When Motives Don't Matter

    There's quite a bit of talk lately about truth and accuracy in speech and print, and what we are to make of the various ways in which we are being misled. It has been recently reported that the AI wonder, ChatGPT, is capable of being wildly wrong, pretty much at the top of its artificial voice. It lies, it argues with people when called on its lies, and it cites to sources that do not exist. That's a lot like Tucker Carlson, whom (among others at Fox) has been just outed in a lawsuit as being well-aware of the deliberate nature of his duplicitous double-dealing -- for example, praising Trump on-air while calling him a "demonic force" behind his back, capable of "easily destroying (Fox News)." If only. Then of course there's the Liar-In-Chief himself and all his lying MAGA minions, of which little more needs to be said. 

    One of the more interesting questions about all this is the extent to which these walking, talking misinformation generators are dissembling because they

A. Believe their bullshit is true, or

B. Don't believe what they're spreading, but do it just to agitate the snowflakes, or

C. Are playing some kind of "Overton Window" game, or

D. Are self-dealing Fascists who will do and say whatever it takes.

    I recognize that those are not exclusive categories, and that human psychology is such that a person could hold all of those perspectives virtually simultaneously. (See "Tucker Carlson" and "Trump," above.)  That being the case, I therefore propose the following rule: If someone is lying, and they reject valid evidence of their mistake -- much like ChatGTP -- just pull the plug. Save your breath. Move on and don't look back. You may be the sort of person who suffers fools (gladly or otherwise), but liars are a whole next level.

Sez You, Spense

(Full Story)

Utah Governor nixes immigration

Wants no “refugees” from California nation

Speaking for myself, I have to say

Wouldn’t move there for love or pay

From the Great Salt Basin to polygamy

That’s too much sand and sex for me

Book of Mormon taught in schools

Women demure, patriarchy rules 

Harriet Potter?

 

I've been grappling with the idea of states and traits. As you probably know, a trait is a a permanent, immutable characteristic or quality, not susceptible to change. Alternatively, a state is a characteristic that is subject to revision and modification. Here's where it gets a little tricky: A genotype - the DNA containing genes that are the building-blocks of development - is a trait, in the sense that a particular genotype restricts development to a single species. (I.e., "The hereditary information of the organism is in the form of genes in the DNA and remains the same throughout the life," according to the Interwebs.) All living humans are the product of homo sapiens sapiens DNA. However, the genes in the DNA, in interaction with the environment, produces a unique phenotype - the physical person that is you. Ergo, things that may be viewed as a trait from one perspective translates into states as the process of development occurs. So, who cares? Well, speaking as a Developmental Psychologist, I do. The simple minds of this world believe that there are two sex-traits, one male, one female, period. Anyone with a Freshman-level acquaintance with human biology knows that this is a convenient fiction - at the genetic level, things are a lot more complicated, and more complicated still when the phenotype interacts with their environment. Upshot? J.K. Rowling, for all her talent, knows shit-all about genetics and development. You cannot tell the human book by looking at the cover, Joanne. Please butt out. Thanks. Happy Valentine's Day, Regards, Tom.

Curmudgeon Cat

 Our cat sits at the front door and watches the squirrels scampering on the lawn.

She has never voluntarily gone outside and runs away when the door is opened.

She has never chased a squirrel or even sauntered up to say "hello."

They fascinate her in the abstract, but she has no desire to deal with their reality.

I get that. Squirrels are the hucksters and hustlers in life beyond the front door.

Your Periodic Reminder

 

The high temperature for Durham, NC today is 73 degrees, two degrees short of the all-time high. Chances are that if you're alive today, you will never experience a year that is cooler than this one. If you're not alive today, this likely is not a problem. 

Warning Signs

 

Daffodils: the harbinger of Spring -

Tall green shoots

(lawns that need to be fed, watered, mowed)

Bright yellow flowers

(trees and bushes that need to be pruned)

Busy, buzzing bees

(wasps, yellowjackets, horseflies, mosquitos)

Fading, falling petals

(sweeping and raking and mulching)

Wasting, withered stems

(weeds to be pulled, invasives to be poisoned) -

Daffodils: the curse of summer chores.

 

Shoot The Messenger

I'm always tempted, when I start one of these screeds, to dot it with references and other sorts of supporting evidence. Then I remember that this is a blog post, and references are not required, plus, nobody cares anyway. NO ONE, EVER, has disagreed with one of my blog posts. I presume that's because I have zero readers, Occam's razor and all.

With that in mind, let's get to today's topic: Why we should outlaw polling, or at the very least, label "poll results" as "fake news." I'm not sure there ever was a time when public polling was reliable, but I can assure you than in recent years, it has gone to hell. Two reasons -

1. It is no longer possible to have a reliable cross-section of respondents, and;

2. People lie.

As to the first point, the highly-regarded Quinnipiac University Poll claims that their "rigorous" methodology includes "large sample sizes, random digit dialing (RDD), (and) timely questions" - they "stay on top of the news." Swell. But let's go back to that random digit dialing. Mentioned in their discussion of how they telephone their respondents is the fact that about one-half of their potential subjects do not even own a landline, and so, of course, they include cell phone numbers in their RDD.

You see the problem, don't you? On one hand, almost everybody - landline or no - has some form of call screening. Virtually nobody, anymore - except maybe baby boomers and lonely Incels from North Dakota - picks up calls from unknown numbers. While Quinnipiac does make several call-backs, it appears that they do not leave voicemails, because the selection has to be random, right? Only it's not. 

On the other hand, virtually everyone under the age of 30 has some form of smartphone, and if it's anything like mine, it has the option to screen unknown numbers directly to voicemail. I never even hear it ring. The only people answering unknown callers these days are people who can't wait to answer polls, i.e., second-level self-selection.

As to the second reason, people lie. People lie all the time, about matters great and small. I might be lying right now. So am I lying about lying? Maybe. Do people lie all the time? You bet. The New York Times says people don't lie to pollsters, but the NYT is lying. In today's fascist vs. socialist political climate, lying is de rigueur - you can't even claim your political chops unless you know what lies the other side (and yours) are telling these days. What do you figure makes people willing to answer political polls? The chance to advance their agenda, duh. These days, when you see a poll that does not seem to square with what you know is actually going on in the public square, it's easy to see why. I give you the Midterm Red Wave as a case in point.

Why does all this matter? Because people are sheep. (Lying sheep. I'm almost ashamed to be one.) When they read a poll that contradicts their own beliefs, it takes the edge off of their enthusiasm. It depresses them. It keeps them home on election day. Hillary Clinton is the poster woman for this effect. In case SOMEONE out there disagrees, let me once again point out that she won the popular vote for President by seven million or so - a squeaker for her opponent, driven largely by negative polling in the final days of her campaign. It was the "undecideds" that killed her, and undecided voters make up their mind late in the game.

First thing we do, let's kill all the pollsters. We can get to the lawyers later on.