for-real-things-I-know
For Real Things I Know: 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008

For Real Things I Know

Fine-art digital photography, liberal hard left-leaning politics, and personal mindspace of Solomon

My Photo
Name:
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States

Monday, December 24, 2007

Myths about saturated fat

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22116724

"While the findings from these cultures seem to contradict the fact that eating saturated fat leads to heart disease, it may surprise you to know that this "fact" isn't a fact at all. It is, more accurately, a hypothesis from the 1950s that's never been proved.

"We've spent billions of our tax dollars trying to prove the diet-heart hypothesis. Yet study after study has failed to provide definitive evidence that saturated-fat intake leads to heart disease. The most recent example is the Women's Health Initiative, the government's largest and most expensive ($725 million) diet study yet. The results, published last year, show that a diet low in total fat and saturated fat had no impact in reducing heart-disease and stroke rates in some 20,000 women who had adhered to the regimen for an average of 8 years.
But this paper, like many others, plays down its own findings..."

Thursday, December 20, 2007

What is self-righteousness, and what is its effect

I've been thinking about self-righteousness for a while now, and quite a few people have described it as or used terms like:
"you think you're better than everyone else"
"being judgmental"
"proselytize"
"knowing what's best for everyone"

One person went so far as to say, "the concept of 'self-righteousness' is hopelessly, deeply, necessarily relative to each person's system of values"

Those were the direction of definition and connotation that I had given to the word "self-righteous" for quite a while, but while exploring the idea of self-righteousness, how it applied to me and how to effect change in myself, I was stunned by how incorrectly I interpreted the word.

I think I interpreted it incorrectly and refused to explore its real meaning because I wanted to hold onto the comeback of "No, I'm not! Look, I'm not judging you." I wanted to hold onto the idea that I wasn't self-righteous or that it was easy to change how self-righteous I was overnight--"Well, I might have been self-righteous yesterday, but I won't be tomorrow. I'll stop judging people. I won't proselytize. Etc."

The definition of self-righteous has little (nothing really, except connotatively or as a logical conclusion) to do with how one externally acts; nor does it have a meaning that changes depending upon what one's values are.

To settle on what self-righteous meant, I decided to settle on what psychologists explore when they are studying self-righteousness... and it's pretty clearly just a "confidence in the correctness of one's own morality or good character."

SELF-RIGHTEOUS: "Confidence in the correctness of one's own morality or good character"

One interesting thing that has recently been discovered (as reported in last month's issue of Journal of Applied Psychology) is how one's self-righteousness effects one's choices in ambiguously moral scenarios.

Once one agrees that confidence in one's morality is the only definition needed, then people can honestly assess their own self-righteousness (especially if you ask the question without using such a loaded word as self-righteous). Give people a scale of values to answer the question "Do you consider yourself to be a moral person?" and all the people at the high end of the scale are the ones most confident in their own morality.

What the study found was that those people who had high confidence in their own morality... well, let me quote...

Scott Reynolds and Tara Ceranic of the University of Washington said their research highlights the idea that people with exceptionally strong convictions about their moral goodness are likely to follow extreme courses of action because they can convince themselves that whatever they do is good. When the right course of action is ambiguous, they added in a paper published in the November issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, such people are likely to gravitate to opposite ends of a range of behaviors. When there is wide social consensus that something is wrong, they tend to conform to social norms.

When the researchers tested their hypothesis on managers who were asked to make a judgment call involving a conscientious employee who needed to go home early one day, they found that the managers who believed most strongly that they were good people came to extreme conclusions: They either let the employee off for the rest of the day with full pay, or insisted the employee stay and work full hours. The managers who did not think they were particularly good people tended to reach moderate conclusions: They had the employee finish some work and then leave early.


In my exploration of the concept of righteousness (usually seen as a positive) and self-righteousness (usually seen as a negative), it was referenced in a lot of religious contexts (I know, what a surprise). One of my favorite definitions of self-righteousness, though, was from that context, and it was simply, "Self-righteousness is defining our rightness by what we do not do. That's self-righteousness. When you measure your rightness by what you don't do, your rightness is coming at the expense of someone else."

Monday, December 17, 2007

First Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Ann Arbor - Newcomer Frequently Asked Questions

I must say, this is looking very attractive to me right now as I'm craving to be a part of a community outside of work and kind of dreading the amorphous "playgroup" community. I want to have a community of adults that might talk about children or might talk about food, but won't necessarily have either of those as their principal interests. I's also like to have a community of parents around me who have older children and experience that I can draw from. The playgroup crowd I look forward to as a body of commiseration and sharing, the way I enjoy being among a bunch of foodies, but I want a larger pool of people, of diverse interests. With a membership over 700, this may fit the bill.

First Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Ann Arbor - Newcomer Frequently Asked Questions:
"We have people at First UU with many different beliefs and backgrounds: Christian, Jewish, Humanist, Agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist, Taoist, Theist, Muslim, Hindu, and Earth-centered – as well as some who follow more than one of these paths."

Criteria for selecting the true church

This is just one of the best quotes I've read in a long, long time; it just slapped me upside the head. I was led here by a very offensuve anti-Mormon propaganda video series that made me look up LDS on my favorite religion website, www.religioustolerance.org, which, as it is often wont to do, led me into a series of random essays about religions.

Criteria for selecting the true church:
"If Christians really could have assessed the will of God [through prayer], the original conflicts between Jewish Christians and Pauline Christians in the first century CE -- and the thousands of conflicts since -- would have been resolved, and there would have been only a single Christian church throughout history."

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Ducky down!


That poor ducky didn't stand a chance.
Posted by Picasa

Sigh



All of that prepregnancy, biking weight loss... gone! @#$@#$%

Well worth the tradeoff, though. Now, back to the treadmill.
Posted by Picasa

Santa Claus

This also illustrates to me that the belief has little to do with what the parents say, and that even outright saying "not real" doesn't mean much. This is a societal myth.

santa claus - Page 3 - MotheringDotCommune Forums: "I also felt lied to as a kid about Santa, so decided long before having kids that I wouldn't pretend he was real. Really, I think there are LOTS of reasons not to do Santa, and I could never do it. That said, my four-year-olds completely believe in the guy. This is despite the fact that we've told them it's just a story people like to tell/a game people like to play. This is despite the neighbor kids telling them, 'you know Santa's not real, it's just your parents.' This is despite the fact that they've never been given a gift 'from Santa,' and that we don't even celebrate Christmas. Their best friends believe in Santa, so they do too. They tell us that we're wrong, that Santa *does* bring them presents, and that we've just been tricked into thinking that we got the presents (we give them presents on the solstice). LOL. What more is there for us to say? We certainly aren't going to play the Santa game, but if they want to believe in him, I don't think there's any way for us to stop them. We'll just have to wait until they're old enough to realize how he's logistically impossible."

Santa Claus

I like this perspective as well. It turns it from an outright lie into a secret to share and a myth to help create. That seems like a way to make a transition into "there is no Santa Claus" more positive.

santa claus - Page 2 - MotheringDotCommune Forums: "As for Santa, it was like a Rite of Passage when his true nature was revealed to me. I felt honored that I was old enough now to be trusted with this secret, and to be a part of creating that myth for children younger than me."

Santa Claus

This is how I feel about Santa Claus nowadays:

santa claus - MotheringDotCommune Forums: "[my son] recently asked me if machines and cars might really be Transformers from another planet. I didn't tell him yes or no. I asked what he thought and he told me that, since he's pretty sure there are aliens out there (I agree), there might be Transformers on Earth. He clearly wants to embrace this possibility and I did not affirm or deny -- just told him that nobody really knows what sort of other life exists out there in the universe. Humans don't know everything so I think it's perfectly fine for my 5-y-o to posit some of his own theories and try them on for size. Now, if he still believes that our dishwasher is Optimus Prime in hiding when he's 30, that could be problematic! Lol."

Monday, December 10, 2007

U.S. Is No Haven, Canadian Judge Finds - New York Times

U.S. Is No Haven, Canadian Judge Finds - New York Times:
"Late last month, a federal judge in Canada ruled that the United States had violated international conventions on torture and the rights of refugees.
...

There was a sound legal reason for Justice Phelan to be addressing American practices and policies. The case concerned a 2002 agreement between the United States and Canada on the treatment of people fleeing persecution from other places, and the agreement itself requires compliance with international conventions on refugees and torture.

Under the deal, which became effective three years ago this month, people from other countries entering Canada from the United States by land could no longer ask for asylum, on the theory that they should have done so in the United States. (The agreement works in reverse, too, but most refugee traffic moves north.)

You get one bite at the asylum apple, the agreement says, because you will get a fair shake in either country.

But the deal, known as the Safe Third Country Agreement, sets conditions based on the international conventions, and Justice Phelan said the United States had in recent years not lived up to them. He acknowledged that an English court had turned back a similar challenge to American refugee policy in 2000. But things have changed since the Bush administration came to power, Justice Phelan said, and the reasons given in the English decision “clearly relate to a different time.”

Justice Phelan declared the 2002 agreement invalid."

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Dual hats

Posted by Picasa

Even larger

Posted by Picasa

Eyelashes


Freaky picture, I understand... but look at those eyelashes!
Posted by Picasa

Monday, December 03, 2007

Delilah using two hands 2

Delilah using two hands

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Morning Life

Posted by Picasa

Delilah sucking her lip 2

Delilah sucking her lip 2

Delilah sucking her lip 1

One of Delilah's new quirks