Tags
[Thanks to Wesley Fenza and Ghatanathoah for buying me a book, and to Alicorn for allowing me to raid her old textbook stash.]
Arriving At Amen. The first book of my favorite Catholic blogger, Leah Libresco. The most obvious comparison, to me, was to C S Lewis. Of course, that might just be because Lewis is the central example of “authors who write books about Christianity I like.” The depth of observation which Lewis has for all of humanity Libresco has for her own foibles. Although I’ve never been tempted to care about duty but not about people, to be happy when people hurt me because it’s a chance to show off my virtue, her description makes me understand why it’s tempting. I appreciate how Leah a book this is: it talks about Catholicism through the lens of cognitive biases, Les Miserables, and ASL. You wouldn’t mistake it for a book by any other author. That said, I’m someone with a lot of emotional connection to the mythology and ritual of Christianity in general and Catholicism in specific. If you don’t have that connection (either by being Christian or by being a really terrible atheist), this book is unlikely to have much insight for you. If you’re very interested, the Introduction has the content of most interest for someone who has no idea what the Examen is.
The Well-Grounded Rubyist. I think the subtitle of this book should be “An Extensive Guide To Things You Shouldn’t Do In Ruby Because They’re Terrible Ideas, But We’re Telling You About Them Anyway.” I found it delightful.
My favorite fact is that the Date#england method changes a date to what it would have been if not for the 1752 British calendar reform. I am curious if this method has been used more or less than a dozen times.
Fucking Trans Women. 0/10, still do not understand the mechanics of muffing.
Biomedical Ethics (6th Edition). Sometimes I say “biomedical ethicists are wrong about everything!” And then it occurs to me that they might not actually be wrong about everything, but I only see articles where they’re wrong about things, because I don’t know any bioethicists but I do know transhumanists, disability rights advocates, and Scott, who is annoyed about having to take classes about the importance of Beneficience and Non-Maleficience. So I read a biomedical ethics anthology to have a more informed opinion.
So! The good: I appreciated the chapters about the physician/patient relationship, informed consent, and confidentiality, to the point that I was beginning to be concerned that I would have to retract all my negative statements about bioethicists. The essays on informed consent contain a lot of really thoughtful analysis of issues like “what do you do when the patient’s family says the patient doesn’t want to be informed of their condition and wants the family to make all the decisions? Is it different if this practice is part of their cultural traditions about medicine?” (The answer the essay came to was to offer the patient the opportunity to learn about their condition, but not to insist.) I also appreciated the essay about what to do if a patient doesn’t want a doctor of a particular race and whether this is different if the patient is a member of a historically marginalized group. (That essay’s answers were “gently attempt to reason with the patient, but if it’s going to interfere with their care, let them switch” and “no”.) It seems like a fair amount of bioethics is a response to ethical violations both large (Nazis, the Tuskegee experiment) and small (doctors paternalistically deciding what’s good for a patient when the patient might have different values), and I hadn’t really appreciated how important that was. If this kind of bioethics occasionally seems a little platitudinous (“it is very important that patients understand the costs and benefits of what they’re consenting to!”), it’s only because the consequences of not listening to those platitudes were so disastrous.
I also appreciated that the essay about normalization surgery for intersex infants was firmly against it. I continue to be appalled by the social acceptability of cosmetic genital surgery on infants.
The bad: there were definitely a bunch of essays that made me roll my eyes so much it was a bit hard to read. A selection: cosmetic surgery is morally questionable because it’s making people hotter rather than fixing a disease! Ritalin is medicating away childhood!* Requiring doctors to care about cost is a violation of their duty to pay attention to the best interests of the patient! We should not teach deaf children ASL or get them involved in Deaf culture because it separates them from the hearing world, a concern that mysteriously does not apply to Spanish and Hispanic culture! Randomized controlled trials are a violation of the patient’s rights, because what if they get a placebo when they could have gotten the treatment! Doing drug trials in developing countries is coercive because you are giving them nice things that they wouldn’t have otherwise and that’s terrible! It is totally awesome to care less about a being just because they are a different species from you and it is horribly unjust to compare that to racism, because all people of different races are human! People might want assisted suicide because they’re depressed or they think they’re a burden or they’re pressured into it, but mysteriously none of these concerns apply if you sedate someone and let them starve to death instead! It is completely reasonable and not ableist at all to want to kill yourself because you need adult diapers or you can’t dress yourself! Surrogate motherhood is Bad because Mom getting pregnant and giving the kid up will totally permanently scar the other children, because I said so!
So I feel I am justified in a generally negative opinion of the efforts of bioethicists in fields other than preventing Nazihood.
Also, even the anti-selective-abortion papers referred to disabled infants as “defective.” I do not generally support language policing, but come on. Don’t talk about babies in the same language you’d use to talk about a car that’s being recalled.
This is the first time I read the original Violinist Argument paper, and my response is still “of course you have to stay attached to the violinist for nine months! What are you, a monster?”
Forty Studies That Changed Psychology. I should get an award for having heard of every single one of those studies before I read the book. It has a pretty reasonable selection of studies, and each study contained a “recent applications” section which often provided interesting facts. (Did you know that high scores on the mathematical/logical multiple intelligence is correlated with masculinity as assessed by the Bem Sex Role Inventory, and musical intelligence with femininity?) However, I was puzzled by the inclusion of Rorschach tests, which are… not actually validated.
The Ethical Slut. A reread! I feel like people normally think of the Ethical Slut as a polyamory how-to guide, but it’s really not very good at that. Instead, it’s an in-depth explanation of a particular relationship style (ethical sluthood, if you will) and why you would want to be it; the advice it gives is mostly on the road to explaining what ethical sluthood is. The statement most people take from this book as a summary of ethical sluthood is “sex is nice and pleasure is good for you”, but I prefer the sentence they quote from a flower child: “I believe that you can have sex with anybody you love, and I believe in loving everyone.” However, I am still annoyed by the fact that this relationship style is perfectly compatible with sex-repulsion, celibacy and some forms of monogamy, that the authors notice this and specifically put in a “this is compatible with celibacy! Also some forms of monogamy!” passage, and that they spend the rest of the book assuming everyone is constantly having orgies.
The Machinery of Freedom. This book ought to put to bed the accusation that libertarians don’t care about poor people. Agree or disagree with Friedman’s factual claims, but his concern for the disadvantaged comes off every page. I am in desperate need of a The Dispossessed-style ambiguous utopia about his anarchocapitalist ideas; can someone please give a copy to Ursula K Le Guin? He’s also tremendously funny: I found myself reading aloud passages like “the direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and great nations.” I also love this passage:
When I used to give speeches in favor of abolishing the draft, there was a dirty word that kept cropping up —’mercenary’. A mercenary, as far as I could figure it out, was someone who did something because he wanted to. A soldier who fought for money. Or glory. Or patriotism. Or fun. The opposite of a mercenary was a draftee. Someone who fought because if he did not, he would be put in jail. According to that definition, there are only two kinds of people. Mercenaries and slaves. I’m a mercenary.
[HERE THERE BE SPOILERS]
Karen Memory. The author Steven Brust invented the Cool Stuff Theory of Literature, which defines the novel as “a structure built to accommodate the greatest possible amount of cool stuff.” By this definition, Karen Memory succeeds admirably. Things this book features:
- Steampunk!
- The Wild West!
- An airship, complete with flamboyant captain named Minneapolis Colony!
- Captain Nemo!
- The Lone Ranger (racebent)!
- Tonto (not racebent)!
- Sex worker protagonist, handled in a way where she is badass and independent and not in a way where she is creepily oversexualized or an object of pity!
- Lesbians, some of whom are also sex workers!
- Mad scientists, some of whom are also sex workers!
- A trans woman who was written by a cis person and didn’t make me cringe!
*Psychiatric medications for children are, in my opinion, ethically questionable. On one hand, it seems silly to require children to suffer when we could make them not suffer. On the other hand, parents do not necessarily have the best interests of the child at heart; parents often medicate their child because it makes their child easier to deal with, rather than making them happier. These moral considerations, however, have very little to do with whether we are medicating away childhood.
Taymon A. Beal said:
“An Extensive Guide To Things You Shouldn’t Do In Ruby Because They’re Terrible Ideas, But We’re Telling You About Them Anyway”
That is the single most Ruby thing I have ever heard in my life.
LikeLiked by 2 people
ninecarpals said:
Muffing: It’s not actually that hard, unless you have thick fingers. If you have thin fingers, it’s basically vaginal or anal fingering where you have to be a bit more careful, and also there’s no fluid.
LikeLike
LTP said:
I’m a virgin interested in non-monogamy, so of course I’ve read both Opening Up and The Ethical Slut. I have problems with both but I’ll focus on the latter.
It’s been a year or two since I’ve read them, but I do remember not liking The Ethical Slut very much. For one, it had too much of a hippie, new-agey tone for my tastes. For another, they totally dismiss the issue of people who struggle to find willing partners.
*goes to find that section*
Yeah, they have a short section that basically says “have faith that there is lots of sex to go around, we can’t guarantee there will be for you, but you should feel abundance anyway. Look at Janet, *she* let go and felt abundance and now she feels better alone coughbecauseshehadlotsofwillingpartnerscough”.
I mean, I get that it’s a sex-positive book about how awesome sex and pleasure is, but I was annoyed that they basically are telling their readers to feel an abundance of sex and love even when that isn’t their reality
Other than that, I felt like the rest of it was really basic and that I could get all that information in a much more compact form on morethantwo.com or by reading around non-monogamous forums and blogs for a few hours.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fossegrimen said:
“”parents often medicate their child because it makes their child easier to deal with, rather than making them happier””
Citation needed.
I may be living where medicating kids is taken more ‘seriously’ than in the US, but I see zero evidence of that around here and I have had quite a lot more than average contact with parenting groups for autistic children. (My kids were given ritalin until high-school age, but because I’m a bit weird myself I never found them hard to deal with, either on or off the meds. I probably would have if they were normal.)
I suspect that the statement above is a myth and would very much like pointers to contrary evidence.
LikeLike
ozymandias said:
I know a lot of people whose parents medicated them in ways that made them unhappy but easy to deal with.
I’m honestly not certain what’s implausible about that claim. Is it that unlikely that well-meaning parents would go “wow, my child will sit still and do their homework now, that’s awesome” and fail to inquire deeply into the effects on their child’s psyche? Particularly since children tend to have pretty shit emotional vocabulary and to not really want to share things with their parents, particularly things they think their parents might be unhappy about?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Fossegrimen said:
I’m not saying it’s implausible. In fact I will agree that it is a very plausible explanation, so plausible in fact that the statement is easily accepted at face value and therefore becomes an instant myth.
The thing is that it disagrees with 100% of my personal experience, and (more importantly) after an hour or so of googling I have not been able to find anything that backs it up. (possibly due to lack of google-fu, but still)
Thus, my current prior is:
Very few parents medicate their kids without a sound medical reason.
Possible caveats:
I have zero knowledge of the situation in the US, but I have a vague impression that conforming to norms is more important your side of the pond.
We may have different views as to what constitutes ‘sound medical reason’, though the homework example is clearly outside my limits, so possibly not.
I would really like any pointers to contrary evidence.
Personal, but possibly relevant note:
The way it worked with my kids were like this:
We tried them out on Ritalin @ age 9 for three months. After the trail period, we asked them if they would prefer to have the meds at school and/or at home. They all elected to have the meds at school because it helped with ‘stress’, but not at home where things were calm enough that they didn’t need it. After that, we tried without the meds for a month or so every year and they decided to end treatment at ages 14, 16 and 19 respectively, having learned to cope with the stress level at school.
This is standard procedure here, and after the age of 12, you need a court order to medicate a child against the childs’ will, which pretty much requires the child being an immediate danger to themselves or others.
Oh, and my kids never sat still and did their homework, but that may be partly because I believe homework is an utter waste of time and that they would learn much more from theory-crafting WoW 🙂
LikeLike
Ginkgo said:
“Thus, my current prior is:
Very few parents medicate their kids without a sound medical reason.”
“Sound medical opinion” is often quite susceptible to fashion. The fashion for infant male circumcision rested for decades on “sound medical opinion.” The higher-than-other countries rate of C-sections in the US may be another.
A very wide range of ADHD behaviors are within the normal range of behavior unless you are a teacher that expects children to sit quietly filling out worksheets all day, and they predominate at the elementary level. Some schools are even getting rid of recess altogether. It is teachers and schools that have pushed for medicalization for ADD and ADHD, and brought parents along with them.
ADHD is supposed to subside or ameliorate spontaneously as you age; well I’m 61 and any lessening of it I have experienced of it has been minimal. Ritalin or something like it might have helped me in elementary school and maybe even later, but on the other hand it would have hampered me in many other pursuits. Believe it or not, there are professions and types of work – Army officer is one example – where being ADD is more adaptive than “normal” mental styles.
I know, because they tried it with my kid. You have your personal experiences and I have mine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lambert said:
How does ADD help with being an army officer? It’s not the kind of career I would expect to benefit.
LikeLike
Ginkgo said:
Lambert,
A lot of people are more than vague on what the Army is actually like.
It’s built around combat and combat is chaos, and if you are not highly distractible you are likely to miss that stray little flicker at the edge of your field of vision that happens to be someone aiming right at your head – or any number of other similar threats.
This is not just an Army thing either. ADM Nimitz is documented as being really, really ADHD. Clearly it is more of an advantage than an impediment, at least in his case.
Organizationally requirements come down like this all the time, as a function of an organizational culture adapted to combat even in garrison conditions. The metaphor that was current in my time was “keeping a lot of balls in the air.” Carl Vuono once said “You all have a lot of balls in the air but the only two made of glass are training and maintenance.” (The others could be dropped, IOW.)
These days the term is probably “situational awareness” which cleverly and conveniently also refers to the threat situation.
I remember a cautionary story from when I was in some lieutenant school. Apparently there was lieutenant who was very good at starting tasks, or getting her people to, and seeing each one through to the end. She failed as an officer and never made captain because her focus blinded her to all the shit that kept blindsiding her, and on a larger scale, this is the kind of blindness that derails operations when something unexpected arises or can even get troops killed.
This may be more of an American thing – Field Marshall von Model supposedly said “The Americans excel at war because war is chaos and the Americans practice chaos on a daily basis.” but every military formation faces the same conditions and challenges, so probably not. The Bundeswehr back when I was in Germany always seemed to make an effort to accommodate this maddening characteristic of ours, since that country had already seen its advantages at least once.
LikeLiked by 1 person
anon said:
i want to buy you books. your wishlist only has kindle editions. cannot buy these as gifst outside the us. also one very expensive hardcover book. could you maybe put paperback versions of some on your wishlist?
LikeLike
anon said:
never mind the stuff i really want list is mostly paperbacks, will get things from that
LikeLike
ozymandias said:
sorry, paperback books aren’t terribly useful to me! I have to carry them around and stuff. 🙂 Please don’t get me something off the other wishlist; it won’t even go to a place where I am living.
LikeLike
sergeantgiggles said:
>0/10, still do not understand the mechanics of muffing.
In case this was not sarcasm:
OBVIOUSLY NSFW
https://vimeo.com/103371935
LikeLiked by 3 people
Lambert said:
I always wierds me out when I think about how long I have lived not knowing that I have various obscure organs inside me.
It’s kind of anoying that she doesn’t move the camera for a closeup, as it is kinda hard to see. If you are left still not understanding, I would guess it is easiest to find the nearest consenting AMAB person and try it out.
LikeLike
ozymandias said:
for SOME REASON the amab people I know are opposed to me poking around their ballsacks trying to figure out where the inguinal canals are
LikeLiked by 1 person
osberend said:
Yeah, gotta say, I’m glad some people can make that work for them if that’s what they’re into but my instinctive reaction to the thought has been terror and nausea every time it’s crossed my brain. Frankly, that’s the general flavor of my reaction the thought of tucks as well, but a little milder there.
LikeLike
veronica d said:
@Ozy — One thing to note is that AMAB folks on HRT tend to have smaller testes, which makes the mechanics of this less — well — straining. Also, trans women (and crossdressers) often have enough experience tucking that the idea of shoving them up there is less of a big deal.
Personally I haven’t enjoyed my few brief attempts at muffing. Just, not my thing.
But anyway, yeah, a book cannot teach this, since it is such an unfamiliar bit of anatomy. Most people don’t know it’s there, and there is little temptation to try this, unless you already tuck or otherwise have — I don’t know how to say this — a rather curious relationship with your junk.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lambert said:
Wait. What nerve endings are we actually trying to stimulate here?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Illuminati Initiate said:
… I kind of want to try this now, but its kind of unclear what exactly shes doing in the video
LikeLike
Lambert said:
Okay. Rest your finger on the to of your testis, pointing backwards (palm facing towards you. Find the spemacetic cord going up from the testis inside of you and follow upwards. As you go further up, you should feel the exit of a stiff tube. This is what you are meant to finger.
Does this clarify?
LikeLike
veronica d said:
@Lambert — I like the sense that you are figuring this out in real time. 🙂
Enjoy!
LikeLike
Lambert said:
Unfortunately, said ‘real time’ happened to be the time before a math exam, in which I could not get the memory of the really weird feeling of touching what I assume was the pubic crest of the pelvis with my finger. Kinda distracting.
LikeLike
ljlim said:
Should Friedman be taken as representative of libertarians, though? My superficial impression of him is that, alongside Nozick and maybe Caplan, he’d top the list of (as your other post goes) “one of the good ones.”
(N.B. I haven’t actually read any of these three to any significant extent)
LikeLiked by 1 person
stargirlprincess said:
Bryan Caplan is probably well below the libertarian average in “caring about poor people.”
See for example:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/02/how_deserving_a.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lambert said:
To a certan extent, he seems o just be reinventing EA.
LikeLike
genemarsh said:
“This book ought to put to bed the accusation that libertarians don’t care about poor people.”
I guess, if you’re babysitting for the Reason Foundation.
Friedman’s belief that all policy intending to help the poor hurts the poor is, per Albert O. Hirschman perversity thesis, “the single most popular and effective weapon in the annals of reactionary rhetoric.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Vadim Kosoy said:
> People might want assisted suicide because they’re depressed or they think they’re a burden or they’re pressured into it, but mysteriously none of these concerns apply if you sedate someone and let them starve to death instead!
Huh? Is sedating people and letting them starve to death a common occurrence?
LikeLike
ozymandias said:
Yes.
LikeLiked by 2 people