jump to navigation

Business Turkey! August 21, 2017

Posted by Ubi Dubium in Brain Glitches, Humor.
Tags: , ,
1 comment so far

A story, and a look at the ways each of our brains are working differently, even when we think we are talking about the same thing.

A little while back my spouse, UbiDubiKid#1 and UbiDubiKid#2 were meeting me at my office, and then we were going to go somewhere for lunch.  I got a call on my office phone from my spouse: “Hi, we’re here. Do you want to meet us outside at the car?”  But then there was a voice in the background on the phone, one of the UbiDubiKids calling out “BUSINESS TURKEY!!!!”  And then my spouse said “Oh, wait, never mind, we’ll come in.”

Wut?

Once they came in, I got the explanation.  They had stopped at Costco on the way to my office, and had bought a 3-pack of sliced turkey.  They needed to leave it in the fridge at my office while we were at lunch, instead of leaving it in the hot car.  How to remember to do this?  UbiDubiKid#1 had suggested imagining a “business turkey” as a mnemonic, to help remember to do this.

As we were headed to lunch, over much laughter, we talked about what just happened.  As we talked, we realized that each of us had a different conception in their heads of what a “business turkey” was.  UbiDubiKid#1 had imagined a live turkey wearing a business suit.  UbiDubiKid#2 had envisioned a dead frozen turkey, wearing the suit.  I had also imagined a dead turkey, but roasted and stuffed and ready to eat, in a business suit.  And my spouse had imagined the package of sliced turkey itself  in the suit.

Now this made the whole thing even funnier, and it’s been a running joke in the family ever since.  We can say the same thing, but the thoughts going on behind it are totally different.  Brains are weird.

“So You’re Going on a Mission!” Communicating August 9, 2017

Posted by Ubi Dubium in Books, Responses.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

Continuing with my chapter-by-chapter review of the 1968 guidebook for prospective Mormon missionaries.  I’ve been away from this series for a long time, let’s get back to it.  Chapter 16: Conversation Care.

So far, there has been a lot of bad advice in this book, a lot of condescension, and quite a few amusingly outdated attitudes.  But finally we’ve come to a chapter where our author actually has mostly good advice for these kids!  Apparently she has enough experience with talking to people that she knows her stuff here.  Mostly.

Her advice includes:

  • Paying attention to first impressions.
  • Avoiding bad grammar,  slang, and pretentious vocabulary.
  • Maintaining a tone of voice that is not harsh, loud, or monotonous.
  • Avoiding profanity.
  • Listening more than you talk, and not monopolizing a conversation.
  • Avoiding off-color stories, and long boring personal stories.
  • Avoiding gossiping or bragging.
  • Avoiding responding to insults to your home country in kind.
  • Not fidgeting or chewing gum.
  • Looking to the people around you for cues as to appropriate formality in speech.
  • Not embarrassing someone for not remembering your name.

This is all good stuff, and should be observed by anyone who is trying to persuade people through conversation.

However, sometimes her good advice comes crashing back down into preachiness:

“Keep an open mind and never be afraid to listen to another version of truth.  Learn to say, “I think” or “It seems to me” except, of course, when it comes to talking about the gospel and bearing your testimony; then you always say “I know.” (pg 147)

And she concludes with a complicated discussion about making introductions, and whose name you should mention first.  I remember seeing similar sets of rules for this when I was a child, and I don’t remember ever having occasion to use them.    Here’s her rules:

“Rule I: Introduce the younger person to the older.  This means you say the older person’s name first…

Rule II: Introduce the male to the female. This means you say the female’s name first…

Rule III: Introduce the less important person to the more important. This means you say the more important person’s name first.” (pg 149)

And then this:

“Unfortunately there will be a few times when these rules will have to be broken.  Perhaps you’ll need to introduce an elderly man to an important man, or an important man to a woman.  In such cases, rule breaking is based on respect.  The very old person’s name is said first to show respect for old age, and the person holding an important church or civic position is mentioned first to show respect for a man of his stature and office.” (pg 150)

I’m still confused.  What if you need to introduce a fairly important person to a rather old person?  Or an important woman to an elderly man?  (Oh, silly me!  This is Mormonism, there is no such thing as an important woman!)

But my real problem with these rules is that it forces the person making the introductions to make value judgments about people, and letting them know how you judged them.  You have to evaluate whether a person is more important than the other person is old, or whether someone’s importance or age places them ahead of women in introductions.  I hate this whole thing!  By the simple act of helping people get to know each other, you might inadvertently offend somebody!  And you sometimes have to make these snap judgement on the spot, too.  And there are things that you might have wanted to consider, such as which person you know better, or which person you arrived with, or who you are currently talking to, and none of these are allowed to be considered in this artificial system.  Let’s just have nametags and be done with it.

Previous Chapter

Not So Smart Cookies July 4, 2017

Posted by Ubi Dubium in Books, Brain Glitches, Humor.
Tags: , , ,
4 comments

I may have mentioned that one of my favorite podcasts is called “You Are Not So Smart”.  It’s a wonderful “celebration” of the human capacity for self-delusion.  It started out as a blog, and then shifted over to a podcast.  Each episode focuses on some particular way our brains don’t work, usually with one or more guests that are experts in the field.  It’s pretty much the podcast I would make if I were going to do a podcast, except I don’t have to because it already exists.

At the end of most episodes, the host, David McRaney, samples and comments on cookies baked from a cookie recipe sent in by a listener. A few months back I had sent in a recipe for one of our favorites,  Caramel Apple Cider Cookies, but then hadn’t given it any further thought.  I had gotten a little behind on listening, so I was very surprised when my spouse called me to say that this book had shown up on our doorstep…

 which is the thank you gift if he uses your recipe on the show!  Yay!  His review is at the end of this episode.

Thank you David, and I promise to get caught up on the latest episodes as soon as I finish getting caught up on Oh No Ross and Carrie.  (They are doing a summer devoted to UFO craziness.  Can’t miss that.)

Quotes worth stealing June 16, 2017

Posted by Ubi Dubium in Responses.
Tags: , , , ,
2 comments

I ran across a couple of amazing quotes recently, from a couple of my favorite bloggers.  They are too good not to share, plus making a post will help me remember them.

First, this is from the latest post at Neil Carter’s Godless in Dixie,

Our religions don’t make us who we are. We just are who we are, and we learn to tell different stories about ourselves. We simply change lenses through which we see ourselves. That’s all.

And then I found this gem from Captain Cassidy at Roll to Disbelieve:

When a broken system and a toxic worldview love each other very, very much, they create hypocrites.

These are worthy of T-shirts!  I wish I could write like that.

Box of Apologetics June 8, 2017

Posted by Ubi Dubium in Rants, Responses.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
6 comments

Every Monday I listen to the previous Sunday’s broadcast of The Atheist Experience.  And generally the show is a lot of fun, lots of promotion of critical thinking and jousting with theists.  My favorite host is Tracie Harris, who just hits it out of the park, and it’s pretty satisfying when Matt Dillahunty hangs up on an annoying troll.  But lately I have been getting frustrated when some apologist calls in with their favorite clever twist on some tired old apologetic, and they proceed to argue in endless circles, because they just have to “get the atheist to admit that they are right”.  These calls tend to go on way too long and almost never accomplish anything.

I’ve realized that if I were hosting the show and one of these guys got going, that there is something specific I would want to say to them.  But since that’s unlikely ever to happen, I’ll just say it here instead:

“Hey Mr. Apologist!  Before you begin on whatever clever argument for god you are about to present, I need to ask you three background questions.  So, for the time being, instead of discussing it right away, we’re going to put your apologetic in a box.

This Box.

“We’re not going to unpack it just yet.  Not until I find out a few things about the person I am talking to.  First I need to ask you when you first started believing in god.”

(A typical theist will probably tell me that they have been a believer their whole lives, or from when they were very young.)

“OK.  And when did you first learn this argument you are about to present?”

(Let’s assume they tell us about the book they read in high school, or the class their church had recently, or some such.  It’s not likely that they learned a complicated argument in their earliest Sunday School classes.)

“All right.  And finally, suppose that your apologetics teacher (or Pope, or whoever is an authority for your sect) came to you and said ‘Dude, we found a flaw in this particular argument.  It doesn’t actually prove the thing it’s supposed to prove.  You have to stop using it.’  If that were to happen, would you still believe in god?  Would you have to reconsider anything about what you believe, or would you still believe exactly as you do now?”

(I would expect that a typical True Believer™ would declare that their faith would continue to be steadfast in that case.)

“OK, so let me review what we’ve learned about the argument in this box.

  1. It’s not what initially persuaded you to believe, because you didn’t have it at that time.
  2. It’s not what’s keeping you in your faith, because you would still be a believer even if you lost what’s in the box. 

SO, what that tells me is that we don’t actually need to open this box at all!  The question for callers is “Tell us what you believe and why.”  And we have just established that the argument in this box is not really part of your “why“.  So we can throw out this box unopened.  It’s not relevant.

“Here’s the box we ought to open up:

“What we should be talking about are the real reasons that you believe.   What initially persuaded you to start believing?  What things are so central to your beliefs that you would have to rethink your entire belief system if they were discredited?   I don’t know what’s in this box for you.  Maybe it’s things like ‘trust in your teachers,’ ‘personal experience,’ ‘clerical authority,’ or ‘biblical infallibility.’  Maybe it’s something else.  We won’t know until we start unpacking it.” Those are the interesting and useful discussions to have, not these circular apologetic word games.

If I ever were in the position similar to the hosts on TAE, I think that I would have to label some real boxes to use as visual aids.  Because, unless a caller says that their argument was specifically why they started believing, or that their faith would collapse without it, there’s no way that I would want to waste my energy listening to their endless philosophical wanking.  I have better things to do, like watching paint dry.

What’s the point of prayer? May 17, 2017

Posted by Ubi Dubium in Responses.
Tags: , , , , , ,
15 comments

I recently left this as a comment on Wondering Eagle’s blog post about prayer.  Since I haven’t blogged much recently, and I’m pretty pleased with the comment, I thought I should give it its own post.

I’ve always been puzzled about the disconnect between what evangelicals say about god, and what they say about prayer. They say their god is all-powerful, all knowing, benevolent, and has a perfect plan for their lives. Then they spend time telling god things and begging god to change stuff. If god already knows what people need, why spend time telling him what you want? If god has a perfect plan, then why are they asking him to change it, just for them? And why do they think a request to change his perfect plan is more effective if they have more people doing it? Is god not going to “bless America” unless a bunch of christian politicians make sure to ask him to in their every speech? (This is why I laugh at the whole “prayer warrior” idea. It’s just magical thinking.) They say “trust god” and “let go and let god” and then they spend long hours in prayer not trusting him and giving him advice on what to do.

Back when I was a believer, the only kinds of prayer that actually made sense were things like “Help me understand. Help me be strong to do the things that I need to do. Help me cope with what I can’t change.”

Now the way evangelicals pray would make a lot more sense if they were talking about a limited god, like the ones in the Greek pantheon. Those gods didn’t have perfect plans, didn’t know everything you were thinking, and if you sucked up to them enough, and sacrificed enough cattle, they might be willing to take your advice about what to do. Modern evangelicals often sound like they are preaching about YHWH and Jesus, but then praying and tithing to Zeus.

Fun personal questions February 21, 2017

Posted by Ubi Dubium in Questions, Responses.
Tags: , ,
9 comments

The Shameful Sheep posted a set of questions that are pretty much just light and fun personal stuff. Since I can use some light and fun right now, I thought I’d do them.  If you like substance in your blog reading, you might want to skip this one.

(more…)

Big Game Leftovers February 7, 2017

Posted by Ubi Dubium in Humor.
Tags: , , , , ,
2 comments

Continuing the quest to cheer myself up, I continue my tribute to that most wonderful of websites: CakeWrecks.

Today I walked to the local grocery to pick up a salad for lunch, and as usual I checked the marked down bakery shelf to see if there was anything not too stale for a reasonable price.  I’m so glad I did.  It was full of sad, lonely Superbowl Big Game cakes, that had not sold for what will be obvious reasons. I didn’t have my phone with me to snap photos, so I had to bring the two worst offenders home with me.  Not that they cost much, they were 75% off.

pair-of-cakes

These deserve their own closeups:

go-folcons

Sad color, a mysterious yellow icing blob on one side, and “Go Folcons”?  Or is that “Go Folcone”?

And then:

super-something

Well alrighty then.  This is a bit brighter, and might be spelled correctly.  Once again, there’s a mysterious yellow icing blob on one side.   At first I thought that rectangle might have been meant to be a sportsball field, but then I realized that it says “LI” on a white background smudged in red, with red, white and blue sprinkles, leaving it barely legible.  And the rest of the cake has star shaped sprinkles.  Because everything is better with sprinkles!

They may be sad, but we’re still going to eat them!

Dog ate his homework February 2, 2017

Posted by Ubi Dubium in Rants, Responses.
Tags: , , , , , ,
6 comments

At a speech about Black History Month, Hair Twitler said this:

“I am very proud now that we have a museum on the National Mall where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things, Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice.”

So Frederick Douglass is still alive?  Wut?

And then I realized what this reminds me of.  This is the book report from the kid who goofed off and didn’t bother to read the book.  You know, this:

calvin-book-report

I’m not the first to have noticed this, though.  Back during the campaign there was a marvellous Twitter stream of Drumpf’s “hasn’t read the book book reports”:  https://twitter.com/antoniofrench/status/788928579086217216?lang=en

Of course, we already know that Il Douche can’t actually read.  So no surprise there.

Weather Report January 20, 2017

Posted by Ubi Dubium in Rants.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

Today’s weather headline:

Weather for Trump’s Inauguration Day will be damp, dreary

grumpy-cat