. 

That raises the question of whether a party should play a gatekeeping role in selecting candidates for office. In their 2018 book, How Democracies Die, political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt commented on the gatekeeper function of political parties. Levitsky and Ziblatt are experts on how democracies fall to authoritarians. One political party function they pointed to was the failure of a political party to prevent the rise of demagogues. They considered a gatekeeping function of a party to be an important bulwark against the rise of authoritarian demagogues. Their rationale is that party insiders and elites usually have far more knowledge about a candidate and their character and competence than most average voters.

In 2016, the GOP did not have a gatekeeping function in place. A divisive demagogue wound up as the party's nominee and ultimately president. Other divisive demagogues who were not subject to party gatekeeping included Hitler and Mussolini. In both of those cases, the existing party structure was losing trust, vitality and public support. In those situations, party elites allowed the demagogues to gain power. They falsely believed that they could control the beasts they unleashed and use them to regain public support. The beasts ended up destroying the parties.

In both 2016 and 2020, most of the democratic party elites apparently were opposed to Sanders in his  run for the nomination. Increasing numbers of voters who register as independents appears to reflect a loss of trust, vitality and public support in the two main American parties. Nonetheless, the democratic party played a gatekeeping role in 2016 and arguably also in 2020. 

Some years ago, the San Diego democratic party failed to exercise a gatekeeping function and a sexual predator, Bob Filner, wound up as city mayor. Some time after taking office, Filner was publicly accused of sexual predation. In 2013 he wound up resigning in disgrace. The democratic party was so intent on winning the mayor's office that they ignored Filner's long history of sexual predation despite being fully aware of it. That failure of gatekeeping cost the party the mayor position and at least some public trust for some time.

Should a party play a gatekeeping role or not? Does it matter that a candidate like Sanders, a long time independent, was not a long time party member? Is it reasonable to believe that (i) party insiders generally know more about their candidates than the public, or (ii) can exert better judgment than average voters based on their knowledge and experience? 

Book Review: How Democracies Die

Demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.


In their 2018 book, How Democracies Die, Harvard political science professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (L&Z) describe the various ways in which democracies die. For the last 15 years, L&Z have studied democracy deaths as the main focus of their research.

What they find is that these days, democracies often do not die after a military coup. Instead, many modern authoritarians or demagogues gain power by striking deals with existing political parties who are often under stress and losing influence. Hitler and Mussolini took that route. In both cases, the existing order was confident that they could control the demagogues they helped to legitimize.

In this regard, L&Z see political parties and especially their leaders and insiders as gatekeepers who are in a position to prevent legitimizing and/or the rise to power of demagogues. L&Z comment on this legal route to power: “The tragic paradox of the electoral route to authoritarianism is that democracy’s assassins use the very institutions of democracy—gradually, subtly, and even legally—to kill it. . . . . One of the great ironies of how democracies die is that the very defense of democracy is often used as a pretext for its subversion.”

American democracy vs. Trump: L&Z write to express their deep concern that President Trump, a demagogue in their view, could rise to become a full-blown authoritarian. They find that two critical norms that have kept American demagogues in the past from gaining power have largely collapsed. One weakened norm is “mutual toleration” which exists when political parties accept each other as legitimate political opposition. The other norm is “forbearance” wherein politicians exercise restraint in using power and institutional prerogatives. L&Z calls these norms the “soft guardrails of American democracy.”

L&Z argue the erosion of these norms began in the 1980s and by the time Obama was elected in 2008, “many Republicans, in particular, questioned the legitimacy of their Democratic rivals and had abandoned the forbearance strategy for a strategy of winning by any means necessary.” They point out that Trump accelerated the trend, but didn't initially cause it. L&Z see extreme polarization as a root cause of the weakening of the norms that helped defend democracy from demagogues: “And if one thing is clear from studying breakdowns throughout history, it’s that extreme polarization can kill democracies.”

Some may recall that the 2018 presidential greatness survey by experts ranked Trump as the most polarizing president in US history. 2018 was the first year that the question had been asked. It was asked in view of the obvious polarizing effect that Trump had on American politics and society.

The tyrant test: L&Z find that authoritarians tend to use the same rhetoric and tactics in making their run for power. Keying off of earlier research of democratic breakdowns by political scientist Juan Linz, L&Z articulate four behavioral warning signs that help identify an authoritarian. Evidence of any one of the four behaviors in words or actions point to an authoritarian politician.

The four signs are evident “when a politician (1) rejects the democratic rules of the game, (2) denies the legitimacy of opponents, (3) tolerates or encourages violence, or (4) indicates a willingness to curtail the civil liberties of opponents, including the media.” Trump has shown behaviors that fit all four of the warning signs. For example, he rejected the democratic rules of the game by claiming he would not accept election results if he lost the 2016 election and falsely claimed there was massive voter fraud. Similarly, he denied the legitimacy of Hillary Clinton by calling her a criminal and calling for her to be imprisoned. He also publicly tolerated and encouraged violence by his supporters, e.g., “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would 'ya? Seriously. Just knock the hell out of them. I promise you, I will pay the legal fees. I promise you.”

L&Z argue that the republican party has abdicated essentially all responsibility to try to keep the authoritarian demagogue Trump from gaining power or undermining democracy. We are undergoing the kind of stealth attack on democracy that people have a hard time seeing. L&Z point out that there have always been about 30-40% of Americans who were ready to support a populist demagogue. Trump’s populist demagogic rhetoric and behavior, coupled with the the republican party’s abdication of responsibility to defend democracy, make America’s current political situation look truly frightening.

Warning: L&Z point out that opposition to demagogues must be legal. The demagogue can use anything illegal by the opposition as an excuse to further undermine democratic freedoms and the rule of law. In other words, Antifa and any other pro-violence groups that want to help defend democracy need to cool their jets and get their act together. Stupidity such as violence plays into the tyrant’s hands.

B&B orig: 4/15/19 DP orig 4/22/19; DP reposted 5/27/20

Better Sex as You Age

Good sex at any age

Sex can be a powerful emotional experience and a great tool for protecting or improving health, and it’s certainly not only for the young. The need for intimacy is ageless. And studies now confirm that no matter what your gender, you can enjoy sex for as long as you wish. Naturally, sex at 70 or 80 may not be like it is at 20 or 30—but in some ways it can be better.

As an older adult, you may feel wiser than you were in your earlier years, and know what works best for you when it comes to your sex life. Older people often have a great deal more self-confidence and self-awareness, and feel released from the unrealistic ideals of youth and prejudices of others. And with children grown and work less demanding, couples are better able to relax and enjoy one another without the old distractions.

For a number of reasons, though, many adults worry about sex in their later years, and end up turning away from sexual encounters. Some older adults feel embarrassed, either by their aging bodies or by their “performance,” while others are affected by illness or loss of a partner. Without accurate information and an open mind, a temporary situation can turn into a permanent one. You can avoid letting this happen by being proactive. Whether you’re seeking to restart or improve your sex life, it’s important to be ready to try new things, and to ask for professional help if necessary. There is much you can do to compensate for the normal changes that come with aging. With proper information and support, your later years can be an exciting time to explore both the emotional and sensual aspects of your sexuality.

Benefits of sex as you age

As an older adult, the two things that may have brought the greatest joy—children and career—may no longer be as prevalent in your everyday life. Personal relationships often take on a greater significance, and sex can be an important way of connecting. Sex has the power to:

• Improve mental and physical health. Sex can burn fat, cause the brain to release endorphins, and drastically reduce anxiety.
• Increase lifespan. Through its health-improving benefits, a good sex life can add years to your life.
• Solidify relationships. Sex is a chance to express the closeness of your deepest relationship.
• Give refuge. Sex gives you a chance to escape from the sometimes harsh realities of the world.

Accept and celebrate who you are

Sex in later life may not be the same as it was in your youth—but that doesn’t have to be a bad thing. In fact, sex can be more enjoyable than ever. As you find yourself embracing your older identity, you can:

Reap the benefits of experience. The independence and self-confidence that comes with age can be very attractive to your spouse or potential partners. No matter your gender, you may feel better about your body at 62 or 72 than you did at 22. And it is likely that you now know more about yourself and what makes you excited and happy. Your experience and self-possession can make your sex life exciting for you and your partner.

Look ahead. As you age, try to let go of expectations for your sex life. Do your best to avoid dwelling on how things are different. If you enjoyed an active sex life in your younger years, there’s no reason to slow down with age, unless you want to. A positive attitude and open mind can go a long way toward improving your sex life as you age.

Love and appreciate your older self. Naturally, your body is going through changes as you age. You look and feel differently than you did when you were younger. But if you can accept these changes as natural and hold your head up high, you’ll not only feel better, you’ll also be more attractive to others. Confidence and honesty garner the respect of others—and can be sexy and appealing.

Good sex as you age is safe sex as you age

As an older adult, you need to be just as careful as younger people when having sex with a new partner. You may not be able to get pregnant, but you’re still susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases. Talk to your partner, and protect yourself.

Communicate with your partner

As bodies and feelings change as you grow older, it’s more important than ever to communicate your thoughts, fears, and desires with your partner. Encourage your partner to communicate fully with you, too. Speaking openly about sex may not come easily to you, but improving your communication will help both of you feel closer, and can make sex more pleasurable.

Broaching the subject of sex can be difficult for some people, but it should get easier once you begin. And as an added bonus, you may find that just talking about sex can make you feel sexy. Try the following strategies as you begin the conversation.

Be playful. Being playful can make communication about sex a lot easier. Use humor, gentle teasing, and even tickling to lighten the mood.

Be honest. Honesty fosters trust and relaxes both partners—and can be very attractive. Let your partner know how you are feeling and what you hope for in a sex life.

Discuss new ideas. If you want to try something new, discuss it with your partner, and be open to his or her ideas, too. The senior years—with more time and fewer distractions—can be a time of creativity and passion.

Modernize. You may belong to a generation in which sex was a taboo subject. But talking openly about your needs, desires, and concerns with your partner can make you closer—and help you both enjoy sex and intimacy.

Focus on intimacy and physical touch

A good sex life—at any age—involves a lot more than just sex. It’s also about intimacy and touch, things anyone can benefit from. Even if you have health problems or physical disabilities, you can engage in intimate acts and benefit from closeness with another person. Take the pressure off by putting aside your old ideas of what sex “should be.” Focus instead on the importance of tenderness and contact.

Taking your time

Without pressing workloads or young children to worry about, many older adults have far more time to devote to pleasure and intimacy. Use your time to become more intimate.

Stretch your experience. Start with a romantic dinner—or breakfast—before lovemaking. Share romantic or erotic literature and poetry. Having an experience together, sexual or not, is a powerful way of connecting intimately.

Don’t be shy. Hold hands and touch your partner often, and encourage them to touch you. Tell your partner what you love about them, and share your ideas about new sexual experiences you might have together.

Relax. Find something that relaxes both partners, perhaps trying massage or baths together. Relaxation fosters confidence and comfort, and can help both erectile and dryness problems.

Expanding your definition of sex

Sexuality necessarily takes on a broader definition as we age. Try to open up to the idea that sex can mean many things, and that closeness with a partner can be expressed in many ways.

It’s not just about intercourse. Sex can also be about emotional pleasure, sensory pleasure, and relationship pleasure. Intercourse is only one way to have fulfilling sex. Touching, kissing, and other intimate sexual contact can be just as rewarding for both you and your partner.

Natural changes. As you age, it’s normal for you and your partner to have different sexual abilities and needs. Find new ways to enjoy sexual contact and intimacy. You may have intercourse less often than you used to, but the closeness and love you feel will remain.

Find what works for you

You might not be as comfortable with some sexual positions as you once were, but that doesn’t mean you need to give up an activity that is pleasurable for you—and miss out on feeling close to your partner. Keep in mind that it’s not all about intercourse or recreating the way things were when you were younger. The key to a great sex life is finding out what works for you now. Sex as you age may call for some creativity. Use the following ideas as inspiration, but don’t be afraid to come up with your own.

Experiment. Try sexual positions that you both find comfortable and pleasurable, taking changes into account. For men, if erectile dysfunction is an issue, try sex with the woman on top, as hardness is less important. For women, using lubrication can help.

Expand what sex means. Holding each other, gentle touching, kissing, and sensual massage are all ways to share passionate feelings. Try oral sex or masturbation as fulfilling substitutes to intercourse.

Change your routine. Simple, creative changes can improve your sex life. Change the time of day when you have sex to a time when you have more energy. For example, try being intimate in the morning rather than at the end of a long day.

Foreplay. Because it might take longer for you or your partner to become aroused, take more time to set the stage for romance, such as a romantic dinner or an evening of dancing. Or try connecting first by extensive touching or kissing.

Playfulness. Being playful with your partner is important for a good sex life at any age, but can be especially helpful as you age. Tease or tickle your partner—whatever it takes to have fun. With the issues you may be facing physically or emotionally, play may be the ticket to help you both relax.

Restarting a stalled sex drive

Some older adults give up having a sex life due to emotional or medical challenges. But the vast majority of these issues do not have to be permanent. You can restart a stalled sex drive—and get your sex life back in motion. Remember that maintaining a sex life into your senior years is a matter of good health. Try thinking of sex as something that can keep you in shape, both physically and mentally.

The path to satisfying sex as you age is not always smooth. Understanding the problems can be an effective first step to finding solutions.

Emotional obstacles. Stress, anxiety, and depression can affect your interest in sex and your ability to become aroused. Psychological changes may even interfere with your ability to connect emotionally with your partner.

Body image. As you notice more wrinkles or gray hair, or become aware of love handles or cellulite, you may feel less attractive to your partner. These feelings can make sex less appealing, and can cause you to become less interested in sex.

Low self-esteem. Changes at work, retirement, or other major life changes may leave you feeling temporarily uncertain about your sense of purpose. This can undermine your self-esteem and make you feel less attractive to others.

Worry over “performance.” Worrying about how you will perform, or whether you are worthy of sexual attention from your partner, can lead to impotence in men and lack of arousal or orgasm in women. This may be a problem you have never before had to face. Sex drives can be naturally stalled as you face the realities of aging, but it is possible to overcome these bumps in the road.

Communicate. Talk to your partner, or to a friend or counselor, about your issues, whether they’re physical or emotional. Explain the anxieties you are feeling, ask for and accept reassurance, and continue the conversation as things come up.

Just “do it.” Sex is just as healthy and necessary as exercise and, just like exercise, it may surprise you with pleasure and satisfaction—even if you weren’t “in the mood.”  So get back into practice. Once you’re back in the habit, you’ll start to feel better and your sex drive should naturally increase.

Increase your activity level. Bumping up your general level of activity will benefit your sex drive by increasing your energy and sense of well-being.

Let it go. As much as you can, use your age and experience to be wise and candid with yourself. Let go of your feelings of inadequacy and let yourself enjoy sex as you age.

Know when to seek help

No matter what your age, losing your desire for intimacy and touch altogether isn’t normal. In fact, loss of interest or function may be signs of a medical problem—one that may be best addressed by a doctor. If something is getting in the way of your desire or ability to have a good sex life, don’t let embarrassment keep you from asking your doctor for help. Working with a professional, there is much you can do to improve your sex life.

Keep in mind that anything that affects your general health and well-being can also affect your sexual function. Sexual health can be affected by:

Medical conditions. Illnesses that involve the cardiovascular system, high blood pressure, diabetes, hormonal problems, depression, or anxiety can affect sex drive and function. You can talk to your doctor about strategies to combat these issues.

Medications. Certain medications can inhibit your sexual response, including your desire for sex, your ability to become aroused and your orgasmic function. You can talk to your doctor about switching to a different medication with fewer sexual side effects.

Sex after a heart attack

Many older adults with heart disease—or who’ve suffered a past heart attack—are less sexually active than they used to be or even stop having sex completely, often fearing that sex may trigger another heart attack. However, for most people it is still possible to enjoy an active sex life with heart disease.

According to a recent study, for every 10,000 people who have sex once a week, only two or three will experience another heart attack, and their risk of dying during sex is extremely low.

• Check with your doctor before resuming sexual activity.
• Participate in a cardiac rehabilitation program to improve your fitness.
• If you can exercise hard enough to work up a light sweat without triggering symptoms, you should be safe to have sex.
• Wait to have sex if you have advanced heart failure, severe valve disease, uncontrolled arrhythmia, unstable angina, unstable or severe heart disease.
• Once your condition is under control, ask your doctor when it’s safe to resume sexual activity.

Source: Harvard Medical School

https://www.helpguide.org/articles/alzheimers-dementia-aging/better-sex-as-you-age.htm

Why Trump Won the Electoral College in 2016

No one can know for certain the details of what happened in 2106. However, reasonable estimates can be made from the advantage point that hindsight sometimes affords. Obviously, different people will see things differently and weigh factors differently. For example, some people believe that Russian efforts to help the president in 2016 were completely irrelevant with on effect on even one single vote. Others believe that Russian efforts were necessary. Yet others are unsure. Some do not care and/or have no opinion whatever for any or no reason(s).

As usual for contested political issues, opinions and non-opinions are all over the place. Opinions can be observed with a sense of just about anything, including wonder, confusion, fear, self-congratulatory smugness, etc.

Here's my current list of the main factors roughly in order of importance. Although the individual factors listed here can account for many votes or few votes, their impact on the outcome is important or necessary.

• Most important: White voter unease with (i) perceptions of a decline in America's status in the world, and (ii) impending social and demographic changes, primarily the coming change from majority white to majority minority. (sources here, here and here) 
• Economic complaints about wage stagnation and increasing costs (sources here and here)
• The media's constant coverage of the president due to his entertainment value; this gave the president nationwide advertising with an estimated worth of about $2 billion (source) 
• The president's mastery of dark free speech, particularly his lies and his ability to evoke unwarranted fear, outrage and bigotry, and his ability to play the media to his advantage (source here and here)
• FBI director James Comey announcing two investigation of Clinton in the weeks before the election (sources here and here)
• The inherent advantage to the president that the electoral college conferred (source) 
• Support from Christians, especially Evangelicals
• Clinton's lackluster personality and inept campaign, despite winning the popular vote (source)
• Russian efforts to help the president, which former DNI James Clapper considered to be necessary, but the true impact will never be known with reasonable certainty (source)
• Decades of conservative dark free speech against Clinton including lies, smears and false, crackpot conspiracy theories, e.g., Pizzagate, despite repeated investigations that never led to any indictments, convictions or guilty pleas (source)
• Lackluster voter turnout, induced in part by relentless dark free speech (propaganda) directed against Clinton, which led some voters to not vote (sources here and here)

As will be apparent, the listed factors can be interacting and overlapping to varying degrees, e.g., some Christian voters were also motivated by their religion and unease over ongoing social and demographic changes.

An astronomer calculated that Earth's intelligent life is probably 'rare.' Here's what that means

Intelligent life would probably not evolve that often if you reran Earth a few hundred times.

If we all got together and started Earth over, winding time back to the moment right after the land cooled from hot magma and giant meteor showers stopped devastating the planet, would life rise again on this planet? And would that life ever become intelligent? 

A new paper published May 18 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences offers an answer: Life likely spawns quickly and easily under Earth-like conditions. But intelligent life is probably rare and slow to emerge, suggesting it might not re-appear.

Some reports have suggested this paper is about the odds of intelligent life emerging beyond our planet ⁠— alien life and alien civilizations. But the author, David Kipping, a Columbia University astronomer, kept his focus on Earth itself. His paper leaves questions about other planets unanswered. He used a statistical method called Bayesian analysis to study the handful of data points available, landing on the conclusion that we're probably lucky to exist at all.

What 'Bayesian analysis' means

There are two main approaches to statistics, said Pauline Barmby, an astronomer at the University of Western Ontario who wasn't involved with Kipping's paper: frequentist and Bayesian. When news networks announce who just won a presidential election, meteorologists predict the weather, and public health officials estimate coronavirus infection rates from limited samples, they're usually using frequentist approaches. In other words, they use the limited information they have to judge what the truth about the world most likely is. Bayesian analysis more closely resembles the way human beings actually think.

"Bayesian analysis is just a way of describing and updating beliefs ⁠— or information content ⁠— when you see some piece of data," said Will Farr, an astrophysicist at Stony Brook University in New York, who also wasn't involved in Kipping's paper.

For instance: How likely am I to make a free-throw this time, given that I've missed the last 20 times I tried? What about if I missed the last 50? The approach forces researchers to examine the assumptions involved in the questions they're asking and their confidence in those assumptions, Barmby said.

We're very lucky

Kipping's paper took the handful of data points that have been collected on how long it took life and intelligence to emerge on Earth, as well as estimates of how long Earth will be habitable based on the sun's life cycle. He then used a Bayesian approach to figure out the odds on whether each event is a "rapid process" or a "slow and rare scenario."

If life's emergence from inanimate stuff ("abiogenesis") was fast, we'd expect that on an Earth rewound and rerun,  life would probably happen at some point in our planet's billions of habitable years, Kipping wrote. But if that emergence was slow, life might have been a lucky break. The same caveats apply to the emergence of intelligence.

Kipping worked with a few data points: 

• We know that Earth became habitable about 4.21 billion years ago. That's after the lost planet Theia (and possibly another impactor known as "Moneta" 40 million years later) slammed into the ancient proto-Earth 4.51 billion years ago, wrecking the surface and forming our moon. It took about 300 million years after that cataclysm for liquid water and an atmosphere to return.
• Strong evidence of life on Earth ⁠— microfossils in rocks ⁠— goes back 3.465 billion years, or about 745 million years after the planet became habitable. There's also a more controversial hint of life ⁠— bits of carbon with missing isotopes in zircon deposits ⁠— going back to just 304 million years after habitability, according to Kipping.
• Intelligent life — humans, in Kipping's paper — came much later. Homo sapiens emerged in the last half-million years, so recently that we're just a rounding error on that 4.21 billion year timescale.
• We're likely living in the last fifth of Earth's habitable history. Astronomers believe that in the next billion years, the sun will get so bright that the resulting energy will speed up the rate at which rocks pull carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere (some rocks do this today, just more slowly). Once atmospheric CO2 drops below 10 parts per million, plants will die off, the food chain will collapse, and only microbes will survive. At that point, Kipping assumed, if intelligent life hadn't yet emerged it would have been too late. 

Isabelle Winder, a biologist, archaeologist and expert in primate and human evolution at Bangor University in the United Kingdom ⁠— who wasn't involved in Kipping's research ⁠— said his history of life on Earth is basically correct.

Still, that's not a lot of data, certainly not enough for frequentist analysis. (We've only run one "Earth" experiment, and have no other similar planets to compare ourselves to yet.) But a Bayesian analysis offers some clarity.

Using a model that Farr and Barmby said appeared well-designed and rigorous, Kipping arrived at some numbers: There are better than 3-to-1 odds that "abiogenesis is indeed a rapid process versus a slow and rare scenario," Kipping wrote, "but 3:2 odds that intelligence may be rare."

Run Earth's history over again, and there's a decent change that we, or creatures like us, never emerge.

So what? "What you have is: Life emerged a few hundred million or maybe almost a billion years after Earth stopped being bombarded with massive objects. Humans showed up close to the 4-billion-year mark. And Earth will probably be habitable for another billion years or so," Farr said. "That is absolutely useful information. You might ask, if those numbers stayed the same, but Earth was orbiting a different type of star, [how would that change things?]"

That's relevant to an ongoing debate in astronomy around "M-dwarf" stars, Farr said ⁠— stars of a type much more common than our sun's, which might support habitable planets for tens of billions of years longer than our sun will. These M-dwarf stars, however, are also possibly too prone to radioactive flares that would likely sandblast life off those planets' surfaces.

Still, Farr said, Kipping's paper should be understood as mostly about Earth, not alien life. 

"If you want to generalize about aliens, you have to do a lot of work that's not done in the paper, and explicitly avoided in the paper for good reason; it's much more speculative," Farr said. "You asked me if any of the numbers in the paper are subjective or if they're objective. And to do that work, to generalize to aliens, you're going to introduce lots of subjective things."

But Kipping's paper is a very good statistical analysis of the very limited information we do have about our planet alone, Farr said.

The meaning of life

While Kipping's paper makes reasonable assumptions and simplifications about how life works, it's important to recognize that they are assumptions and simplifications, Winder said. Sure, intelligent life probably can emerge only some time after life itself, and life itself probably requires a habitable planet, and so on.

But Kipping's paper only looks at when life first emerged and when intelligence first emerged after the planet became habitable, Winder said. The paper doesn't care if life and intelligent life emerged more than once, though they might have. The paper also doesn't care what form those life-forms take. That's reasonable for the purposes of making a mathematical model, she said. But the details of what habitability, life and intelligence look like are trickier than the paper suggests, she said.

Before the Cambrian explosion 541 million years ago, life was relatively simple. For billions of years, the fossil record suggests Earth was inhabited by just individual cells or small colonies. Then, during the Cambrian explosion, life rapidly diversified. Within tens of millions of years, nearly every current animal body plan (including that of vertebrates) emerged.

And hordes of creatures with body plans totally unlike anything seen today also flourished, suggesting alternative, alien-seeming evolutionary routes that life might have taken. Then, a massive extinction event 488 million years ago wiped out much of that diversity of life, narrowing animal life down to what we see today.

Kipping's paper addresses the issue by abstracting it away, Winder said. In whatever manner intelligence develops in an Earth rerun, his model only cares about the first time it emerges. And it assumes that so far on this Earth, it's happened only once, with humans. Very likely, she said, the common ancestors of humans and other apes might meet our definitions of intelligence. And we don't know for sure, she said, that intelligence has emerged only once on Earth. If Earth were rerun, the results might be so different from our current reality that we'd have trouble recognizing "intelligence."

"My impression from looking at evolution and the history of life is that very rarely do you get things happening once," she said. "You get multiple origins for eyes, for instance. You get multiple ways of making a living. You possibly get multiple taxa coming up out of the water onto the land. I would think the probability of it happening again in the same way as vanishingly small."

She pointed out that the paper more or less defines an intelligent species as a species capable of writing papers like this. Astronomers in general, Barmby said, tend to define intelligent life as "other astronomers" ⁠— species that might send radio signals into space, for example, and hunt for radio waves themselves.

There are reasonable definitions of intelligence, Winder said, that suggest it's emerged more than once just among creatures alive today on Earth, in such creatures as dolphins, whales and cephalopods, or squid, she said.

Traits such as language, tool use, and the capacity to think about oneself aren't unique to humans. Whenever scientists define certain types of mental abilities as uniquely human, some animal is eventually found that have those abilities.

It would be interesting, she said, to see how Kipping's model would change if it had to account for that complexity, she said. In this model, intelligence would be treated as something that's emerged more than once on Earth to various extents and an unknown number of times. She also asked how the model would change if it treated intelligence as having emerged earlier in humanity's evolutionary history than it does now.

This second point ⁠— the exact date of intelligence appearing in human history ⁠— doesn't matter that much to his model, Kipping told Live Science. Give or take a couple hundred million years, the conclusions are pretty much the same ⁠— just as they don't change much based on the debate about when precisely life emerged in Earth's history.

As for whether it would change his model to introduce uncertainty about how many times intelligence evolved, he said, "Here it will matter, and frankly I can't give you a simple answer without repeating a complicated series of numerical integrations."

But given that the odds of intelligence emerging aren't so long, Kipping said it probably still shouldn't matter much.

"I mean it's a slight preference, but obviously not a slam dunk significance preference, so however you define intelligence, it's going to remain fairly ambiguous and diffuse," he said.

As for whether intelligent life is out there elsewhere in the universe, that remains a "grand mystery," he wrote in the paper. 

His paper didn't address, for example, whether intelligent civilizations that do emerge tend to survive or quickly kill themselves off. (Our own isn't old enough to offer answers one way or another.) The best thing to do, Kipping said, is to keep looking for hints of intelligent life out there.

But it's not clear we'll recognize it when we see it, Winder said.

https://www.livescience.com/intelligent-life-rare-or-common-on-Earth.html