Meditation or Medication

Can anyone give me an example of a spiritual experience that doesn't just fall into the realm of senses that are heightened or communicating better?

I don't like the term "spirituality". It doesn't have any clear meaning to me, while at the same time it has the ability to encompass anything the user likes. Its modern usage wraps the old religious baggage with the new age laundry, like a mouldy old trunk full of stinky damp straw men. I would say that of course, being a biased atheist. 

It does not mean that I am not interested in digging into the notion behind the term a bit more.

In 'Brain Cuttings', Carl Zimmer has a chapter on anaesthesia and talks about a possible way it works by disrupting communications between the senses (a bit like that TED talk about the neuro-scientist that experienced brain damage). 

Think of what are the opposite effects of anaesthesia. What would some specific sense heightener provide? What would some anti-anaesthesia heightened sense communication device be like? Perhaps meditation performs this action.

Given that idea, to me Aesthesia is a good secular replacement word of Spiritual. 

Symbolix Identity

So people rioted in Belfast over a decision to only fly the Union Jack over the city hall except on important days (like er, like the Duchess of Cambridge's birthday!).

Check out the pictures. Most colorful, if you like orange.

Now I would have thought that that reaction was fairly obvious but, that is a qualitative statement from having lived in Belfast and experienced some of the culture.

Is it possible we could have quantitatively predicted this result? I reckon so, and I'm gonna show you the numbers...

Do you have a flag?

So, there was a report done for the OFMDFM. You can try and read it here, though you might bleed from your eyes :-)

The kind folk at IEL let me have the original report data in the form of an ipseus file. There are 115 responses from across the community spectrum. The details of the make up are in that report.

I was interested in seeing if the flag thing jumped out of the results. Or better yet, could it have been predicted. Luckily there was a construct in the instrument used that directly references the issue.

Construct 9 opposed '...like flags and murals that reflect my traditions' against '...all flags etc should be removed'.

So my initial thinking was this construct should be fairly divisive and along traditional culture boundaries. First, I looked at the complete set of responses as one big group.

Below, the table of Construct results show an almost equal split between folks that believe flags are good (#57) and flags are bad (#58). Good and Bad should probably be surrounded in quotes there. From a group perspective 'flags are bad' comes out as 'good'!

'Structural Pressure' is kinda like a measure of conviction. A high positive value suggest a black and white view of a construct. A high negative value suggests that the individual/group say one thing but judge things in the opposite way; they don't walk the talk as it were.

A value around zero means that either the construct is irrelevant for making judgement (i.e. not significant) or that it depends on the situation (i.e. ask me at one time I'll say one construct pole is the positive one, ask me another time and the opposite pole could be the positive one). For a group, when there is a split in the group count favouring each pole, such conflicted constructs tend to mean that there are individuals that strongly favour one pole and others that strongly favour the other.

Ruling out the Rioters

So around the flag question we have two subgroups that we should look at in more detail. In ipseus you can set up some rules to automatically split up the full group of 115 individuals.

Here is the rule set I created to split up the group based on the flag question:

01	[FlagConstruct] 9
02	[@Flags] (-1 = Polarity( Rule( "FlagConstruct" ) )) AND StructuralPressure( "Secondary" ) < StructuralPressure( Rule( "FlagConstruct" ) ))
03	[@NoFlags] (1 = Polarity( Rule( "FlagConstruct" ) )) AND StructuralPressure( "Secondary" ) < StructuralPressure( Rule( "FlagConstruct" ) ))

When you create rules you can give them a name (just put some text inside [] at the start). If the rule name starts with an @ it means that you want that rule to become a criteria.

The “Flags” rule says that I want anyone that has endorsed the left pole of the construct (i.e. polarity equals -1) and they have some level of conviction behind that endorsement (structural pressure is positive and relatively large).

So I now want to create two sets of subgroups. One set splits folks up based on their view of the flags issue. Another breaks up the full group along the line of their traditional cultures (PUL - Protestant Unionist Loyalist or CNR - Catholic Nationalist Republican).
As I said, my initial thinking was that only the PUL folk would care about flags. However, that is a stupid bias based on the news images on the telly only showing Union Jacks (sometimes upside down!). In truth the flags thing, or cultural symbols to be more generic, should be important to some degree to both sides of the political spectrum.

For Flapping Flags?

So the next step was to intersect the Flags/NoFlags subgroups with the PUL/CNR subgroups. Running my 'Flags' and 'Traditions' rule had created new sets in he 'Criteria' section.

We can see that there are 31 individuals that like flags with some conviction, while the majority, 52, would prefer to ditch the symbolism. When we intersect the two criteria of interest we should see the flags question fairly split across the communities. And lookie here:

[NoFlags][All CNRs]	30
[NoFlags][All PULs]	22
[Flags][All CNRs]	11
[Flags][All PULs]	20

So, these numbers do suggest that the whole flag thing is a little more of a PUL issue than a CNR issue. Lets find out why.

Flag waving Prods

Now we have those subgroups we should look at the ipseus profile for each subgroup separately. The immediate one of interest is our rioting friends; the pro-flag PULs.

In order to see the make up of this subgroup I'm jumping to the Construct Summary section and looking for a stable pattern i.e. a good bunch of core/secondary convictions with a smattering of conflicted ones. Holy kak! The flag waving PULs are anything but. We actually get the opposite.

Our flag construct (#9) is only one of two core constructs. The second core construct (#16 local parades important) being very much related to that issue. A third related construct (#8 trouble at parades ok) also stands out. Everything else is is slipping into the conflicted, or don't know which way to swing, zone! In simple terms this pattern suggests that the subgroup has no identity other than the symbols they use to identify themselves; Flags, Parades with a little bit of religion slipping in there at the edge. Now, here is the crux of my argument thus far; if you have a significant minority of people with no cultural identity other than a few symbols, and you remove one of symbols, what the hell do you expect to happen!

Turning the tables

I want to now do two other things. First I want to flip the table and see if we would get the same reaction if it was an Irish Tricolor taken down from the roof of Belfast city hall by contrasting the flag waving PULs with the flag waving CNRs. Second I want to suggest a different policy that could be followed without undermining core struts to folks identity. So, here is the same Construct Summary screen for the flag waving CNRs:

Overall this CNR subgroup has a more stable profile. Few core convictions to be true, but less conflicted ones as well. While the 'flag' symbolism is still important, the parades issue (#8) is deemed not worth the hassle in opposition to their PUL brethren. From this I would predict that, while there would be deep upset over taken down their flag, there wouldn't be such a violent reaction. Construct #20 “...living peacefully by knowing and respecting each other” has some conviction behind it after all!

You didn't want to do that...

So the numbers support the notion, predictably, that dropping the Union Jack from the top of Belfast city hall was a bit of a stupid idea.

What about another option like flying a less prominent Irish flag along side it while educating everyone what the 'gold' in the green, white and gold stands for? There is contention in that idea and you would have to watch that the conviction around construct #15 “...CNRs gaining advantage” stays conflicted for both groups.

Trying to change ideas held with strong convictions just doesn't work without pain. So for a better way forward we need to focus on constructs that are conflicted for both groups, preferable ones that both groups agree on which pole is positive and which negative.

For example, taking construct #2 “...police better than paramilitaries” and construct #21 “...Irish sports, language and arts should be enjoyed by all sections of the community” together then the PSNI should be ramming “culture” down everyone's throats until both sides are sick of it and move on!
To be less flippant, this could mean police enforcement of flying both flags, police enforcing parades only with both sides of the community or having joint Gardai/PSNI rugby/GAA matches.

ipseus software

Folks, the software dedicated to the approach I talk about on this blog can be downloaded from http://www.ipseus.com/software/ipseus.zip

This zip file contains the ISA instrument editing, data collection and analysis package called ipseus. Use the ipseus.msi file to install the software.

The zip also contains a small standalone data collection module called participate. Simply copy the 'participate' directory wherever you need it, for example, onto a USB stick.

There is also an experimental instrument display that completely randomizes the instrument when people sit it. You can enable this randomization by creating a simple text file called settings.ini into your 'participate' directory. 

The settings.ini file should contain the following text:

[RespondLayoutControl]

RandomSeed=1

[RespondLayoutControl.End]

If you want to enable the same randomization inside of the ipseus program as well, also copy your settings.ini file into the ipseus installation directory (usually 'C:\Program Files\Identity Exploration\ipseus').

Please be aware that this is a local setting only. If you need multiple people collecting data you will have to make sure that everyone makes this local change. Alternatively package everything up with your own tailored version of participate for data collection. Future versions of ipseus will allows these options to be stored with the instrument [See Addendum below], or be on-line eventually.

If you are having a workshop with Professor Peter Weinreich, then he likes to use different settings that the default ones. You can change settings from the 'Options > Settings' menu. Peter's settings are shown below:

 

I'll add more posts on instrument creation, collection and analysis in time.

Feel free to post questions or email identityexploration [at] gmail [dot] com

----------------------------
[ADDENDUM]

So there is a new version of the software with an extra tab in the Instrument screen now to save your settings with the data. Check it out!

Perceived security and security perception

I have just read a chapter on the use of Bayesian theory to direct Russian artillery bombardment, to decrypt the Enigma messages and to search for German submarines, all during World War 2.

I have also just finished reading a few chapters on the ridiculous security theatre that goes on in airports these days, which I get to act in a lot when travelling with work.

I wonder if there is a connection between the finding of u-boats in the Atlantic with finding terrorist cells? Would some form of bayesian process help analyse all the data, rather than continuing to waste time having everyone drinking all their water and remove belts & shoes.

This is all going down at PZ Myers' and Sam Harris' blogs.

I see it like this...

If 10 minutes, on average, have been added for everyone in an airport security queue, and 630 millions folk go through US airports each year, then that's an extra ~12000 man/years added to standing in a queue. Given an average for a persons life span of about 80 years, that's roughly 150 people 'die' from standing in pointless airport security queues each year.

It's been over a decade since 9/11 so that's 1500 people 'dead' over this time. Let's double that number to roughly cover the rest of the world. So 3000 people have 'died' because of extended, pointless security theatre.

I find that as terrible as 3000 people dying suddenly in one act of terrorism.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Identification Conflict

Check out this article from the Guardian

So what is the underlying psychological process going on here from the perspective of ISA and how could be picked it apart with a ipseus instrument.

There are two aspects at work. First, how do you evaluate someone, including yourself? Do you evaluate positively or negatively? Second, how much do you see of yourself in the other person?

You can share attributes that you deem negative with someone else, even though you evaluate the other positively. This is part of an identification conflict.

What's going on in that ad though is the other type of identification conflict. They are trying to link a shared attribute that would generally be deemed positive with someone who would generally be evaluated negatively.

To resolve the identification conflict you can either change your mind on which side of the fence you deem positive, which is unlikely if that attribute spectrum is backed with a strong conviction.

Alternatively, you can accept that the world is not black & white, that there is some bad in good people & some good in bad people, and not let silly emotional advertising like this have any effect.

I should invoke Godwin's rule now and mention Hitler and atheism in the same sentence now, but I won't :-)



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Characters with dimensions

When we read reviews of movies and books we often hear the phrase "the characters were very two dimensional". I assume everyone understands what is intended by this phrase at least intuitively or qualitatively? However, what's to stop us taking the statement literally and hence allowing for the possibility of quantitative measures. So, what are the dimensions of a two dimension character?

One could be a moral dimension, is the character good or bad? Another, dimension might be something like on-screen presence, which i will limit with the personality type labels introvert and extrovert. I should really go read a few books on cinema to see if there are any more genre appropriate dimensions but these will do.

Anyway, the first moral dimension has a pretty clear positive pole. No guesses which one. Welcome to tautology club! The second dimension isn't so straight forward. Our current social zeitgeist would probably have extroversion as the positive pole, but the introverts are certainly making themselves heard. Ah, bless you twitter!

Now even with just two dimensions characters could be pretty complex. Sure, we could get easy stereotypes if we stuck to the extremes of our scales ...

	Good	Bad
Extrovert	Hero	Villain
Introvert	Damsel	Henchman

... but, despite what our popular press would have us believe, things are not always black and white.

Think of the villain who turns good in the end (Megamind). Or the henchman who is really the main villain (The Usual Suspects). Or some of the literally 2D characters from Disney cartoons (Beauty and the Beast). Or any of the literally 3D characters from Pixar (Toy Story).

Even if we only have two dimensions to measure against we can still come up with very interesting personalities, or better yet, identities. Personality, relates to the long term trend characters have and it would take a pretty major event to change this (The Bourne Identity). Identity, is much more fun to look at as it encompasses so much more subtle possibilities for change based on underlying personality, past experiences, environmental circumstance and present emotional state (um, The Bourne Identity). The important part I am trying to make is that interesting characters have the ability to change over time and the really cool ones adapt to circumstances.

Me vs Me

There is only one 'me'? Nah, I am a trinity. There's the past me, the current me and the future me. In fact, I'm more a full on pantheon. There is the at work me, the at play me, the ideal me, the me if I won the lottery...

I wonder if a Fenyman diagram would be appropriate for the concept of me :-)

Anyway, I was watching this fun TED talk. I read about this sort of thing in a few places now. Richard Wiseman's books, Steven Levitt, Dan Gilbert ...

I'm not a god of course, or a god head or an Icke style son of god, but psychology does screw up the purity of maths