Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass. Most people are good.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Thursday, June 22, 2023

How the radical right does science: AI finds ugly women are liberals and mentally deranged

An article in Evie Magazine discusses research indicating that hot chicks tend to be right wingers and grumpy ones tend to be lefties. This is another fine reason for not putting your face on the interwebs. Evie writes:
Attractive Women Were More Likely To Be "Right-Wing" 
While "Left-Wing" Women Showed More Contempt

Physiognomy, the practice of deciphering a person's personality based on appearance, dates back to 500 B.C. The question is, is it pseudo-science, or does it actually hold credibility? One study published by Scientific Reports may support the theory that physiognomy may actually be legit after all.

The research took place in Denmark and utilized machine learning techniques on thousands of faces to predict their political ideology. The study, led by Stig Hebbelstrup (full name: Stig Hebbelstrup Rye Rasmussen) and his research team, explored if computational neural networks (CNN) can accurately determine a politician's political stance based on a single photograph of their face. Sounds dystopian, right? Surprisingly, the predictions were successful 61% of the time.

In the end, they were left with 4,647 images, with 1,442 of them being female. The sample was divided by both genders, and the algorithm was applied to them separately. They found that masculinity and attractiveness weren't linked to ideology in men, but happy faces (both men and women) were likely to be representatives of right-wing parties. Meanwhile, politicians who had a neutral expression or showed contempt were more likely to represent left-wing ideologies. How interesting, but we're not surprised.

Three years ago, we reported on a study that revealed over half of white, liberal women under 30 have a mental health disorder. These findings were backed by more recent data that showed that liberal women are statistically the unhappiest and most mentally ill demographic in America.
As we all know, most U.S. media leans to the left. So could the harmful narratives and advice be the reason for liberal women's unhappiness?
This is a breakthrough in dating science and politics! If you want a fun relationship, leave the ugly mentally deranged ladies alone and date the hot rabid radical right freaks. If you want crackpot radical right authoritarianism, vote for the hot chicks. MAGA!!

Given the importance of such insightful analysis, I reacted like anyone else would. What do the fact checkers say? Here's what Media Bias / Fact Check says about Evie Magazine:



There we have it. We can reasonably question whether Evie is a source, and if so, a source of what. By golly, it's a source of false claims, propaganda, pseudoscience and whatnot.


It's Kumbaya and AR-15 time in America. Stay away from the grumpy chicks. Vote for hot chicks and gird your loins for Armageddon.

Q: Who are the people who subscribe to Evie Magazine, assuming anyone actually does?


Acknowledgement: Thanks to Imperator Machinarum (in American, Emperor of the Machines) for bringing this important research to my attention

Wednesday, June 21, 2023

From Germaine's trigger files: Quack cosmetics, quack products, quack marketers

Quackery triggers me. It has for decades.

On TV today, being momentarily distracted with real life* I failed to hit the mute button once the commercials came on. My mistake. 

* Getting my lunch corn on the cob out of the microwave.

In a stupor of disbelief, I listened to an entire TV ad by former supermodel Cindy Crawford. She was hawking a youth-restoring skin product the marketers call Meaningful Beauty. The "science" behind this miracle product comes from Dr. Jean-Louis Sebagh at his clinic in Paris. According to Crawford's website
After my first treatment of super antioxidants from a rare melon in the South of France I saw instant, glowing results.

Dr. Sebagh and I developed Meaningful Beauty as an easy-to-use system that delivers younger-looking skin by combining science, technology and nature. The powerful melon super antioxidants are the secret to the formulas — and exclusive to Meaningful Beauty.
The fate of my beautiful face is 
somewhere in those leaves, maybe

Well, being an old fart with wrinkly skin, I immediately looked for peer-reviewed science publications by Sebagh. I want instant youth too! Sadly, there are none


I then breathlessly went to Crawford's FAQ page to look for the ingredients so that I could evaluate the possible mechanism of action of this miracle, face-saving product. Oops, no list of ingredients unless a consumer (sucker) buys it. See the Q&A at the bottom of the image.

By golly it's magic, rare muskmelon leaves!!

And, It's never too late — and never too early — 
to start taking care of your skin!!!

See!! Stuff from rare cantaloupe leaves 
even works on the young 'uns!!
(Just kidding, actually she's 88 years old)

This is what a country with a government that serves special interests before the public interest far too often delivers to the public. Quack products. Bullshit explanations. Irrationality. Lies. No empirical evidence. Here we get just slick marketing backed by unsubstantiated claims from a pretty face and sophisticated, morally rotted marketers.





No shame. No moral qualm. No peer reviewed evidence. Just pure, raw capitalist greed. Yay unregulated capitalism!! Shaft us hard again!!

Tuesday, June 20, 2023

News bits: About DoJ stalling DJT investigation; Hunter pleads guilty; Etc.

A Raw Story article cites reactions by two people who suspected the DoJ intentionally slow walked an investigation of DJT for over a year. Reactions critical of the DoJ were triggered by yesterday's WaPo article, FBI resisted opening probe into Trump’s role in Jan. 6 for more than a year, (discussed here yesterday) reporting the intentional sabotage of by the DoJ of any investigation of DJT's role in the 1/6 coup attempt. RS writes:  
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Monday reacted with alarm to a new report in the Washington Post showing that the Department of Justice and the FBI dragged their feet for more than a year in launching an investigation into former President Donald Trump's role in inciting the January 6th Capitol riots.

"This Washington Post investigation confirms what I have been concerned about for almost two years: While the DOJ moved quickly to investigate the foot soldiers of the Jan 6 attack, it waited far too long to investigate leaders of the effort to overturn the election," said Schiff.

Andrew Weissmann, a former prosecutor who worked under special counsel Robert Mueller, delivered a scathing assessment of the DOJ's inaction on his Twitter account.

"The extent of the delay by DOJ was inexcusable," he wrote. "Not appearing political is not a reason to fail to do one’s job."
What Weissmann said about not appearing political is not an excuse to do nothing should be true. Sadly, it isn't. Our two-tiered rule of law really is political. It's heavily biased in favor of the rich, famous, powerful and high level politicians. That is true for both Dems and Repubs.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

Breaking, Earth shattering news: The NYT writes about a plea deal for Hunter: 
Under a deal with the Justice Department, the president’s son agreed to probation for filing his taxes late, and he can avoid a charge that he lied about his drug use when he purchased a handgun.

The Justice Department has reached an agreement with Hunter Biden for him to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges and avoid prosecution on a separate gun charge, according to a court filing on Tuesday, moving to close a long-running and politically explosive investigation into the finances, drug use and international business dealings of President Biden’s troubled son.  
Under a deal hashed out over several months by Hunter Biden’s legal team and federal prosecutors, he will plead guilty to misdemeanor counts of failing to pay his 2017 and 2018 taxes on time and agree to probation, the court filing said.
This is the smoking cannon the radical Republicans have been looking for. What hideous, cruel crimes he committed. Late filing his taxes. The horror . . . . the horror . . . . and waddabout Joe Biden, the evil mastermind?

LOCK HIM UP!! LOCK HIM UP!! LOCK HIM UP!! 

/s
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

Trump compares Hunter Biden charges to ‘traffic ticket’

Former President Trump and his allies on Tuesday bemoaned a plea deal struck between Hunter Biden and federal prosecutors over tax and firearm crimes, comparing it unfavorably to the charges Trump is facing over his retention of classified documents after leaving office.  
“Wow! The corrupt Biden DOJ just cleared up hundreds of years of criminal liability by giving Hunter Biden a mere ‘traffic ticket.’ Our system is BROKEN!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Yeah!! Hunter should have been locked up for hundreds of years, not just given probation.

Hm . . . . . if Hunter got, say, 300 years in the slammer for his crimes, then DJT should get, say, about 30,000 years. Right? 
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

A new front in the radical right thermonuclear war on truth: What's this country coming to if we can't lie to people? We'll be doomed, doooomed I say!: A NYT news article reports:

I have my constitutional right to lie 
to people Goddamn it!
I'm gonna rip someone's lungs out
with my bare hands!


G.O.P. Targets Researchers Who Study 
Disinformation Ahead of 2024 Election

A legal campaign against universities and think tanks seeks to undermine the fight against false claims about elections, vaccines and other hot political topics

On Capitol Hill and in the courts, Republican lawmakers and activists are mounting a sweeping legal campaign against universities, think tanks and private companies that study the spread of disinformation, accusing them of colluding with the government to suppress conservative speech online.

The effort has encumbered its targets with expansive requests for information and, in some cases, subpoenas — demanding notes, emails and other information related to social media companies and the government dating back to 2015. Complying has consumed time and resources and already affected the groups’ ability to do research and raise money, according to several people involved.

They and others warned that the campaign undermined the fight against disinformation in American society when the problem is, by most accounts, on the rise — and when another presidential election is around the corner. Many of those behind the Republican effort had also joined former President Donald J. Trump in falsely challenging the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
This is how the modern radical right Republican Party spends its time and governs when it has power. 

Inconvenient facts, true truths, sound reasoning, political opposition and democracy itself are all in the crosshairs of the post-truth, morally rotted GOP. That the Republican Party is still competitive in federal elections in red states shows how sick and weak our democracy, the rule of law and our civil liberties have become.

Social science update: Perceptions of moral decline are an illusion

The NYT published an opinion piece about the recent publication of a massive, worldwide study about human beliefs about moral decline. The opinion was written by the senior author of the study, psychologist Adam Mastroianni at Columbia University.  The data indicates that belief in moral decline compared to the "good old days" is a universal human illusion. The same thing is seen in all countries examined so far. The NYT writes:
Your Brain Has Tricked You Into Thinking Everything Is Worse

Perhaps no political promise is more potent or universal than the vow to restore a golden age. From Caesar Augustus to the Medicis and Adolf Hitler, from President Xi Jinping of China and President “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. of the Philippines to Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” and Joe Biden’s “America Is Back,” leaders have gained power by vowing a return to the good old days.

What these political myths have in common is an understanding that the golden age is definitely not right now. Maybe we’ve been changing from angels into demons for centuries, and people have only now noticed the horns sprouting on their neighbors’ foreheads.
 
While previous researchers have theorized about why people might believe things have gotten worse, we are the first to investigate this belief all over the world, to test its veracity and to explain where it comes from.

We first collected 235 surveys with over 574,000 responses total and found that, overwhelmingly, people believe that humans are less kind, honest, ethical and moral today than they were in the past. People have believed in this moral decline at least since pollsters started asking about it in 1949, they believe it in every single country that has ever been surveyed (59 and counting), they believe that it’s been happening their whole lives and they believe it’s still happening today. Respondents of all sorts — young and old, liberal and conservative, white and Black — consistently agreed: the golden age of human kindness is long gone.


We also found strong evidence that people are wrong about this decline.

Other researchers’ data have even shown moral improvement. Social scientists have been measuring cooperation rates between strangers in lab-based economic games for decades, and a recent meta-analysis found — contrary to the authors’ expectations — that cooperation has increased 8 percentage points over the last 61 years.

Two well-established psychological phenomena could combine to produce this illusion of moral decline. First, there’s biased exposure: People predominantly encounter and pay attention to negative information about others — mischief and misdeeds make the news and dominate our conversations.

Second, there’s biased memory: The negativity of negative information fades faster than the positivity of positive information. Getting dumped, for instance, hurts in the moment, but as you rationalize, reframe and distance yourself from the memory, the sting fades. The memory of meeting your current spouse, on the other hand, probably still makes you smile.

When you put these two cognitive mechanisms together, you can create an illusion of decline.

Thanks to biased exposure, things look bad every day. But thanks to biased memory, when you think back to yesterday, you don’t remember things being so bad. When you’re standing in a wasteland but remember a wonderland, the only reasonable conclusion is that things have gotten worse.

That explanation fits well with two more of our surprising findings. First, people exempt their own social circles from decline; in fact, they think the people they know are nicer than ever. This might be because people primarily encounter positive information about people they know, which our model predicts can create an illusion of improvement.

Second, people believe that moral decline began only after they arrived on Earth; they see humanity as stably virtuous in the decades before their birth. This especially suggests that biased memory plays a role in producing the illusion.

If these cognitive biases are working in tandem, our susceptibility to golden age myths makes a lot more sense. Our biased attention means we’ll always feel like we’re living in dark times, and our biased memory means we’ll always feel like the past was brighter.

As long as we believe in this illusion, we are susceptible to the promises of aspiring autocrats who claim they can return us to a golden age that exists in the only place a golden age has ever existed: our imaginations.

Well now, that tosses some sand in the gears. First, humans are bombarded with negative stuff like mischief, misdeeds and miscreancy = biased exposure. Second, the human mind tends to whitewash negative experiences over time = biased memory. Together, those two stinkers** (biases) tend to create an illusion of moral decline. That tends to attract demagogues and regular politicians like the moth to the flame. Those promises tend to bamboozle a lot of people.

** Or, maybe not completely stinkers. Maybe whitewashing painful past personal experiences makes life easier for some or most people. 


Qs: Waddabout the real, not illusory, decline in respect for and reliance on facts, true truths and sound reasoning, especially when they are inconvenient, that America's political radical right is undeniably heavily invested in? Does fidelity to facts, true truths and sound reasoning even constitute a moral value? In a democracy, are lies to the public immoral, or if malice is there, evil?[1] How about lies in a dictatorship or theocracy?


Footnote: 
1. Consider our good friend Sissela Bok commenting on lies and deceit of the public in a democracy in her 1999 book, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life:

“When political representatives or entire governments arrogate to themselves the right to lie, they take power from the public that would not have been given up voluntarily. .... But such cases [that justify lying] are so rare that they hardly exist for practical purposes. .... The consequences of spreading deception, alienation and lack of trust could not have been documented for us more concretely than they have in the past decades. We have had a very vivid illustration of how lies undermine our political system. .... Those in government and other positions of trust should be held to the highest standards. Their lies are not ennobled by their positions; quite the contrary. .... only those deceptive practices which can be openly debated and consented to in advance are justifiable in a democracy.”