Targeted Individuals Part I

This is a two part series on how an estimated 3,500 people within the United States are experiencing electronic harassment from subcontractors hired from the Department of Defense to experiment on civilians with mind control technologies. You will have to wait for the technical discussion on the technologies employed along with a refutation of the medical communities refusal of accepting the claims of targeted individuals. The first part is to set the stage of mind control by providing a brief history. I have also included a chapter from Dr. Hall’s book titled Guinea Pigs. Dr. Hall is an anesthesiologist who is a targeted individual and has interviewed thousands of others. I will refine this post with more citations and information as time goes on.


All truth passes through three phases.
First it is ridiculed. Secondly, it is violently opposed.  Third, it is accepted as being self evident.
– Arthur Schopenhauer

A Silent Crime

A Silent Crime

Introduction

Freethoughtblog’s themes include science, atheism, equality, and human rights. This topic involves an abuse of human rights; it is about how individuals across the globe have become targets for electronic harassment. If that is not enough, the medical community destroys the reputation of TI’s (Targeted Individuals) by concluding that they have a mental illness. It is unconscionable how practitioners arrogantly jump to a medical conclusion without considering other causes. The practice of jumping to your favorite conclusion, which is what you were trained on, reminds me of the adage “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

I have found two posts by a psychotherapist, Kim Whiting, who has read over 400 letters from victims and posted her conclusions here. What these TI’s all have in common is that that they have been harassed by similar tactics, especially one in particular, directed energy (no, this is not science fiction!). Whiting, however, has concluded that 80% of the TI’s have mental illnesses. It is not clear to her whether or not the 20% are being intentionally harmed. In any case, she admits that directed energy technology exists.

Unfortunately, psychotherapists are not explicitly trained in the realm of critical thinking. Even if the therapist is a clinical psychologist or had a focus in quantitative research within their program, this is a topic that is not formally touched upon [i]. Coursework will teach them how to differentiate between pathologies but not to distinguish between good and bad reasoning. If Whiting was a cognitive scientist or a philosophy major trained in logic, perhaps her conclusions would have been different. Unfortunately, this is not so.

The reported experiences of TI’s can be hypothesized to be caused by either a mental illness or being electronically harassed through the DoD’s mind control technologies. Of course they could be mistaken or liars, both unlikely.

My conclusion is that subcontractors hired by the department of defense have been experimenting on civilians with directed energy and remote neural monitoring. This governmental agency is experimenting on us to help determine how effective their technologies can manipulate and control the mind. These technologies were developed by universities and private industry decades ago and have now become weaponized. Cognitive warfare appears to be where the military industrial complex is headed. There is good reason to believe that the experiments are for the life-time of the individual to test for the chronic exposure to microwaves[]. Dr. Hall, a former targeted individual, has conducted over 1,000 interviews with people who all experience the same symptoms. Robert Duncan, a researcher who has worked on these technologies, has interviewed over 2,500 targeted individuals who also have the same symptoms []. A shared symptomatology that in many respects does not resemble a mental illness along with their similar testimony constitutes as strong evidence in favor of them being targeted individuals []. The fact that the DoD has a long history of experimenting with mind control tactics, drugs, and technologies makes this event more than plausible.


Probability and Conspiracies

I find it troubling that many call themselves skeptics and do so because they like the image. Moreover, skepticism does not mean to adapt obstinance when there are unusual claims. Unfortunately, we will be “unmoved” if we are not educated on a topic. When we do not posses the knowledge, then our intuition will make us believe that an event is implausible. And unless we have either experienced it ourselves or have the knowledge we will never be moved by the evidence. Furthermore, to be moved, we must possess the frames to do so. Frames allow us to make sense out of facts. We will build the necessary framework to interpret the facts here. Lastly, we cannot use motivated reasoning. This means that we start with a conclusion and then reason our way with only the facts that support our conclusion. We must look at all conclusions (i.e., causes) as well as account for all of the evidence!No, we cannot explain evidence away if it does not fit our conclusion. That is an indication that something has gone awry.

These are not the only errors that people commit. When we reason with probabilities, then we seem to rely on what we know, which is high school probability theory. This is when each event is equally probable to occur. Equally probable is not always a good model. We cannot simply divide 2500 interviewed people in US with symptoms with 300,000,000 total people in the US and say that we have a negligible chance of being targeted. These people were probably not selected at random which would bias the selection process to make any particular individual more likely to be chosen than some other individual. We need to be thinking Bayesian here, and Bayesian’s clash with frequentists. A Bayesian approach is arguably superior when dealing with these types of claims.

When people say that this is an improbable event, then they are thinking of the prior probability! We could use that ratio above as our prior probability despite it being unrealistic, but there is another probability in Bayesian terms. This is the likelihood! The prior probability is the model assigned before we see the data, while the likelihood is the probability assigned after seeing the data. The event becomes arguably very probable once we see it in terms of the evidence. The likelihood is how expected is the evidence if the hypothesis is true. In short, there are always two probabilities. Be weary if someone says that the probability is a simple ratio.

We are conditioned to believe that government conspiracies are, well, “conspiracies”. And we think conspiracies are for “crazy” people. Saying that something is a “conspiracy theory” works in the favor of the conspirators. And saying that something is a conspiracy theory out of misbelief is only discouraging institutional analysis. Homo sapiens are the most manipulative species on the planet bar none. Do not ever think for a second that people can’t harm, deceive, and manipulate others. When it is a concerted effort, then we call it a conspiracy. This does not mean we can’t give some the benefit of the doubt since people can also be trustworthy when their reputations are on the line. We are a complicated species with inner contradictions and many tensions.


End-Game of DoD

What are they up to? The answer is kind of disappointing. Everyone thinks their lives are the most important but that isn’t true to the war machine.  TIs are just a data point amongst 10s of thousands. The short answer is data collection of mind control, practice, improve the victory of all possible outcomes, plausible deniable assassinations, false flag terrorism, and to incite wars.

Targeted individuals are experiencing a form of experimentation that follows a progression of phases that include selection, surveillance, stalking, defamation, attack, and monitoring. These six phases may have some overlap; however, they are distinct enough to separate them into phases. The time spent on each phase may vary from individual to individual and is probably a reflection of the desires of the perpetrator of the experimentation.

Before we get into mind control and evidence, I will cut to the chase. Here is what Dr. Duncan has concluded what the DoD is doing. The above quote discusses objectives while below shows the protocol for the electronic harassment and mind control. Below shows the actual algorithm of the DoD. Remember that most of these programs are classified.

Confuse -> Terrorize, Torture, and Scare

  • Psychoanalysis of personality, Interrogation, Memory Retrieval
    • Program Tactics (dream manipulation, depattering, neural linguistic programming, and behavior modification)

Goals and Outcome -> Act Irrationally in public, get locked up in mental health hospital, create track record of mental illness

  • Assign targets to Tis who are programmed as assassins and terrorists
    • Tis will Kill specific targets OR kill themselves (dispose of target)

History of Mind Control

Goals of mind control by the DoD: get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature. [3]

Let us establish that the DoD has a track record and interest in mind control as a weapon since 1950. This is taken from Renee Pitmann’s book titled “Remote Brain Targeting – Evolution of Mind Control in U.S.A.” who is not only a victim of experimentation but unintentionally contributed to mind control technology. In each one of these snippets below, research was inevitably conducted on the civilian population [3].

1950: As CIA’s Project BLUEBIRD expands, the CIA-contracted psychiatrists’ experimental purposes and activities include inducing amnesia, inserting hypnotic access codes in subjects’ minds, controlling behavior from remote transmitters with brain electrodes, administering LSD to children, and using electroshock to erase memories.

1951: CIA’s Project BLUEBIRD evolves into Project ARTICHOKE, with goals such as “get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature.”

1953: CIA Director Allen Dulles authorizes a new expanded mind-control program, MK-ULTRA, brainchild of Richard Helms, a high-ranking member of CIA’s Clandestine Services.

1958: U.S. corporations, including Westinghouse, General Electric, and Bell Telephone have begun telepathy research.

1960’s: Neurophone – A device that converts sound to electrical impulses; allowing information to be transmitted to the brain by means of radio waves directed at any part of the body (skin). In other words, recorded or live messages, noise, music can be directed at an individual and, through the nerves, the signal will be carried (involuntarily) to the brain, bypassing the inner ear, the cochlea, and the 8th cranial nerve. In its original form electrodes were placed on the skin but with defense department developments, the signals can be delivered via satellite.

1961: The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is created in the Department of Defense (DOD) by DOD Directive 5105.21, August 1, 1961. [NOTE: After the 1971-1972 creation of the CIA-initiated remote viewing program, its administration later gets transferred, at least in part, to DIA as one action of the remote viewing shell-game of secrecy that goes on for decades.]

1962: A book published in the Soviet Union, “Biological Radio Communication,” claims “experimental confirmation of the fact that communication between two people separated by long distances can be carried out through water, over air and across metal barrier by means of cerebral radiation in the course of thinking, and without conventional communication facilities.”[

1963: CIA’s Richard Helms attempts to defend CIA drug operations like Midnight Climax by telling CIA Inspector General John Earman that such testing has been necessary “to keep up with the Soviets.”

1965: Psychiatrist Jose Delgado gives a mind control demonstration in Spain with a bull: he presses a button on a radio transmitter and the bull brakes to a halt. He presses another button and the bull turns to the right and trots away, obeying commands being delivered through radio signals to brain regions in which fine wires had been planted the day before.

1965: working under the auspices of CIA’s MK-ULTRA, prepares a review article entitled “Extrasensory Perception.” It says ESP has been demonstrated, but is not understood or controllable.

1966: Harold “Hal” Puthoff from NSA and Ingo Swann from the UN enroll in Scientology, supposedly unknown to each other. Within five years they will be at the highest levels of Scientology and under secret contract with CIA to developremote viewing for military intelligence.

1971: In one of a series of long-distance remote viewing experiments at ASPR, OT VII Ingo Swann suggests calling the experiments “remote sensing” or “remote viewing.”[

1972: “The Soviet Union is well aware of the benefits and applications of parapsychology research. The term parapsychology denotes a multi-disciplinary field consisting of the sciences of bionics, biophysics, psychophysics, psychology, physiology and neuropsychology.

Robert Duncan’s Summary of Mind Control

Many of the discovered government mind control programs use trauma based conditioning.  Here is a short list of revealed programs.  Project Bluebird, initiated in 1949, was the first CIA behavior modification program.  Bluebird morphed into Project Artichoke to create programmed assassins and split personality spies.  Then the CIA added to the goals of the program into its most famous mind control program, MKultra, for espionage, counter-espionage, and clandestine manipulation of global politics. Thousands of pages were declassified on this program during the 70’s Church hearings.  These programs were followed by many others under new names and budgets such as MKdelta, MKsearch, Chatter, Spell Binder, MkNaomi, etc.  The current programs are classified but MKultra continues in new forms and under new names and budgets.  Another common program is a trauma induced form of mind control call Monarch programming. Project Stargate was a cover story of psychic spying however it used very advanced remote sensing and influencing technologies on human beings which has become global. The leaked newer programs follow Disney themes.


Targeted Individuals (Taken from Guinea Pigs by Dr. John Hall [2])

This is not to infer that the individuals suffering at the hands of current technological experimentation fit in the category of separatists. In most cases they do not appear to be separatists, radicals or anti-government. I am merely attempting to explain, from a governmental viewpoint, their plausible need to develop more sophisticated means of controlling the population. The governments from every industrialized nation no longer seek to merely govern their people. The emphasis has changed from governing populations to controlling populations with the United Nations helping pave the way through a myriad of programs.

The group, feeling the brunt of this slow conversion from representative to mental totalitarianism refers to themselves as target individuals or “T.I.s.” This rapidly growing group of individuals is the one voicing the complaints of exposure to electromagnetic technologies meant to alter cognition and physiology. While many of these accounts could’ve been written off as mental illness a decade ago the frequency and similarity of the complaints being vocalized currently point toward a much different etiology. The lack of legislation against nonconsensual experimentation, the willingness of the government to participate in nonconsensual experimentation and the known research and development of electromagnetic weapons validate these claims as probable covert experimentation. I have interviewed thousands of the people voicing these complaints both alone and through Freedom from Covert Surveillance and Harassment, an advocacy organization offering support to the victims. My descriptions of the experiences of these “targeted individuals” are based upon my interviews as well as statistical data provided by FFCHS through extensive surveys that they regularly conduct. Of note, FFCHS is not the only support group that has formed. Many other support groups have developed to handle the exponentially growing number of complaints that are being voiced.

After several thousand interviews and many hours of mulling over questionnaires filled out by victims, I have pieced together an explanation of their experiences. The reader has probably noticed that I do not refer to the victims with descriptive terms like “alleged” or “probable.” After completing this book the reader will be equally convinced that this is a real phenomenon that is destroying the lives of thousands of individuals and their families. Undoubtedly, many victims and non-victims alike will disagree with some of my findings and descriptions of this phenomenon. However, while some victims may have circumstances that differ slightly from my template, the overwhelming majority are experiencing a very methodical progression of experimentation that fits well into the template that I am hypothesizing. Targeted individuals are experiencing a form of experimentation that follows a progression of phases that include selection, surveillance, stalking, defamation, attack, and monitoring. These six phases may have some overlap; however, they are distinct enough to separate them into phases. The time spent on each phase may vary from individual to individual and is probably a reflection of the desires of the perpetrator of the experimentation. Again, the description is based upon a compilation of data and counter-intelligence gathered from surveillance of a perpetrator group identified in San Antonio, Texas. The group in Texas that was counter-surveilled has been independently identified by four unrelated victims from four different geographic areas of Texas.

Selection of a target may be for a myriad of reasons at the local level. One must remember this technology is not available to the average person. The groups perpetrating this type of experimentation are given access to the technology as covert, independent contractors of the government agencies responsible for its development. This research is a continuation of earlier behavioral control operations which were mostly done through front companies. The current experimentation is no different. The groups given access to the technology are allowed to choose victims for any reason they deem necessary. The agencies behind the technology are merely interested in collecting the data on its successes or failures. Therefore, as the data is collected at the top from each of the many perpetrator groups, the selection of victims probably appears random. The selection demographics look very different at the local level.

While a small number of victims have come forward with convincing evidence of direct harassment from various government agencies, these are mostly whistle-blowers employed by the same agencies and comprised the minority. Most victims are everyday people who would be considered “common” by most standards. Through interviews and questionnaires, we have found some trends among the victim population. A large percentage of the victims are female. Most of these female victims have reported drug facilitated rape and sexual assault. This is probably not a part of the experimentation as much as a representation of the criminal nature of the perpetrator group. Technology that allows for complete surveillance, stalking, and subliminal control makes sexual assault a very easy crime to accomplish. While rape has been used in the past as a part of mental programming through trauma, it appears that it is seen more as a “perk” among the current experimental perpetrators. Nonetheless, it is no less physically traumatic and psychologically damaging to the victim. One group of victims in Palm Springs, California does appear to be targeted sexually. This group of mostly gay men is being audibly harassed by the same female voice through the microwave auditory effect as well as being victimized through drug assisted sexual assault. Obviously this represents a psychological hatred on the part of the group perpetuating these crimes in that area. However, to summarize, the selection of targets for inclusion into this experimental protocol may be specific at the local level with some aspect of particular traits that are sought out by the perpetrators. At the agency level, where the data is ultimately compiled, each perpetrator group’s inclusion criteria probably average out to give the target population a random appearance.

Surveillance of the chosen target closely follows selection. The surveillance phase differs from the stalking phase in that during the surveillance phase the target is unaware that it is occurring. Once selected, the target is extensively surveilled through multiple means which include background checks, credit checks, mail tampering, email hacking and direct observation, both physically and electronically. Surveillance accomplishes several important goals that are integral to the success of the remainder of the operation. It allows the perpetrator to accurately determine the target’s daily living activities. Most importantly, where they live, work, bank and how they spend their leisure time are quickly assessed. The people they spend the majority of their time with are identified and scaled in order of importance. For instance, highly valued circumferential targets would include the target’s close family members, supervisors, physicians, clergy and anyone else that they may spend substantial time communicating with. This allows the perpetrators to know with reasonable certainty who the target will confide in once they are aware of their targeting. During this phase the target’s social status is ascertained with regard to their relationships with loved ones, neighbors, co-workers, supervisors, and others. Any participation in taboo behavior such as drug use, excessive alcohol intake, domestic violence, infidelity or pornography are especially noted and followed up on very closely. All the data collected during this phase will be used to control, mislead, defame, and isolate the target. Also, during this phase the perpetrators will often have neighbors, co-workers and relatives assisting them with the surveillance. This is usually accomplished by misleading those individuals into thinking they are assisting with a legitimate law enforcement investigation. In one instance the private investigative agency perpetuating the surveillance identified themselves to a target’s neighbor as FBI agents, complete with fraudulent identification badges. One would be very surprised at the number of people who fall for this ploy without even asking for appropriate identification or contacting the alleged agency to inquire if the surveillance is legitimate. Ignorance of the laws, both nationally and at the state level, regarding surveillance and right to privacy, make this a very effective ploy. The successful application of this technique by the perpetrators will later legitimize the defamation phase and protect them from possible arrest during the stalking phase. With the neighbors believing that they are assisting with an investigation by a legitimate agency, they are more apt to believe the defamatory remarks they are told about the target. Moreover, they are less likely to call the police and report the vehicles they see parked in front of the target’s home throughout the night.

Stalking of the target is a natural extension of the surveillance phase. These phases differ in that the surveillance phase is usually unknown to the target while the stalking phase is done with full awareness of the target. In current literature, the stalking phase of this type of victimization is usually described as gang stalking, organized stalking, or cause-stalking. Gang stalking and cause-stalking are inaccurate descriptions in that they imply either street gang involvement or some grandiose reasoning behind the stalking. Organized stalking is probably the most accurate description, reflecting the highly organized and methodically planned out form of stalking that these victims experience. The methods involved are directly adapted from the COINTELPRO operations ran by the FBI in the 1950’s and 1960’s against groups seen as radical elements. The tactics include total inundation of the target at home and wherever they may go, breaking and entering of their domicile and physical harassment and intimidation. Electronic harassment is used during this phase with regard to email tampering, computer hacking, cell phone spoofing and cyber-bullying. More exotic forms of electronic harassment are covered as part of the attack phase but may be present in any phase of this type of victimization. The stalking phase serves several important functions for the group perpetuating the operation to insure that the target is totally enveloped in the operation with minimal chance of escape. It places the victim in a victim-mind state of hopelessness, especially once the victim has been ignored by police agencies through which the victim has sought help. Stalking is very difficult for police agencies to prosecute under normal circumstances. Police assistance in cases of organized stalking where the victim’s everyday actions have been studied through surveillance for months or years is nearly futile. In addition, the stalkers are highly trained, often with federal or local law enforcement backgrounds themselves, in pushing the envelope just short of giving the police a reason to investigate. The hopelessness that ensues from the feeling that all backs have been turned from believing or assisting the victim is integral to the success of the operation. After repeated police complaints of break-ins where nothing is stolen and personal belongings have been rifled through, the victim is labeled mentally unsound and further police complaints are ignored. Only felony burglary will be investigated by law enforcement agencies. Criminal trespassing will only result in a report that is filed away without an investigation. At worst, multiple complaints of stalking and criminal trespassing will result in a psychiatric referral or mandatory twenty-four hour psychiatric evaluation. The inability of the victim to get appropriate law enforcement assistance helps instill the belief that law enforcement is complicit in their victimization and limits them from further complaints. Once this level of hopelessness is achieved, the perpetrators feel confident in escalating their stalking to more frequent breaking and entering as well as physical and sexual assault with less risk of arrest. The victim mind state often causes the target to go into an extreme state of reclusion which furthers their chance of a psychiatric diagnosis once a psychiatric exam is requested or mandated. This part of the operation has been brilliantly designed with assistance from psychiatric professionals and is a scenario that continues to play out to perfection in almost every case.

The stalking phase serves another purpose. The victim must be located through GPS in order for the constellation of other modalities to be used on them. This can be accomplished in several different ways. Stalking may be a way of performing constant 24/7 GPS location through GPS enabled devices in the hands of the stalkers. This obviates the need for tracking chips in the victim and explains why the stalking phase almost always comes to an abrupt end with only the electronic harassment remaining. At one time chipping the target, much like GPS chipping of animals to study migratory patterns, was probably the more common scenario. However, this exposes the perpetrator group to the possibility of arrest for physical assault if caught and provides evidence of assault to the victim if the chip is found. A less risky alternative to stalking the victim close enough to remotely GPS them until their EEG can be catalogued and used through remote neural monitoring for the remainder of the operation. Our research has reinforced this fact. We have frequency scanned thousands of victims for covertly placed micro-chips with very few found on x-ray or MRI. To add to the confusion, part of the operation is apparently to convince the target that they have been chipped. This causes them to exhaust their finances looking for an embedded device that doesn’t exist with such fervor that it contributes to their psychiatric diagnosis. Essentially, while chipping was once integral to the operation, it is now part of the psychological victimization. However, because many people have been complaining of this targeting for a decade or more, scanning for a tracking chip should probably be part of their work-up. Most recently, Bob Boyce, an inventor from Georgia, was allegedly chipped by an agent involved with the NSA. His chip was found on x-ray and removed by a surgeon. It was a Verichip brand chip that was covertly placed in the tissue of his lateral shoulder where it underwent malignant changes. This case is still in litigation. For the record, in an email correspondence with the makers of Verichip, they assured me that they do not condone covert chipping with their product nor will it function as a GPS tracking chip. The serial number on Boyce’s chip allegedly was traced back to a lot of chips sold to the United States government. I will allow the reader to make their own decision regarding the sincerity and the reply I received from Verichip. Nonetheless, the fact that we are not routinely finding chips in the multitude of victims and the targeting continues in those with chips removed tells me that it’s being done through other means with chipping or stalking being used strictly as a method of location. Dr. Robert Duncan, in Soul Catcher: Secrets of Cybernetic Warfare Revealed puts forth this same assumption.

The stalking phase takes place hand-in-hand with the defamation phase. Inevitably, the stalkers are occasionally caught and questioned by neighbors, onlookers, or possibly local law enforcement officials. The excuse most often given to those who question the stalking is that the target is under official investigation for a drug, sex, or criminal crime. Since most of this type of stalking is usually done by private investigative groups, they often have former officers on their payroll or close enough relationships with local municipalities that the police question them no further. Neighbors that have noticed the 24/7 stalking are usually receptive of the drug or sex crime excuse for the simple reason that only a legitimate agency would spend the money necessary to surveil someone “really dangerous” for twenty four hours per day. The PI groups in San Antonio, Texas would present themselves as FBI agents since their company’s owner is former FBI. Neighbors or others who notice the organized stalking will almost always believe this excuse. The defamation eventually leads the target to extreme measures to deny the allegations made against them which in turn make them look that much guiltier. The defamation is much worse for licensed professionals such as doctors, lawyers, teachers, nurses or any state licensed professional. The “drug addiction” scenario is most often used in these cases where the mere mention of a drug problem will usually mandate that they undergo drug screening. Illicit drugs are usually placed in the victim’s food or drinks that they are known to consume frequently through months of surveillance. Once their appropriate licensing agency is notified of their possible drug problem, the stalkers ensure that they will test positively for the drug that they are accused of abusing. This scenario works with near 100% effectiveness in destroying the career of the victim. The ultimate goal of the stalking and defamation phase is to get the target diagnosed as mentally ill or drug addicted to ensure job loss where they will be more apt to remain home where the rest of the operation can be accomplished. Incidentally, the stalking and defamation phases are also the two easiest points in this operation to intervene successfully and bring it to a halt. Unfortunately, most victims, out of fear or suspicion that they are being targeted by a legitimate investigative agency, do not pursue this. Moreover, until recently most states have had very weak anti-stalking laws that are not easily enforced. Texas has taken the lead in 2011 with a bill written by state legislator Jane Nelson and Judith Zaffirini that was passed into law. The bill was written after a young woman who complained of stalking to the Bexar County Sheriff’s Department was written off as mentally ill. Her stalker had held her at gunpoint while forcing her to slit her own wrists and write a suicide letter. She survived but was largely ignored by the appropriate agencies she entrusted to help her. Several months later her stalker followed her to work and murdered her in the parking lot. According to the new law, a restraining order can be issued now against an alleged stalker without first proving bodily injury by that person or persons. Furthermore, the definition of stalking has been changed to make the charge much easier to put forth. Unfortunately, this charge did not come in time for Kristi Appleby for whom the law was changed. An organized effort should be undertaken to force every state to follow suit in altering their stalking rules. This will make defending against organized stalking much easier. Currently, the perpetrators of this type of stalking take full advantage of the lack of legislation against it.

While it appears that I am solely placing blame on independent private investigative agencies for the stalking, I am not excluding participation by corrupt individuals that are active duty law enforcement at federal and local levels. This does occur, as I will illustrate. One must remember that the technology being used to commit these crimes originates at the federal government level. Hence, it is seen being used most often by private investigative agencies that are owned and operated by former FBI agents. These individuals maintain contacts with the agency who work with them in a reciprocal relationship. These relationships are imperative to the defamation phase. The majority of the public, dumbed down by years in the American public school system, will believe the defamatory lies told about a target by the private investigators. However, the more educated members of society, who see private investigators as nothing more than licensed criminals, will question the legitimacy of what they are being told about a family member, friend, or co-worker. An active duty police officer or FBI agent spreading this same misinformation is seen as much more credible by the people being subjected to it. My own experience with defamation serves as a good example of active duty FBI employees taking part in this phase. A close friend of mine received a call on her cell phone from someone claiming to be an FBI agent, asking her to come in for questioning. The term, “asking”, I am using loosely. She was actually told that she would be formally requested to come in and if she did not come in voluntarily. Fearful from the threat, she reported as instructed to the FBI office in San Antonio, Texas. After going through their metal detectors and having a copy of her driver’s license made, she was greeted by an FBI agent. Special Agent J.A. questioned her extensively about my first book. A New Breed: Satellite Terrorism in America. Of course, he downplayed the existence of the technology mentioned in the book. In finishing the interview, he told her not to believe anything I talk about, that I was a “piece of shit” and she would do well to stop communicating with me. He added that I was not under any type of official investigation, inadvertently admitting that this was strictly harassment. This occurrence is my first experience with active duty FBI personnel taking part in the defamation phase. I assume that this is probably going on in other cases as well. As of the writing of this book I have yet to be questioned by this agent directly. One would surmise that questioning the author of the book would serve them better than harassing the author’s friends who have only read the book. Again, the fact that they have not directly questioned me leads me to believe that their goal was purely harassment, defamation and an attempt to prevent this book from being released.

The best defense against defamation is to know your neighbors well and live a good life. Despite the stalking and attacks, one should do their best to function normally. Continue to work, attend church, children’s activities or whatever social activities you would ordinarily be expected to attend. Reclusive behavior will lead people to believe the lies being told about you. Moreover, stick to victim’s forums or organizations that handle victims of this type of crime to vent frustrations or talk about your experiences. Repeated attempts to convince nonbelievers of what you are going through will further align their belief with the doubts about your sanity that they’re being told. Moreover, if you are using illicit drugs, STOP! Illicit drug use can and will be used against you, not only to defame you but the entire crime will be blamed on drug induced psychosis. The government has specifically targeted drug abusers for mind control experimentation ever since the early MKULTRA subprojects, solely for the reason that they are easily discredited. In conclusion, visibility in your community and normal societal interactions are key in defeating the defamation phase. This is a lesson learned from the perpetrators themselves. The perpetrator groups in the San Antonio area have ingrained themselves so well in their community as good Methodist, wholesome people, that I wager no one that knows them would suspect or believe the atrocities they have committed. Victims must do the same. Living your life as a recluse, placing foil in the windows and constantly talking about this issue to people who are uniformed will worsen your plight.

The attack phase is characterized by directed-energy attacks meant to disrupt normal physiologic functioning. It may occur at any time during a victim’s targeting but is most noticeable as a distinct phase late in the targeting. Early attacks, prior to the victim’s awareness of stalking or defamation, may be perceived as ordinary physiological medical issues. Often the victim has multiple physician visits with complaints of muscle twitching, headaches, heart palpitations, skin burning and other more obscure complaints with nothing medically abnormal found. Later in their targeting the attacks are accompanied with voice to skull transmissions that make it very obvious to the victim that their ailments are not the result of medical pathology. Once the perpetrators are certain the victim is hearing their transmissions and have noticed the stalking, the attacks will escalate. During the attack phase, the victim can expect to be assailed almost twenty-four hours per day. If the victim is lucky enough to still be employed by the time this phase begins, attacks will be used as their key weapons to sleep deprive the victim. Often, the attacks will subside just long enough for the victim to fall asleep with hopes that they will sleep through their alarm and be tardy or absent to work. Remember, the goal of this phase is complete annihilation of the victim’s personal and professional life. This phase will continue until these goals are met or the perpetrator group is diverted or hired to target someone else. Manpower constraints within the perpetrator group will often result in abrupt cessation of attack as they focus their attention on another target that they’ve been directed or paid to attack. However, the victim will still usually have the infrequent attacks as a reminder that they are still being watched and are not entirely free from the program.

According to Dr. Robert Duncan PhD, in his book “Soul Catcher: secrets of cybernetic warfare revealed, the attacks are the result of central nervous system manipulation. In effect, the brain is being manipulated to manifest the physical symptoms of twitching, burning, spasms and other symptoms.” While this may be true, almost all of the victims also report electrical disturbances within their homes. It is my belief that some of the attacks are secondary to directed energy attacks at specifically targeted peripheral nerves, muscles and organs and not strictly through the central nervous centers controlling them. In effect, the same directed energy modalities being used to open and close garage doors, turn lights on and off and disrupt computer screens in the victim’s home may also be used to physically attack the victim at targeted sites other than the brain. This may explain why neuro programming to alter the EEG in most victims does stop some, but not all, of the attacks. It would stand to reason that with the myriad of weapons within the electromagnetic spectrum at their disposal, the mode of attack would be variable in nature and not dependent solely upon central nervous system manipulation.

The weapons used in the attack phase include microwave, millimeter wave, radio-frequency, laser and probably scalar modalities. All of these modalities have been researched extensively and weaponized for military use as mentioned earlier in the book. While they have all been identified under the heading of “non-lethal” weapons, non-lethality in the research setting was not based on 24/7 exposure. Moreover, the exact effect of their exposure long term on the human body is not known, at least not in official research. The victims of the current experimentation may be the guinea pigs of some type of long term exposure protocol that is too unethical to be done under a legitimate Institutional Review Board with consenting volunteers.

The attack phase is followed by the monitoring phase. Having worked with multiple victims that have been victimized for varying lengths of time, it is clear that the victims have been chosen for experimentation for the duration of their lifetime. Dr. Duncan and I are in agreement that the targeting is done for the life of the individual. However, once the goals of the perpetrators have been met, namely, social, personal and occupational destruction, the attack phase often lessens. As mentioned earlier, this victim will experience the occasional attack as a reminder to them that they are still being watched. Apparently, one of the rules of this experimental protocol is that once a victim is chosen, he or she must be monitored until their natural death occurs. Many victims are drawn to suicide by their respective perpetrators. This may be an attempt by the perpetrator groups to prematurely end the monitoring phase of one particular victim so manpower can be focused on other victims. The psychological resilience of the victim to the stress of the experimentation obviously plays a factor as well. From a medical perspective, the monitoring phase is probably to denote any immune problems, cancers, psychiatric problems or diseases that may result from the long term exposure to the electromagnetic weapons used in the experimentation. These issues will need to be elucidated before those modalities are released on the population as a whole for psycho-social control. In 1971 Dr. Jose Delgado, and MKULTRA researcher, published “Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society.” His research required implanting the brain with a micro-chip to acquire the desired results. The development of directed energy has allowed for more efficient delivery with even better results without the need for brain implantation.


Credibility and Background

I must mention a trend I see in those who have already made up their mind. Time and time again individuals will target the credibility and background of the researchers. I realize that having advanced degrees is correlated with motivation and intelligence, but no advanced degrees are required to understand how something works. It takes interest and motivation to understand these types of mechanisms with a descent background in computers, physics, chemistry, and biology. As far as having someone qualified enough to assess whether or not these technologies are possible realities, it takes a person within that specific industry to come forward. Every individual that is listed as a source has either been a targeted individual, has a medical degree, or is intimate and passionate about the technology and some even involved in the industry of mind control weaponry. Ability and backgrounds are non issues.

What about liars or those with ulterior motives? Every now and then we can find an outright liar who has motives to advance their image at any cost, even the truthfulness of their content or background may be suspect. But this is rare. Most people, especially those who spend their life in an industry or academia, value and guard their reputation. Every source that I have used has been personally affected by their experiences with this technology. At worst, a researcher may frame their educational background in a self-serving way which may mislead us. This does not mean that they are liars always and everywhere, but instead may indicate the outside pressure to meet the harsh opinions of others. Each source that I have picked strikes me as genuinely concerned about the use of mind control weaponry such that we should give them the benefit of the doubt.


Notes

More about Renee Pittman

My work at the time was involved with an AI database for paranormal references (Project Parafile). A second paper was also presented at the Omniversal Symposium, California State College at Sonoma, (September 29, 1973). This was titled “Embryonic Holography,” and was an application of “The Holographic Concept of Reality” model. It dealt with biogenesis and neurological regeneration, and included speculation on the origins of cancer, faith healing, psychic surgery and more technical aspects of mind-body energetics. One week after the delivery of that paper, four men came into my place of business, two in suits and two in full Army dress. The two suits held me under close arrest, while the two Army personnel went through my files, pulling anything related to “Embryonic Holography.” The paper was rewritten from old notes and memory, but it was not the same. What got this paper classified “top secret” for almost 20 years was that it was critical for the use of Allan Frey’s study, and its possible application to mind control. I never was able to draw what was so important in that initial paper until I began researching this paper, more than 24 years later. I will discuss those aspects further into this document.

 


References

[1] Duncan, Dr. Robert . How to Tame a Demon: A short practical guide to organized intimidation stalking, electronic torture, and mind control . CreateSpace Independent Publishing. Kindle Edition.

[2] Hall, Dr. John. Guinea Pigs: Technologies of Control

[3] Pittman, Renee. Remote Brain Targeting: Evolution of Mind Control in USA – A Compilation of Historical Information Derived from Various Sources (Mind Control Technology Book Series 1)

Remote Neural Monitoring

I wanted to get some opinions on this topic.  Please watch video and comment if you believe it or not. This is what your government has been up to: surveillance, harassment, and mind torture.  Remote neural monitoring is based on the “interference pattern” created when different frequency microwaves are sent to the head and can detect your thoughts and emotional state. V2k or voice to skull is when microwaves are directed to the head which causes the “thermal elastic expansion of brain tissue that transmits an acoustic pressure sound wave to the cochlea. Once the cochlea receptors are stimulated the sound is perceived as normal hearing”. [John Hall] This is known as the hearing effect. The department of defense has been hiring subcontractors to experiment on random citizens in order to accumulate data on how this technology can be used to destroy the lives of enemy combatants.

Things Psychotherapists Got Wrong

Is it exclusionary to say I hope all Freethinkers are doing well? [I was actually asked that question by a ‘clever’ detractor.] I am doing well despite that my last post did not do so well. I think the stomach of many could not digest the word “spritiual”. That is OK. I will get right to a new one. [RIght to it? Yep, 4 months later, but I can never be appreciative enough that I am allowed on here.]

From advice often being half-truths, lacking necessary caveats, or just plain wrong, many therapists disguise incompetence through misleading professionalism and, at best, occasional wit. Alright, that sounded kind of mean. But I truly mean it for the sample of therapists used. I have seen them fool many with how they “say it” (watch out for those pithy expressions!) and how they present themselves. Truth and critical thinking are really important to me—especially important when applied to a topic like mental health.

The following has been compiled from friends, family, and some from myself over a ten year span. I will post what could have or, perhaps, should have been said instead in the next post. Like most of health care, including doctors and nurses, they are largely unaccountable entities. Who monitors the advice that they give? Do we think that a popular therapist means that they are more likely to give us good results, or do they just make us feel good? What about solving problems or mood disorders? Most patients don’t understand medicine or psychology, and therapists do their best to come across as professional, affable, and even intellectual.

They can decieve, and they do deceive, but intentionally?  No, I do not think so. I think they fall prey to bad reasoning and stick to what they think works or what must to be true; after all, it is what everyone else believes. But they really haven’t thought this stuff all the way through. I know of very few that have. The few that I come across that do I cherish, and I am always running ideas by them.

  1. “Self-esteem is always without doubt an ‘inside job’.”
  2. “Depression is mismanaged stress.”
  3. “You know what {your_name}’s “problem” always was?”
  4. “I know what makes me happy,” says the patient. Therapist: “No, you were not happy.”
  5. “Were you not ‘enough’?” [Said with glee in hopes of triggering a response.]
  6. “You know what your problem is?” What? “You are not successful.”
  7. “Stereotypes are always wrong. That is why they are stereotypes.”
  8. Personal or Emotional ‘growth’ (which is poorly defined) cannot come from reading research.”  “‘Growth’ can also not come from taking time away from society.”
  9. “If you are still looking for validation, then you are in trouble.”
  10. “The only way to recovery from an addiction is a 12-step approach.”
  11. “Can you get your parents to pay for this?”
  12. “The only thing that matters is how you feel. This is my barometer for determining a successful outcome.”
  13. “You model your behavior [presumably all] from your parents.”
  14. “Your parents [“family dynamics”] are the cause of your problems.”
  15. “You are coming across as a “victim” [said with sharp disapproval and mockery].
  16. “Save yourself first.”

To be clear, this does not mean that all therapists can’t help or don’t know what they are doing. I never said “all” or “always”. I said here are some things that some therapists got wrong, partially wrong, or could have given caveats.

For another topic, if you dive into the research, you willl see how outcomes are measured. The methods used should not give, not to me at least, us much confidence in the results. In fact, the results themselves seem problematic. For example, psychotherapy cannot distinguish efficacy and effectiveness between therapies. This means that any method used to treat a patient is as effective as any other method used. That is not all that worries me though.. for another post.

Why You Should Be Spiritual

What is the purpose of life?  It is to find meaning.  [Viktor Frank]

The title is not a misprint.  Everyone, including atheists, should be spiritual.  It doesn’t matter if we agree or not because we are all spiritual to a certain extent.  The alternative to spirituality is hedonism.  In reality, we seek both.  But the proportion matters.

The way that I mean spirituality has nothing to do with New Age spirituality, mysticism, religion, spirits, ghosts, God, or souls!

Spiritual means when we use our imagination to transcend the here and now and worldly (materialism, praise, etc.) things.


To be sure, this post is about the study of happiness.  Happiness is about getting what we want.  Although happiness and experiencing meaningful things are different things, meaning-making contributes to our happiness in the long run.  We do many meaningful things, such as believing that atheism is accurate, having relationships with others, and pursuing our long-term goals in life.  These all contribute to happiness.  That said, the kind of happiness that fulfills our immediate needs and wants, such as food or getting praise from others, is fleeting.  This is where spirituality comes into the picture.  Spirituality is about obtaining meaning out of life in a certain kind of way—in a way that transcends our immediate needs and wants.  An example of a spiritual activity is realizing our deep connection to nature or that we all originated from the plains of Africa so we derive meaning and satisfaction from this.

Above, when I say the alternative to spirituality is hedonism, this means that if we are not spiritual—deriving meaning from things that transcend our immediate needs and wants—then we are only making ourselves happy by gratification.  I would argue that this is a shallow life indeed.  Atheists, however, do not have the luxury of having religion.  They must seek their own meaning out of life.


At Its Core, Spirituality Isn’t About God

Spiritual is used often without most taking the time to ask what it means.  I have heard many in an attempt to not appear one-dimensional claim that they are spiritual but not religious.  Presumably, this means they ponder the deeper questions but don’t follow strict rules.  If we are materialists and do not believe in the soul or the spirit, we are free to throw out any references to the immaterial.  Religion has a restricted view of spirituality because it must include belief in God.  Here is a Catholic’s view:

Spirituality is living the mystery of Christ, becoming like him, being filled with grace and the Holy Spirit. It applies the Gospel to Christian Life. A spiritual person will attempt to make every action and interior thought align with the Gospel.

This definition is problematic if we are materialists and do not believe in the divinity of Christ.  Astute observers, however, have noted that there is something common in all forms of spirituality, which exists within every culture. Spirituality is anything that transcends the ordinary and brings meaning to our lives.  This is more inclusive.  Atheists, like everyone else, have a yearning for things beyond themselves.  This is important because happiness in itself is not enough to live a satisfying life.  Although we can conclude this for ourselves, we need some evidence.  We can turn to researchers who shed new light on old concepts.


Meaning Can Help with Happiness 

Transcendence is the highest and most inclusive or holistic levels of consciousness, behaving and relating, as ends rather than means, to oneself, to significant others, to others in general, to other species, to nature, and to the cosmos. [Abraham Maslow]

The definition of spirituality has two parts to it: transcendent and meaning.  When we say something is transcendent, we mean that it goes beyond worldly things like status attainment, materialism, and self.  When we transcend normal awareness, we are not in a judgmental or adversarial state of mind but rather see others for what we have in common with them.  Transcendence means that we recognize that we are a smaller part of a greater whole, say part of a community or the human race.  It gives us that sense of awe and oneness when contemplating our relationship to nature or recognizing that we all ultimately came from, say stardust.

Whatever we do to be spiritual, it must be meaningful to us.  Meaning is derived from doing, thinking, or belonging to things greater than ourselves and often reflects our identity and values (i). Values are about how we should behave.  If we think about it, values mostly serve our own interests.  In order for meaning to transcend the self, then we need virtues.  Virtues are values that serve humanity. The virtues that are found in all cultures include gratitude, humility, forgiveness, hope, wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance. If we follow these virtues, we experience meaningful life events by connecting with and helping others.

Happiness without meaning characterizes a relatively shallow, self-absorbed or even selfish life, in which things go well, needs and desires are easily satisfied, and difficult or taxing entanglements are avoided. [Roy Baumeister]

Notice how the ego is absent from virtue.  The ego wants to advance, satisfy its needs and wants, and seek praise.  Happiness can fuel the ego because it is about getting what we want.  When researchers study happiness, it is broken down into the presence of positive feelings, a lack of negative feelings, and life satisfaction.  Short-term happiness is often in conflict with meaning-making. For example, suffering hinders happiness, but we reflect afterward and make meaning out of it.  We learn from suffering, can assist others with our experience, and it becomes part of “our story”.  In the long run, meaning can bring us happiness and satisfaction.


Acquiring Truth Is a Spiritual Pursuit

According to Maslow, self-transcendence brings the individual what he termed “peak experiences” in which they transcend their own personal concerns and see from a higher perspective. These experiences often bring strong positive emotions like joy, peace, and a well-developed sense of awareness (Messerly, 2017).

Hopefully, we are thinking about what we do that goes beyond our careers and satisfying our needs and wants.  I am satisfied with doing what I enjoy for its own sake, which is pursuing truth and knowledge.  This may seem like a selfish activity, but it is not entirely. Thinking and feeling, which is what we do when we acquire, share, and reflect upon truth, are verbs.  Although our society believes that we have to produce to be of any use, there is much benefit to oneself and others when we acquire truth and knowledge (ii).

If we read about the human condition, for example, then we will gain knowledge that can serve a purpose.  When we learn how human nature works, then we will develop realistic expectations towards others and ourselves.  We can show acceptance and understanding instead of fear and judgment.  Part of engaging in meaningful activities is to connect with others, which is only possible if we show empathy.  We further connect with others when we share our knowledge, which can inspire and enlighten us.

But does the pursuit of truth and knowledge qualify as being spiritual?  I certainly transcend the here and now and become deeply satisfied, even moved, when I gain insight.  Whenever I obtain insight, I make sure it integrates nicely with my background knowledge.  If it does not, then it is ad hoc.  I may have to alter my framework to get a fit, but when it fits, eureka!  I recall time periods when radical insights caused shifts in how I view myself, others, and the cosmos.  Through time I have refined those ideas, always vigilant for a more accurate model to make sense out of the world.  For me, these insights often occurred after misfortune.

For many, suffering can entail failure, rejection, or depression.  I have obtained satisfactory answers for why these things have happened to me and why they happen to us in general.  When we understand how things work, this allows us to more easily accept suffering or to mitigate it.  When we suffer, we create meaning from it.  We do this by understanding how it ensues, making it purposeful, and then weaving a narrative out of it.  For example, depression is the body retreating from a failure to get what we want.  It occurs when attempts made to advance or to be sufficiently valued are thwarted; our endeavors become a “failed struggle”. The body withdraws until we get on a more fruitful path.  This explanation is meaningful, and it gives purpose to our suffering.


Are We Missing Something Without God?

Yes, I think we are.  I think God, amongst other things, helps us to cope when we are powerless and to face death.  I, however, explained earlier that truth and knowledge are virtuous to me.  As far as I can tell, a personal God is a human creation, who acts as a sort of father-like attachment figure.  Until there is evidence or good reasoning for his existence, I cannot compromise my virtues (iii).  I cannot get myself to believe in something that is likely untrue.  As Bertrand Russell said, “Either something is true or it isn’t. If we cannot tell if something is true, then we should suspend judgment.  If it is true, then we should believe it.”  Psychologists have known for decades that we function best when we approach life realistically.  For some, God is still needed to help them cope.

My Grandfather became an atheist when he asked why would a benevolent God allow his daughter to suffer from a terminal disease.  But in his last days, he became religious, especially after my grandmother died.  If we can imagine aging to the point where people who we love and miss disappear, where we would do anything to hear their voices one last time, knowing that they exist in heaven must be comforting.  I do not know how I will cope when loved ones perish, or when I find myself alone in assisted living with strangers.  In these events, I don’t fault people for seeking support from God who supposedly has their best interests.

There is no place, however, for the atheist to go, no refuge for when life is nearing the end.  When we belong to a religion, we share values, which bind us in a significant way.  We can admire religion for creating a sense of belonging while catering to the sick and paying tributes to the dead.  On the other hand, religion claims to provide the why while science provides the how (v).  It touts to provide meaning and answers to why we are here and what happens after death.  Their answers turn out to be unsatisfying and wrong. There is no evidence for an afterlife and the why question is poorly construed.  We have no ultimate cosmic purpose.

Thus, it is our responsibility to create meaning out of life.  If we are going to make meaning, then why not find meaningful pursuits that society holds in high regard.  This will not only increase our happiness, but if we act virtuous, we can focus on maximizing the flourishing of everyone.  We need only ask ourselves how we want to be remembered, smug and self-centered or altruistic and purposeful.  Since atheists do not have an extensive network of non-believers—no central “church”—it is dire for them to be spiritual.


Addendum & Notes

Here’s an example of creating meaning out of death.  If we reflect on the fact that we, the people that we love, and the meaning we’ve created will cease to exist one day, this can bring suffering.  Tyson has made meaning out of this by giving death a purpose. Its purpose is to make us have gratitude for life, to create a sense of urgency for moral behavior, and to live a satisfying life.

It is the knowledge that I’m going to die that creates the focus that I bring to being alive; the urgency of accomplishment; the need to express love; now, not later. If we live forever, why ever even get out of bed in the morning? Cause you always have tomorrow. That’s not the kind of life I want to lead. [Neil deGrasse Tyson]

i). Researchers view meaning as two separate parts—a motivational part or purposeful and a cognitive part which allows us to make sense of what we do and integrate it into the past, present, and future.

Years of research on the psychology of well-being have demonstrated that often human beings are happiest when they are engaged in meaningful pursuits and virtuous activities.” Indeed, when we are deeply engaged in an activity that is in accordance with our best self, we often report the highest levels of life satisfaction. [Todd Kashdan]

Meaningful pursuits are done for a purpose say to pursue our long-term goals.  These goals are best chosen to be what society chooses as noble to assist it in becoming a source of pride.  We can still gain meaning from activities that have value to us, which often occur when we do them for their own sake and not for the outcome.  But it can also be about derived meaning in which we make something purposeful.  I gave an example of how we by understanding how things work, say experiencing depression, give it a purpose and no longer make it feel like we suffered for no reason at all.  Tyson derived meaning as well from above.

ii). Be warned though since when we acquire knowledge, there is a risk of us becoming smug, as in we know something that others don’t.  We must approach gaining knowledge with humility because the job is never done.

iii) My bookshelf and Kindle are filled with dozens upon dozens of theist and atheist arguments for or against God.  If we view the evidence neutrally and suspend our own biases, it is difficult to come to any conclusion other than non-existence.  Over seventy percent of philosophers are atheists.  I am inclined to think that they know the stock arguments all too well.  Seventy percent is a huge number considering the population purports atheism to be around 10%.  A proportion of seventy percent of a sub-population of people who devote themselves to truth and knowledge all reaching the conclusion that God doesn’t exist is quite telling.

iv) I have other personal reasons for not liking the idea of a God.  For example, bringing God into the universe as an explanation seems to make a mockery out of truth and knowledge.  Belief in God also trivializes, as well as makes it inexplicable, why there is unnecessary suffering amongst many people (even animals) across the globe.  I am not talking about suffering from failure, rejection, or depression.  If these issues are not pervasive and grave, then they are tolerable, and we grow from them.  On the other hand, there are many people that get inflicted with diseases that cut their lives short and they never get to recover and weave meaning out of their experiences.

v) Theology and science have traditionally been thought of as different spheres of knowledge, each answering their own questions.  They have their own epistemology—how we know what we know—and constitute different metaphysics—what is the ultimate nature of the cosmos.  The problem is that they overlap and the claims that theology makes can be tested through the scientific method.  Prayer, for example, is about God changing the course of affairs in the universe.  This represents a valid domain for science.  Repeatedly, however, prayer has yielded statistically insignificant results, which means that any observed effect in the prayer group compared to the control group was due to chance and did not represent a real effect.

The Fine-Tuning Narrative

I spent my vacation in upstate New York in a cabin on a lake contemplating the big questions.  If anyone has been able to follow the past few posts, then this is a continuation.  Intelligent designers, who include many physicists, say that the fine-tuning of the universe and its origin would not be possible if we didn’t believe a God did it.  Scientists do not know why the constants in the laws of physics are the values they are instead of some other values.  But they do know that it cannot be due to physical necessity because we can alter the laws and still create universes.  Just not universes that allow for life.  It cannot be due to chance, at least not according to half of the physicists, because the probability of us getting our constants and not some others is extremely small.

At least that is the standard narrative given.  Of course, I had to determine what was behind this, which is what I do for all posts.  I went over all of the nuances of each side’s argument and spent countless hours in email exchanges with experts in cosmology, statistics, and the philosophy of science.  I also, albeit reluctantly, embraced Bayes’ theorem, so I could speak their language.  And despite my bias toward naturalism, I remained neutral throughout my research.  In fact, it was a rollercoaster of a ride where at times I would be convinced by either side.  If it were not for recalling how real science is done, I would have advised atheists to keep silent on the topic.  To my surprise, my conclusion is that the practice of fine-tuning is not only theologically motivated but metaphysical. I assumed the findings were “scientific”.  Although there is nothing wrong with asking questions about what could have been, the assumptions used in calculating fine-tuning are likely obscuring what is actually behind it all.  

[This can be used as an accurate reference to understanding how physicists argue fine-tuning.  If we want to know why aspects of fine-tuning are not scientific, then we can infer for ourselves here or wait until the next post.  I will also be including an argument demonstrating that fine-tuning is compatible with naturalism.  This is not a contradiction since life is sensitive to the universe’s parameters.  I reject the metaphysical methodology of fine-tuning, but I do not reject that life depends on the universe’s parameters.  Furthermore, the public debate is not over whether or not the constants need to be just so in order to permit life as we know it but rather about interpreting what a fine-tuned universe can tell us about the true nature of the universe.]


The Obstacle of Fine-Tuning

Sir Fred Hoyle

Are we really this obnoxious?   Atheist Sir Fred Hoyle. [5]

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. [5]

The above is from an atheist physicist who was instrumental to many findings in cosmology.  Hoyle was against the idea that the universe may have a beginning to the point that he labeled it as the “big bang”.  This was out of mockery since Genesis I predicts that the universe has a beginning.   The evidence for fine-tuning may not have been enough to reverse his atheism, but it did make him favor the theory of intelligent design by aliens.  The point is that the evidence that the universe is fine-tuned for life is convincing to many and poses an obstacle to naturalism.  It is a challenge because according to many physicists, the universe was just as easily likely to have another set of laws with constants as its current set of laws.  But any laws but our own would not permit life. Physicists do not know why we have our constants because nothing more fundamental can explain them.  They are of course required for the math to work.  As the intelligent designers say, it is as if some agent dialed in these constants to permit life.

But what exactly does it mean to fine-tune the universe?  This means that the constants within the laws of physics take on values that allow for life on Earth to be possible.  They cannot vary by much and still permit life.  For example, the cosmological constant is fine-tuned to one part in 10^90 or 1/10^90.  If it were any smaller, then the universe would have collapsed within one second upon its creation, or any larger, and the “structure formation would cease after 1 second, resulting in a uniform, rapidly diffusing hydrogen and helium soup” [1].  Examples like this also exist for other life-permitting constants, which include the electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces, two constants for the Higgs field, twelve fundamental particle masses relative to the Higgs field, and more (3).

The calculated entropy implies that out of the many possible ways the available mass and energy of the universe could have been configured at the beginning, only a few configurations would result in a universe like ours. Thus, as Paul Davies observes, “The present arrangement of matter indicates a very special choice of initial conditions.” [In fact, the arrangement had to be so precise that its fine-tuning would be 1 in 10^(10 raised again to 123) [5].

The fine-tuning of the universe that allows life not only requires fine-tuned constants, but it also requires other parameters to be configured just so.  Any physical system, including our universe, has parameters, boundaries, and initial conditions.  These initial conditions include specific configurations of mass, energy, and entropy.  For example, if the matter in the universe was a bit different, then the matter would clump together and cause only black holes to exist, resulting in no stable galaxies or stars.  In the beginning stages of the universe, its expansion rate would have been a function of its density, which had a value of 10^24 kilograms per cubic meter.  If the density differed by more than 1 kilogram per cubic meter, then galaxies never would have been created [5].  Some have disputed which measurements are to be qualified as fine-tuned and how fine-tuned they are, but no one denies that life is sensitive to its parameters.  In other words, if the constants were somewhat different, we would not be here.

We need to define fine-tuning and the fine-tuning argument and clarify what we mean by constants, laws, and universes.

  • Fine-tuning: when something, e.g., a parameter with a numerical value (constants in the laws of physics), requires a certain degree of precision to get an effect (life) such that anything outside of this precision or range ceases to get an effect (life)
  • Fine-tuning-argument: the proposition that life-permitting universes are rare from the set of possible universes
  • Constants: the values, sometimes with units and other times without, that are physically derived through measurement and found within the laws of physics.  The constants are measurements of mass-energy and are required for the laws to make accurate predictions about the behavior of energy and matter.
  • Laws of Physics: The following dynamical equations are used to describe the universe: Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric and General Relativity, the Standard Model Lagrangian, and quantum field theory [1].
  • Universe: a connected region of spacetime over which physics is effectively constant. [2]

The Philosophy Behind It All

If we assume that the physical constants in our laws of nature are brute facts, then that is the same thing as saying that they took the values that they happen to have for no reason at all from among the set of metaphysically possible values. [6]

Since there is no physical explanation for why the constants take on the values that they do, we are left with our imagination.  When we imagine the possibilities of something, then we are doing philosophy.  The type of philosophy where we ask what could have been is modal logic.  Modal logic includes concepts such as physical, logical, epistemic, and metaphysical possibilities along with possible worlds and brute facts.  This gets complicated fairly quickly, so we will keep it simple.  Something that is logically possible means that there are no contradictions of terms within sentences.  For example, it is logically possible that a unicorn exists although it is not physically possible.  It is not, however, logically possible for a married man to be a bachelor.  Although metaphysics is about the nature of something, metaphysically possible is what could have been actual.  An actual world is the total state of affairs that actually exists, while a possible world is the complete way things could have been.  Something is physically possible if it is metaphysically possible given the laws of physics in that universe.  Finally, a state of affairs is an arrangement of things [6].

With some degree of confidence, we can calculate what the universe would be like with different fundamental constants. [1]

Most philosophers label fine-tuning as a brute fact or contingent.  This means that something is true by virtue of the way things are but also could have been otherwise.  Contingent facts must be true in at least one world but not all and do not entail logical necessity.  By contrast, metaphysical necessity is something that must be true in all possible worlds and could not have been otherwise.  When we use our imagination toward how something could have been different, we create a possible world, which is a complete description of what could have been.  When physicists use the laws of physics with different values for the constants, they are creating metaphysically possible worlds.  However, the literature is not consistent since philosophers and scientists do not all agree on the definitions.  The physicist Paul Davies claims that physicists can only create laws for logically possible universes but not for physically possible ones.  We cannot tell which universes are physically possible only that the laws are physically possible.

Recall that the constants are fine-tuned because if they are any different, then the universe is no longer life-permissible.  Since we are the product of life-permitting conditions, then it should not be surprising that we observe life-permitting conditions.  This is the weak anthropic principle.  Philosophers, however, are asking a different kind of question.  Why do we have our constants and not some other constants?  How do we go about conceptualizing this problem?  How do we know, for example, that the universe could have been different?  Maybe we do not think physicists are justified in simply changing the constants and labeling our universe a logically possible universe.  Perhaps the universe with its constants is a necessary truth and just is.  None of this seems to matter because most are motivated to ask questions that require there to be different possibilities.  This quickly becomes a challenge.


The Probability Behind It All

There are no actual possibilities besides our own universe since we do not observe how frequently universes in nature end up with certain constants.  So physicists use our universe and the logically possible universes that they have created.  Now that we have different possibilities we can now ask what could it have been.  This requires probability theory.  There are multiple ways of interpreting probability, but we look at epistemic versus frequentist-classical.  Classical probability uses the principle of indifference to claim that each event is equally likely to occur.  So each event has a probability of 1/n, where n is the number of possible outcomes in the probability space.  If we take a coin and toss it indefinitely, then we will get a ratio of head to tales that will converge to 50%.  This is the law of large numbers, which allows the classical interpretation to be equivalent to the frequency method in the long run.  A frequency interpretation is a physical probability that is objective since it captures something about the physical world. This interpretation is what we intuitively understand to be what probability means and is also what most scientists use.

We are concerned with the apparent intractability of obtaining a probability distribution for the various possible universes that might have existed, since in standard probability theory any such distribution cannot simultaneously satisfy three desiderata: that it be defined across the entire logical space of possible universes; that it be Euclidean, assigning equal probabilities to equal intervals for each constant; and that it be normalizable under the constraint of countable additivity. [4]

The philosophy of different possibilities from above addressed the problem of how we imagine universes.  Bayesian probability is how we deal with situations where events may have only occurred once and are not physical probabilities.  These are epistemic since they are degrees of belief that we hold of how likely something is or is not true.  These are thought of as subjective probabilities but only in the sense that they stem from an individual.  If physical frequency probability data is available, then this could be used as a source in the calculation.  Typically when we use physical probabilities, we want to be sure that they obey the laws of probability theory.  This would include being normalizable, where the sum of the probabilities is unity, as well as having the property of countable additivity, which means that we must be able to count and add the probabilities of events that are mutually exclusive.  Despite the challenges that the above quote from Timothy & Lydia McGrew poses to the physicists, they claim they can calculate the probability of life-permitting universes from the set of possible universes.  They must jump through some hurdles first.

Both of the sets that Barnes and Collins use are finite, so we would  end up with either multiple inconsistent probability estimates or an arbitrary partition. [6]

The physicists assume that the constants can take on any real numbered value, creating a new set of laws that constitute a logically possible universe.  They choose an equally likely or uniform probability distribution, invoking the principle of indifference since the field of physics offers no information on which values are more or less likely to occur.  Since there is an infinite amount of values that the constants could become, this would make it not normalizeable (sum to unity).  To get out of this problem, they must truncate the possible values that the constants could take on.  This only creates another problem called the partition problem.  Choosing any particular partition of the constants, however, would appear arbitrary and would alter the probability assignments in an arbitrary way. They must justify the use of a unit to divide the space.  This unit even if justified would still create inconsistent probability assignments. This shortcoming, claims the philosopher Wallace, is applicable to the work of Luke Barnes and Robin Collins [6].

Countable additivity provides a way of modeling important basic principles of rational consistency, and this is not merely desirable but necessary in a well-rounded conception of epistemic probability. [4]

The physicist Luke Barnes’ solution is to use units of Plank since the laws of physics break down after certain values which will create the needed partition.  This is not necessarily an arbitrary choice since it is informed by the laws themselves, and Barnes claims that does not follow logical or metaphysical possibility.  If it does not follow logical or metaphysical possibility, then we cannot justify how to conceptualize the possible universes.  In the end, physicists claim that when they use epistemic probabilities they can replace the countable additivity requirement with the relaxed condition of finite additivity.  They justify this by appealing to Cox-Jayne’s, and de Finetti’s theories and the subjective nature of epistemic probability [2].  Although physicists routinely deal with similar problems when working with infinite uniform distributions, which is known as the measurement problem, this may not matter. This is because they make claims using epistemic probability, see quote, which affects whether or not the results will be logical.


The Bayesian Method Behind It All

Bayes’ theorem, and indeed, its repeated application in cases where the probabilities are known with confidence, is beyond mathematical dispute. [3]

We need to talk about Bayes’ theorem in order to speak the language of the physicists and debaters.  Bayes’ theorem is a conclusion from a conditional probability axiom.  It is a way to update our current knowledge of how likely something is true by taking into account our best estimate of what happens after we observe the evidence.  It can be used to not only predict the chances of a physical event occurring given some knowledge but also the likelihood of claims that deal with more complex states (i). In other words, we can use Bayes’ theorem in accordance with propositional logic to get an idea of how likely everyday or even metaphysical claims are.  For example, we may state the claim that naturalism is true given that fine-tuning is true.  Although there is no consensus on how to interpret probability, we think of these events or states of reality in terms of degrees of uncertainty and not as frequencies.  A frequency interpretation of probability is when we observe the long-term behavior of physical events.  If we, for example, flip a coin many times, it will average out to a probability of 50%.  This is how scientists interpret probability.  Despite this difference, Bayesians can still use a frequency source as their uncertainty.  When we use Bayes’ theorem, we will be using it to assess the strength of evidence in favor or against a hypothesis, which we call evidential probability.  The theorem is shown below.

Equation 1: Baye’s Theorem

P(H|E) = P(H)*P(E|H) / P(E) 

It says, starting from P(H|E), that the probability of the hypothesis being true given the evidence is equal to the probability of the hypothesis being true multiplied by the probability that the evidence is true given the hypothesis, which is all divided by the probability of the evidence.  These uncertainties or probabilities have names associated with them.  P(H) is the prior probability that can be thought of as how typical the hypothesis is, P(E|H) is the likelihood probability or how expected the evidence is given that our hypothesis is true, and P(E) is the marginal likelihood, which is the probability of the evidence.  Interestingly, this way of interpreting Bayes corresponds with the argument to the best explanation, or ABE, a form of abductive reasoning.  We will be using the specific hypothesis, from equation 2 below, of the probability of naturalism being true given fine-tuning is true.  The prior is the probability of naturalism being true, the likelihood is the probability of either observing fine-tuning given naturalism is true or how expected is fine-tuning on naturalism, while the marginal is the probability of fine-tuning being true.  Using the law of total probability, P(F) can also be written as shown.  Although we can compare our hypotheses to others, see P(F’), we will not have a need for this.

Equation 2: Baye’s Theorem

P(N|F) = P(N)*P(F|N) / P(F) 

P(F) = P(N) x P(F|N) + P(~N) x P(F|~N)
P(F’) = P(N) * P(F|N) + P(H2)* P(F |H2) + P(H3)* P(F |H3) + …

P(N|F) > P(N) if and only if P(F|N) > P(F), then evidence is in favor of hypothesis
P(N|F) < P(N) if and only if P(F|N) < P(F), then evidence is against hypothesis

  • Posterior probability P(N|F): the probability of the hypothesis of Naturalism being true given Fine-tuning
  • Prior probability P(N): How plausible is Naturalism prior to observing the Fine-tuning
  • Likelihood probability P(F|N): the uncertainty of observing Fine-tuning given that Naturalism is true
  • Marginal probability P(F): the uncertainty of the evidence of Fine-tuning

Equation 3, below, is a statement about probability using Bayesian statistics.  Bayesian statistics allows physicists to work with probability distributions.  Thus far, we have been assuming that Bayes’ theorem inputs point probabilities; for example, P(B|A) = 0.5, where the probability takes on a single value.  The main difference is that these events can take on ranges of different probabilities and are called random variables.  A more detailed explanation is provided in the notes.  The equation uses the law of total probability since an integral is a summation, and marginalizes over the constant α while treating them as nuisance parameters [1].  Marginalizing removes the α event or parameter, and we are left with the probability that the Data is true given that the physical Theory (laws of physics) and the Background information are true.  Throughout the calculations, physicists assume methodological naturalism but not naturalism.  The Data D is the same as the fine-tuned universe, F, that permits life and since Naturalim N does not affect anything, then we can plug in N and replace D with F.  The result is P(F|TBN) or simply P(F|N), which if we use equation 2, is the value that theists argue is very small.  In fact, the physicist Luke Barnes claims by multiplying all the constants’ likelihoods, we end up with a value of 10^-136.  Since P(F|N) < P(F), then P(N|F) < P(N), which means that the posterior is less than the prior.  When this occurs, then our evidence of fine-tuning does not support naturalism.  Theists believe that they have a slam dunk.

Equation 3: Bayesian Statistics

P(D|TB) = ∫p(D|αTB)p(α|TB) dα

  • Where α is the value of the constant and the integral is computed over the range R of the constant.
  • This gives us the definition of a fine-tuned value which will be a very small value.

Theists’ Conclusion

  • It can be shown that P(D|TB) is the same thing as P(F|N), which is the likelihood of fine-tuning given Naturalism.
  • Theists take the small value of P(F|N) and insert it into equation 2.
  • Since P(F|N) << 1 and < P(F), then P(N|F) < P(N).
  • Thus, the evidence of fine-tuning is against the hypothesis of Naturalism.

The Math Behind It All

When calculating fine-tuned values, our background does not give us any info about which possible world is actual. The physicist can explore models of the universe mathematically, without concern for whether they describe reality. [2]

At this stage, we are ready to do the actual calculation of a fine-tuned value.  We have learned that modal logic can help us to imagine possible universes and probability theory can help us to create a probabilistic statement.  Fine-tuning is the probability of life-permissible universes out of the set of possible universes in such a way that the universes acquire their constants for no particular reason at all.  This makes it a brute fact.  We claim this is true because physicists have no problem creating logical universes by varying the values of the constants.  When they do so, the universes outside of a tight range do not allow for life to exist.  We then learned that there are different interpretations of probability.  We must use an epistemic interpretation which is Bayesian.  Do not get confused because there are two calculations.  The first one uses Bayesian statistics to predict the likelihood of fine-tuning (Equations 3, 4), which is literally a fine-tuned value, while the second one (Equation 2) uses Bayes’ theorem to predict that fine-tuning is not compatible with naturalism.  Intuitively, we can think of fine-tuned values as a ratio of life-permitting universes to possible universes (vastly more non-life-permitting).  Does the denominator contain the constants that non-life-permitting equations have used?  Not necessarily.  This is a mathematical model that serves the abstract purpose of claiming that “if a universe were chosen at random from the set of universes, what is the probability that it would support intelligent life[1].” 

A quantity is fine-tuned in physics when there is no theoretical reason for it to take the value that it has but it must take something close to a very specific value to get the observed outcome. [6]

 

How to compute a fine-tuned value.

Eq. 4: How to compute a fine-tuned value [2], (vii).

The analysis of the assumptions going into the paradox indicates that there exist multiple ways of dealing consistently with uniform probabilities on infinite sample spaces. Taking a pluralist stance towards the mathematical methods used in cosmology shows there is some room for progress with assigning probabilities in cosmological theories. [7]

Let us try to use the formula above for what the density of the universe was at the time of the Big Bang, which was 10^24 kg/m^3 +/- 1 kg/m^3.  R = 10^24 +/- 1 and Δα = (10^24 + 1) – (10^24 – 1) = 2.   We get 2/(10^24 + 1).  If we change the constant α, but only within the narrow interval of α = +/- 1, then we get life-permissible universes.  p(D|IαTB) is equal to one only around Δα and zero elsewhere.  p(α|TB) is the prior probability which is the uniform distribution that expresses our indifference to what the parameter of the constants looks like, which is dα/R.  What we are doing is calculating the area under the curve, where Δα is the width and 1/R is the height.  The literature quotes a value of 1/10^24, which is approximately equal to our calculation.  If we think of the denominator as the possible values that are non-life-permissible universe can take, is it true that we have models that create universes within the range of 0 to 10^24 + 1?  By restricting the comparison range to finite, as done here, the problem of “course” fine-tuning results [4].  Setting the upper bound to 10^24 + 1 and not considering the other possible values seems arbitrary.  Because if the parameter is genuinely a free parameter, it should take an infinite number of values in the denominator, which would lead to a probability of zero.  The current status of dealing with these types of problems is quoted above.  Even if the math seems tenuous and it affects the conclusion of the argument, perhaps its intuitive appeal is why it is not questioned amongst physicists.


Coming Up Next…

Here, I presented the fine-tuning argument from the perspective of one who believes in fine-tuning with minimal critique.  In the next post, I will explain my thesis of why it is minimally scientific.  I will also present a Bayesian argument by Jeffreys and Ikeda which will prove that fine-tuning is possible under naturalism.  This may sound like a contradiction, but it is not.  The constants that we have do seem to allow for life to flourish.  But this does not mean that God has set the dial.  


Notes

(i) We may think that the conditions of the universe are a garden-variety set of conditions.  Maybe life could have evolved in any particular conditions.  Presently, we do not know if non-carbon-based life is possible.  The point is that life as we know it depends upon the universe’s laws of physics being just so.  But is it the other way around; that is, is life fine-tuned for the universe?  We can answer this by noticing the arrows of influence.  The universe’s values do not depend upon the parameters of life, but life’s parameters depend upon the parameters of the universe.  Fine-tuning means that there are precise parameters such that a small deviation would result in a loss of an effect (life).  Would changing the parameters in a biological organism affect the universe’s parameters?  No.  Then the universe is fine-tuned for life, not vice versa.

(ii) There are two types of constants, either physical or mathematical.  A physical constant involves an actual measurement, while mathematical constants do not.  The value of pi, 3.14 and on, is an example of a mathematical constant that results from the geometric properties of a circle.  Physical constants occasionally can be derived mathematically but all have been adjusted through measurement.  They further can be divided into either dimensional or dimensionless.  The speed of light and the gravitational constant, for example, values vary depending upon the choice of units that are used.  When calculating fine-tuning, the preference is to use dimensionless constants, which can be created by taking a ratio of constants.  This is because changing the unit can artificially give us large values compared to a different unit.  Lastly, these fundamental constants are all a part of the standard model of particle physics and the standard model of cosmology.  These constants cannot be derived from anything more fundamental.

(ii) There are of course some who have objected as to which constants should qualify as fine-tuned or to the degree that the fine-tuning exists.  Regardless, it is a fact that life as we know it depends upon the constants existing within some range.  In the future, we may discover that other elements and states of material energy are conducive to life.  However, Victor Stenger, an atheist particle physicist dissenter of fine-tuning, may also be correct.  He claims that the constants, as far as I can tell, most if not all, are not as fine-tuned as they are defined to be.  Stenger says that “fine-tuning is in the eye of the beholder”.  In reviewing his work, it seems plausible, and he provides what may be adequate support.  But his peers are to judge, not me.  Depending on who we ask, Stenger is either considered mainstream (by atheists) or in the company of “only a handful of dissenters” (by Luke Barnes).  In any event, it does not matter because even Stenger says “life depends sensitively on the parameters of our universe.”  These constants matter.

(iv) We still need to understand another application for Bayes’ theorem, which allows us to assign probabilities to many observations. The eventsuch as the different heights of individuals in a population, is now a random variable and can take on many different values, each one having its own probability of occurring.  When we display the distribution of the differing heights’ probability, this is known as a probability distribution.  Since it is not practical to measure the entire population, we take a few samples from a larger population in order to make generalizations about it.  We do this by estimating the parameter, which is supposed to represent the “true value” of the larger population.  This approach, which is frequentism, cannot give us the probability of the parameter though, only confidence intervals for where it may exist.  For that, we need Bayesian statistics.  In this approach, we show our uncertainty of the parameter’s value by making it a random variable of a probability distribution.  We then update our uncertainty of the parameter’s value by multiplying the prior distribution times the likelihood distribution and marginalizing the result.  The prior is the distribution of the parameter before we observed the data, and the likelihood is the distribution of the observed data, given the parameter.


References:

[1] Barnes, Luke.  A Reasonable Little Question: A Formulation of the Fine-Tuning Argument
[2] Barnes, Luke.  Fine-tuning in the context of Bayesian theory testing
[3] Lynch, Scott. Introduction to Applied Bayesian Statistics and Estimation for Social Scientists
[4] McGrew, Timothy & Lydia.  On the Rational Reconstruction of the Fine-Tuning Argument
[5] Myers, Stephen.  Return of the God Hypothesis.
[6] Waller, Jason. Cosmological Fine-Tuning Arguments.
[7] Wenmackers, Sylvia. Uniform probability in cosmology
[8] Dozens of other sources; will post when time permits.

Practicing Scientists?

[edit: I did not mean to sound exclusive; anyone can chime in of course!]

I could not resist.  I decided to pull out some Victor J. Stenger and other scientists to weigh in on fine-tuning and the origin of the cosmos.  Once I get going on a topic, I cannot stop.  Ideas are like drugs, leaving me wanting more depth and breadth.

Physicists don’t seem to be in agreement on how to interpret the appearance of fine-tuning.  I do not want this to be another piece that confirms someone’s atheism.  I want it to be an evenhanded assessment of the evidence.

So the purpose of this post is to get qualified others to comment on these points before I follow up on a post.

  1. According to Stenger, an example of something not having a cause is radioactive decay and photon emission.  These phenomena are modeled by statistical mechanics and are not predetermined but rather random.  These phenomena have “no evident cause”, and do what they do spontaneously.  Some, however, call this probabilistic causality.  For photon emission, if an electron is in a higher energy state and moves to a lower state, then the emission of a photon occurs.  This looks predetermined to me.  There are plenty of phenomena modeled as stochastic processes that still have causes.  A coin toss, for example, has a random binomial distribution, but it still has a cause.  Can atheists say that these two processes, namely radioactive decay and photon emission, are not deterministic?  I get the feeling that this is an unsettled issue as debate rages if the universe is deterministic or indeterministic.
  2. Is the following true in regard to the topic of the appearance of fine-tuning?  “Constants, such as the speed of light and Planks constant, are irrelevant since these are arbitrary units that define the system of units being used.  Only “dimensionless” numbers that do not depend on units, such as the ratio of the strengths of gravity and electromagnetism, are meaningful.”  Furthermore, these constants are not independent of one another, so if we change one, then we would have to change another.  But constants are inseparable properties of the relationship of interest.  That is, if they are not there, the relationship doesn’t hold true.  How can Stenger claim that they are “irrelevant”?

 

Thanks!

Musings

 

What Is Behind ID? Just One Premise

I want to show the logic behind why speculating that an intelligent agent created the universe is not an argument from ignorance or the god of the gaps fallacy.  It just turns out that intelligent designers have an additional premise that qualifies it as an argument to the best explanation.  Physicists do the same when they posit an entity to explain observed phenomena.  This does not mean that I believe this hypothesis to be true.  Why is this important then?  Because we will want to be informed when arguing with an ID.  And for those who think that I may be giving credence to Intelligent Designer’s arguments, I would not be threatened by any of this.


Abductive Reasoning

We have only two ways of determining what is true or not, by reasoning or observation.  What about the scientific method?  It obviously involves both reasoning and observation as well as experimentation, hypotheses, verification, and predictions.  There are different types of reasoning that we use when we try to establish something as true or likely to be true, such as deductive and inductive reasoning.  But what if we cannot directly observe something?  If we cannot directly observe something, then we are using abductive reasoning to determine the probability of something being true or not.  Detectives who work a murder case use this type of reasoning as well as archeologists and many others.  But everything is circumstantial because we cannot directly observe what we are hypothesizing.  Here is some abductive reasoning that was used, probably often used, for a suspect that murdered his wife.

  • Observations (Evidence): We notice that the suspect’s house was cleaned meticulously in a possible effort to hide evidence.
  • Expectation (Prediction): If someone was concealing a murder, then we would expect them to attempt to hide the evidence.
  • Conclusion (Hypothesis): There is reason to suspect that this individual murdered his wife.

This evidence of course is neither strong nor conclusive.  But that’s the best we can do with abductive reasoning.  If we had more evidence to corroborate our hypothesis, then it becomes stronger.  To make it even stronger, we can compare it to the explanatory power of other competing hypotheses.  When the best one wins, then we call this enhancement argument to the best explanation. The best hypothesis must be sufficient to cause the phenomena of interest compared to other hypotheses and have causal adequacy.  The phenomenon of interest for the murder is not the evidence of a coverup but what can be inferred from it.  That is, hiding evidence in itself does not cause a murder but from our everyday experiences, we know that people hide things for a reason.


Scientists’ Reasoning

Stephen Meyer gives a few examples of scientists using this type of reasoning before giving his argument.  Here is how Richard Dawkin’s evidence and others would look when formalizing it to fit abductive reasoning.  We should “get” the logic after this.

Richard Dawkins:

  • “Logic: If “blind, pitiless” matter and energy rather than a Mind is the prime reality from which all else originated, then we would expect no evidence of intelligent design in life and the universe, rather only evidence of apparent design”
  • “Data: Life and the universe do not exhibit evidence of actual design, only apparent design.
  • Conclusion: We have reason to believe that life and the universe are the product of blind materialistic forces.

Cosmologists:

  • Observations (Evidence): There is background radiation and a value of the mass density of the universe.
  • Expectation (Prediction): If there was a beginning, like the big bang, then we would expect to see that evidence.
  • Conclusion (Hypothesis): There is reason to suspect that the big bang started the universe.
  • Competing Hypotheses: In light of this evidence, the steady-state and oscillating-universe models lack causal adequacy.

Charles Darwin:

  • Observations (Evidence): There are homologous structures, transitional fossils, evolution recapitulating itself, etc.
  • Expectation (Prediction):  If life evolved, then we would expect to see evidence of this in the fossil record, embryology, etc.
  • Conclusion (Hypothesis): All life forms came from a common descendent.
  • Competing Hypotheses: God, Lakmarck’s theory, etc.

Intelligent Designers’ Reasoning 1

Intelligent designers are essentially doing, in one limited respect, what Charles Darwin did.  Darwin looked at his everyday experiences and deduced that since artificial selection can rapidly produce changes in a species, then natural selection with random mutation can do much more.  Obviously, natural selection needs time, so this reasoning is convincing considering the millions of years it has to work with.  Meyer says that within our everyday experiences we know that it takes an intelligent agent to make the sophisticated things that we come across, snowflakes aside.  This mode of thought makes up the first premise, and this is why it is not a God of the gaps fallacy.  So far I do not disagree with Meyer.  This still does not mean that an intelligent agent is behind it all.

  • Premise 1: Our everyday uniform experiences teach us that any system that has a function requires design inputs, such as digital code and boundary conditions, from an intelligent agent.  Since this is true, then we would expect to find a universe that requires fine-tuning (boundary conditions) and life forms requiring a digital code (DNA base pairs) to exist and function.
  • Premise 2:  We observe that the world is finely tuned with physical laws, constants, and parameters, and all of life requires digital code in the form of DNA base pairs.
  • Conclusion:  We have reason to think that an intelligent agent acted to design the universe and life forms.

A God of the gaps fallacy would preclude premise one and jump from premise two to the conclusion. Does this additional premise prevent ID from being a God of the gaps fallacy?  In the framework of arguments, it does.  This is why I said the argument is not that bad because it obeys a certain logic.  But for all practical purposes, they are still invoking a designer into the argument which resembles a God of the gaps fallacy in every other respect. Although an intelligent agent could be the cause, we would have to compare this causal hypothesis to others.  It cannot, however, be a theist God, namely the Judeo-Christian version because that worldview is false through and through.  I am obviously not going to debunk Christianity here; others have done it for us.

My purpose is not to critique ID’s argument but to explain it.  What makes this argument strong, according to Meyer, is that it is an argument to the best explanation because it has causal adequacy.  It is only an argument to the best explanation because the competing hypotheses from science have failed to be causally adequate. That is, they fail to be likely candidates for the causes of how the information in DNA formed along with an explanation for why the universe appears to be finely tuned with parameters.  Meyer brings up the point that all of the RNA experiments, which could show the origin of information in DNA, thus far are plagued with their setups requiring input from an intelligent agent, such as artificial conditions, etc.  He also brings up that information, which is what DNA conveys, cannot in principle be described by physics or chemistry.  I would need to hear what biologists say about this.

Since natural laws describe situations in which specific outcomes follow specific conditions by necessity, they do not generate, or describe the generation of, new information. Indeed, to the extent a sequence of symbols or a series of events results from a predictable law-bound process, the information content of the sequence will be limited or effaced by redundancy. Thus, natural laws cannot in principle generate or explain the origin of information, whether specified or otherwise. [1]


Can’t Get Something from Nothing

The argument above dealt with the creation of lifeform and the appearance of the fine-tuning of the universe.  What about the beginning of the universe?  If there was a beginning, then how could something come from nothing?  The problem that science faces is that it defines naturalism as a closed system of cause and effect that prevents the supernatural from intervening.  This was never a problem of course and turns out to be a very real and natural metaphysics.  According to Stephen Meyer, it became a problem when atheists realized that there is more evidence in favor of the universe having a beginning than it just always being there.  Meyer says that there must be a cause for the beginning of the universe, but naturalism is not adequate to explain what it is.

What caused the whole of nature or the physical universe itself to come into existence?  All materialistic theories of the origin of the material universe face a fundamental problem given the evidence we have of a cosmic beginning. Before matter and energy exist, they cannot cause, or be invoked to explain, the origin of the material universe. Instead, positing a materialistic process to explain the origin of matter and energy assumes the existence of the very entities—matter and energy—the origin of which materialists need to explain. No truly materialistic explanation can close this particular causal discontinuity or gap—the gap between either nothing or a preexisting immaterial or mathematical reality, on the one hand, and a material universe, on the other. [1]

Sean Carrol, a professor of natural philosophy who is an atheist, says that “naturalism can offer no cause of the universe, but it may ‘just be'”, that is, require no causal explanation.  But this would violate the scientific assumption that “whatever begins to exist must have a cause.”  I do not pretend to even speculate as to how something can come from nothing.  That is not my aim in the post.  It is to show the logic behind ID’s hypothesis.  There is more to their logic too.  For example, Meyer brings up how the current hypotheses offered by atheists, such as the physicist Laurance Krauss, are contrived because they gerrymander the results.  What this means is that the models that they use to explain the origin of the universe require initial conditions and assumptions in order to work.  In other words, they know what fudge factors are required to get the results they would like.  I haven’t explored Krauss’s theory in depth, but I know how models work and don’t doubt it (3).  Perhaps this is the best science can do right now, which is OK.


Notes

1) I am intentionally not including intelligent designers’ reasoning under the science category because they don’t really do science.  Making a hypothesis from an armchair may qualify as abductive reasoning, which science uses, but in every other respect, Intelligent Design is not science and only hinders science.  We also know that their ultimate goal is to sneak a theist God in, namely a Judeo-Christian God.  In other words, I am doing my best to be neutral when analyzing their arguments, but I cannot qualify intelligent design as science.  Stephen Meyer would say that this is because of my bias towards metaphysical naturalism.  And I would partly agree.  To this, I would say, naturalism as a worldview is true and works.  Theism as a worldview, especially the Judeo-Christian version, fails on multiple accounts.  No, I don’t have time for a detailed explanation.  I leave this task to other experts.

2) I always thought of metaphysics to be an abstract philosophical concept with no overlap with science.  But science deals with metaphysical questions all the time.  Metaphysics literally means what is real and deals with questions about “being” and “existence”.  An example of a metaphysical question is if a copper wire conducts an accelerating charge that produces an electromagnetic field, how do we know the field is real?  We use abductive reasoning to say that if it were real, we would expect it to have x, y, and z effects.  Metaphysics may take this further and ask if the EM field qualifies as being “real”.  For our purposes, we can adopt an instrumentalist approach and say that if we can predict its behavior, then it is real.  We will use this fact later on.

3) This does not mean that they are not doing science.  Problems require assumptions to be made and conditions to be set.  We do not even have to be cosmologists to realize that replicating a time period billions of years ago will inevitably require some assumptions to be made.  If they make the model unrealistic, then so be it because they may still provide insight into the nature of the problem.   As more knowledge is gained, then the better our models will be.


References

[1] Return of the God Hypothesis.  Stephen Meyer.

Blind, Pitiless, Indifference

Back from the dead folks.  Somehow someone found out who I was, and this prevented me from a job opportunity.  I feel persecuted.  I think I will eventually be open about my beliefs.  Not an easy thing living where I do.  Here is a post that is old news.  I think it is noteworthy because it is the latest attempt by apologists to keep God alive.  It is actually not that bad of an argument.


The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.  Richard Dawkins

I was in discussion with a believer who referred to Stephen Meyer, the intelligent designer.  Meyer believes that Dawkin’s quote actually makes his case for him.  Here is a quote from his new book.  Yes, I own a copy of his book on Kindle.  Why? Because I committed to myself to understanding all arguments.  Arguments are fun to analyze, especially if they are most likely wrong.

They have argued, as Richard Dawkins has done, that “the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose . . . nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”  But the evidence examined so far suggests the need to reassess such claims. That the universe had a beginning, that it was finely tuned from the beginning, and that our planet has experienced dramatic discontinuous increases in biological form and information since the beginning are not at all what proponents of a naturalistic worldview would most “naturally” expect. [Return of the God Hypothesis by Meyer]

I agree with Meyer that if framed like this, then Dawkin’s quote works for him and not against him.  But that is only if we accept his premises.  I think Dawkins was mainly referring to the problem of suffering anyhow.  Meyer says that if the cosmos had a beginning, then we can’t use physical explanations to describe how something came out of nothing.  In other words, physics can only explain how matter and energy interact but not how they came into existence.  It must, according to Meyer, be something transcendent. Atheists at one point could claim that the cosmos was all eternal—that is, had probably always existed.  But most evidence now suggests that the cosmos had a beginning.  Of course, we do not have a detailed explanation of the origin of the cosmos.

Laws of nature describe how nature operates and how different parts of nature interact with one another; they don’t cause the natural world to come into existence in the first place. This suggests the futility of waiting for the discovery of some new law of nature or a “theory of everything.” No law of nature can close the causal discontinuity between nothing and the origin of nature itself. [Return of the God Hypothesis by Meyer]

Does this mean that Meyer is using the God of the gap fallacy?  He claims he is not since he uses abductive reasoning, like all of science, to form a hypothesis that explains the evidence.  I think he is correct, and I explain why here.  Besides Meyer claiming that science can’t explain how the universe came into existence, he also complains how science cannot figure out where the information in DNA came from nor explain the appearance of design when it comes to fine-tuning.  The biggest challenge I face as an atheist, however, is explaining to others how the universe came from nothing.  I don’t even attempt it because we don’t know.

What I can attempt to explain is that saying that a transcendental (supernatural) force is behind it all is unwarranted.  I mean you can do it.  Meyer did.  But how does Meyer come to the conclusion that the cause of the universe must be transcendental?  He uses a priori reasoning, not evidence [1].  This does not exclude something from being correct, but it is not as convincing as evidence.  If I suspend my bias and look at the problem squarely, I do not understand why we must think something came from nothing.  The barebones parts to form the universe as it is today, whatever they turn out to be, must have always been there in the first place.

If it turns out that the universe did come from nothing, or appears that way, does this mean that there is a transcendental force behind it?  Maybe.  But we could figure out what that above-and-beyond force is.  But the believers would say that the supernatural is unknowable through direct means.  In fact, my son asked his religious leader, “Who created God?”  His retort was God has no beginning or end.  To me, the supernatural is a mental construct that humans created, in addition to counter-arguments to keep Him being viable as a God.  This is exactly what Meyer is doing here.  We will look at his hypothesis in detail next.  


Notes

[1] To be fair, Meyer did use some evidence.  Not much though.  He observed that the world has a beginning, that the origin of DNA has yet to be explained empirically, and that the world may be finely tuned.  He then makes an inference to the best explanation based on these observations.  He says that this is not what we would expect to find if we believed in cause and effect and that there was no intelligent designer behind it all.  Meyer asks where did the informational power of DNA come from, and how did the cosmos become finely tuned?  The answer to these questions is probably found in Meyer’s poor formulation of these problems along with his self-serving premises.  Many others have addressed this elsewhere.  This post is not meant to be exhaustive by any means.

[2]. How do I know God is a mental construct used for multiple purposes?  I cannot address this entirely here, but it should be obvious given the imagination of the mind and how prone it is to anthropomorphism.  The problem with God, or whatever name we choose to use, is that this model cannot make predictions.  We have no idea how the supernatural behaves if we give it x, y, or z inputs.  He is whatever we choose Him to be, and does whatever we want him to do—the bible notwithstanding.

I Have Strong Values (Shush)

Trump and Desantis

Trump and Desantis

Title’s Interpretation: You don’t have values, but if you did, mine are better.

Today I want to bring up a politically-charged conversation that I had with a friend of mine and analyze how it turned into tit-for-tat.  It is not anyone’s job to criticize another person.  But as writers, it is our job to entertain and inform by pointing out faults, usually with sarcasm, ridicule, or mockery.  I won’t be doing any of that today because I like this person.  I will gently, however, point out faults of theirs.  Perhaps I should be tough on them because they are loud and proud about their values and are amused at how sensitive and serious I can get.  In fact, I think they enjoy ruffling my feathers.  To me, she was belligerent and crossed my boundaries.

This is meant to be instructive and not retribution for a gripe.  But, honestly, what do we do when we find out that a friend likes DeSantis or Trump?  Maybe for many, it is not even an issue although doubtful.  What do we do when we find out that Jesus is more important to a loved one than we are?  The former is particularly tough if we think Jesus is a father-like attachment figure who has been passed down as a meme.  This is why I think it is important to be mindful of our speech and tone when conversing with others that have opposing values and viewpoints.  The conversation I had is below, followed up by how I think we should relate to others.


The Conversation (text message)


Melinda: I like DeSantis because he has strong values and military background.  We have many threats abroad and need a strong military presence to protect us.

[People vote on how a candidate makes them feel, which inevitably entails them having similar values, and then back it up with rational reasons so they can appear informed.  This is just how the mind works.  Moreover, conservatives’ values revolve around “strength”, responsibility, self-reliance, order, and authority.  It permeates all of their beliefs and reasoning.  So I can understand why a conservative may be preferred over a liberal as commander in chief.  It is not that liberals do not exercise these values but rather they do not give it the same priority.  For a detailed analysis of all harmful entailments of conservative values, see here.

It may, however, be naive for us to think that other nation-leaders share liberal values which prioritize such things as empathy, equality, self-awareness, and empowering others through assistance.  I like to think that liberals, certainly not all of them, are enlightened thinkers.  They formed at a time during the Enlightenment when there was a realization that conflicting values and beliefs will always exist and that we should do what maximizes the happiness of everyone.  This requires that others have the same political outlook since self-interest and our own values seem to take precedence.  But, in sum, it is natural to like DeSantis for war.

And there are legitimate threats out there.  But conservatives have more of a history of hyping threats, warmongering, and flagrant violations against human rights.  Those who do not think so do not know the history of United States’ foreign policy.  The irony is that those who balk at the idea of us being self-critical are the same people who worship Jesus.  The same Jesus whose writers had him say from Matthew 7 15, “How can you take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye if you can’t take the log out of your own?”  If we value human life, then we must be self-critical of our past as well as resist the urge to engage in preemptive strategies.  This pre-condition that I impose would be less likely to be followed by a conservative leader versus a liberal one.]

Musings:  I once was a conservative and shared some of the same beliefs as you do.  I don’t think you are wrong to share DeSantis’ values, but I do feel there is a lot of American history that I can share with you that may cause you to rethink your position.

[Notice that this is an indirect criticism.  I am saying that she doesn’t know a revisionist’s history of America’s foreign policy.  This probably got her upset, which I wasn’t even conscious of until now.  Criticism, implicit or not, is a sure way to get someone defensive and throw the conversation into a tit-for-tat match. ]

Melinda: you irritate me, lol

[Notice the “lol’ which is meant to cushion the blow of me receiving the message that I am “irritating” her.  In text messages, there isn’t body language and we can’t pick up on “vibes” to interpret the intention of the individual.  I interpreted it in a way that annoyed me.  I got annoyed because I am sharing something of value to me that irritates her.  How dare her.  But I let this go and gave her the benefit of the doubt.]

Musings: Promise me that you will read this post because it explains how often our foreign policy is not for human rights, disrespects sound international law, and how often America does anything they want, which is called American exceptionalism.  The post shows how we cloak our military presence in the name of freedom and democracy, which are ideals meant to rally our tribal instincts.  But as history shows, it is always the most dominant country that does most of the killing and damage.

[I was trying to get her to rethink her position on a preemptive foreign policy or “tough on evil” or however a conservative chooses to market their terror on Others.  I don’t think I was being aggressive or obnoxious, but it resulted in the following response.  She probably interpreted it as intense and intrusive because I kept peddling “my truth”. ]

Melinda: blah, blah, blah

[At this point, I took this personally because she is clearly being obtuse and dismissive of my earnest attempt to share something that was important to me.  I then proceeded to share my feelings and ask why she is being dismissive.  My mistake was that I described her responses akin to a teenager who receives information that is over their head.]


The Right Way to Converse


Curtail the Use of Criticism

We all want to be heard, seen, and understood.  We want to be seen as contributing to a conversation with worthwhile points.  This is a facet of what it is to be human.  When someone criticizes or dismisses us or our points, then we will either feel hurt feelings or anger.  Research shows that most interpersonal interactions go awry when we criticize, get defensive, use contempt (mockery or name-calling), or stonewall.  Of course, if we are in a relaxed mood and not too serious, then there is a reduced chance of us getting upset.  But that is just it.  We cannot predict what mood someone is in, so the rule of thumb should be to be polite and mindful of our speech and tone.  If we must point out a flaw, then the best way to approach it is to subdue the criticism with the preface of “I feel”.

It Is Not “Tiptoeing Around”

A common retort is why should I tiptoe around people since I am proud of my values.  If you are offended, then too bad.  This reflects a misunderstanding of our evolutionary past as tribal beings.  For most of our existence as homo sapiens, we existed in tight-niched tribes of no more than 100.  We all shared similar beliefs, values, and interests.  Sharing values makes us bind together, become self-righteous and blind to other values, and have hate for the Other.  So it is not religion or politics in themselves that cause conflict; otherwise, how could we explain similar behavior of different nations or people with different preferences in sports teams.

Think about what happens when we proudly display a “Fuck Biden” or “Trump” banner or bumper sticker.  The former banner right away will instill some aversive emotions in some, while the latter has a history of aggressive rallies which will do much the same. Saying that we should not tiptoe around is the same thing as Donald Trump saying that he doesn’t have time for political correctness, which is absurd.  If we value a relationship, then why would we not want to use respectful speech and tone?  Knowing how tribal and threatened we can get by the values of others, we are playing with fire when we are obnoxious about our values.

You Are Not “Too Sensitive”

If anyone tells you that you are too sensitive, this may or may not give you information.  It usually is an attempt to excuse someone’s brazen behavior and deflect the problem.  In fact, therapists call this “gaslighting” which is when we feel like we did something wrong even though we didn’t.  It is a way to control and manipulate you.  On the other hand, twenty percent of the population can be characterized as being a “highly sensitive person“.  But what good is it telling someone when they get upset that they are too sensitive?  They most likely already know this.  You cannot change someone’s temperament.  The most reasonable thing to do would be to be mindful of what we say and to be tactful.  If we value the relationship, it does not seem like too much to ask.

Can We All Just Get Along?

Probably not because of our tribal nature.  I suspect that the more we care and the more our identity is tied to our values, then the more likely we will get emotional and want to antagonize the Other side with our beliefs.  Experts within moral psychology believe that we need to become less self-righteous and more open-minded.  They really don’t know how to accomplish this though and realize that the more political we become then the more divided we will be.  On the other hand, if we want to selfishly fight for our values and interests, we would prefer the take-no-prisoners route and shamelessly wave a banner at our opposition.  But when it comes to personal relationships that we value, why even go there in the first place unless we have our delicate gloves on.


Notes:

i) I would look at DeSantis’s stance on issues.  Well, we do not even have to do that since he is a conservative which means we know his values and thus his stance on issues.  The only positive thing I can say about DeSantis is that he admits that climate change is real although he of course refuses to be clumped into the “radical” environmentalists group.  Otherwise, this guy is a typical authoritarian.  If we do know what authoritarianism means then see here as well as references.  As far as his stance on issues, such as family values, I have written about this already in general.  Although I do not know the ramifications of teaching critical race theory, I would imagine that having an awareness of racism would contribute to seeing reductions in racism.  In fact, there is evidence that biases almost across the board have been on the decline since 2007 according to large-scale studies, which may be attributed to political correctness and critical race theory.

As DeSantis is arguing, are political correctness and teaching critical race theory authoritarian and indoctrination?  All of education and religion are indoctrinating.  But if these beliefs are worthwhile, then they are worth teaching.  Yes, the woke culture can be authoritarian because they shame people that don’t participate in it and create fear as a result.  But if it is consensual, then conformity over a belief is not authoritarian.  I am against the aggressiveness of the woke culture but for political correctness.  I just do not have a solution for those not on board.  I can go on and on about Desantis, for example, his science denial, etc.


References

The Righteous Mind.  By Jonathan Haidt

[Read more…]

Costly Status Striving

Although we can get grains of truth from our ideologies’ aphorisms, which say things like “have you ever seen an ungrateful happy person”, the real insight comes from the details.  That is what I present today.  Ideologies are not supposed to teach us scientific truths and instead appeal to our moral sentiments.  The pithy expression is a criticism of liberalism in that all we do is complain. This is appealing to some because it validates their belief that liberals are whiney weaklings.  They then share this “moment” with others. That is how ideologies work. They make us form bonds with those on our side, so we remain self-righteous, divisive, and insular.

Does not change start with a complaint though?  For those who are not satisfied with the status quo, it must start this way.   In any event, I am not complaining on this post.  I am saying one thing: exaggerated status inequality, regardless if we are indifferent towards it, has consequences.  I do not mean to pick on Jordan Peterson, OK I sort of do, because he helps a lot of people. He does so by helping them become “disagreeable”.  Disagreeableness is a personality trait where we act aggressively and manipulatively in order to serve our interests.  Thus, Peterson will be contributing to more formidable competitors within the status hierarchy.  I do not know if Peterson should be judged for this because this is what successful people do, they aggressively pursue their interests.


If it does not occur to anyone, this constitutes scientific evidence for any feelings of indignation that some may have over inequality. I say “some” because most studies show that we can accept a lot of status inequality.  And, no, indignation is not envy nor is it resentment.  Conservatives have already told us what they think of our feelings—”*$*! your feelings”.  We cannot argue just on feelings.  I could not address many of the commentator’s points because either they made no sense or were unworthy of my time.


Introduction

Most do not care about inequality.  We care about fairness.  Studies show that we can tolerate the disparity between the poor and the rich without throwing a fuss, with the rich making up to four and even fifty times that of the poor [8].  Most believe meritocracy is fair, which is what our economy aspires to be.  Meritocracy is when we award people based on their abilities.  We look at what they have done or can do, which is a function of their ability plus the effort put forth.  This may not feel fair to those with an intellectual or physical disability.  But life is not fair.  Even to the average person, meritocracy is not entirely fair because we are not all born with the same levels of privilege.  We are not all born with the same abilities, such as intelligence, motivation, etc, either.  In principle, this does not seem to bother most.  Meritocracy is promoted as providing an incentive to achieve status while being an efficient way to allocate talent.  As Peterson has said, we want the best people performing brain surgery on us—a hierarchy of competencies.

Meritocracy is a legitimizing myth since it justifies the status hierarchy that forms as a result of our differences in ability.  It morally justifies our successes and says those on top are competent and smart, while those on the bottom are lazy and stupid.  Despite some quibbles, I do not have a problem with this.  The exception is that meritocracy can make our society look like an experiment in social Darwinism [9].  But we start this post under the assumption that people more or less get what they deserve; we just have to exclude when we have privilege, superior intelligence, gifted drive, cronyism, selfish and conscientious personalities, and luck, all of which are out of our control.  Hey, grit and effort count as much as two times that of ability.  To a conservative, who wants us to shut up and take our medicine (life) like men, my assumption that we more or less get what we deserve should be welcome.


Status-Striving: A Zero-Summed Game

Many of us are failing in our efforts at bringing about more status—whether it be influence, respect, care, love, sex, material goods, etc.  How do we know this?  Take a look at Jordan Peterson’s popularity.  He is here to help, primarily males, achieve more status and prestige.  Status is anything that brings positive attention.  Positive attention is admiration, praise, and deference.  This attention we get pays off because it brings influence and access to resources [4].  In other words, since people believe we have something special to offer, we can get them to do what we want.  They are more likely to reciprocate and help us when in need.  After all, people defer to us and we hold their attention.  We represent what they secretly want to have and be like.

Status is all relative.  Think about how high our confidence and comfortability levels are around people who rank low in intelligence, physical attractiveness, and ability.  All else equal, these people are more likely to defer to us.  Status and prestige, however, are scarce resources since we all want high-salaried positions, attractive and affable friends, and so forth.  This means that our self-interest is in competition with other people’s self-interest, which results in a conflict of interests.  So striving for status is often a zero-summed game.  There will be losers and winners.  It is not like participating in a market transaction, where free marketers assure us that it is a non-zero summed game since both participants stand to gain an increase in utility.  So we should not conflate the two. But this is exactly what the free market enthusiasts do; they say hey the market is a win-win and it is about cooperation, not competition.

When there is a limited supply of desirable resources such as goods, mates, positions, and prestige, those who are able to outmaneuver, overpower, or entice resources from others, will do better than those who cannot do these things.

We attract, entice, and get these things (status) by having status (intelligence, talents, attractivenss, abilities, etc.).

Indeed, social hierarchies are reflections of outcomes of conflicts: Those at the top have usually escalated and won, whereas those at the bottom have usually been outmaneuvered, overwhelmed, lost, and have had to de-escalate. [3]

So how do we approach this game of status striving?  One solution is to be better than others by being formidable and heeding Peterson’s advice.  We can intimidate and impress people with our confidence and prowess while increasing our chances of success by being selfish.  In the process, we will create a winner at the expense of others becoming losers.  This is how social hierarchies form, which creates status inequality.  Whenever we get people together, this is what happens although Peterson is biasing it to work in someone’s favor.  What about those who cannot pursue their own self-interest?  There is a solution for them too. They must accept their status and be grateful.  But even if we accept our positions in life and become content, where we stand in relation to someone else has effects on our survival.  There are subtle forces at play beyond our awareness.


Relative Status: the Insidious (or Beneficial) Force

Commentator: As Science, Engineering, and Technology becomes more advanced, inequality increases, irrespective of politics. Inequality increases. So what? The living standard of the poor increases along with that of the rich. JB Peterson aims to make the young competent enough to meet the challenges of tomorrow.

Peterson believes that a successful person is one who is “tough, smart, conscientious, and disagreeable.”  Disagreeableness is a personality trait that involves selfishness, manipulation, and aggression [1].  Although possessing these traits and striving to be formidable help some, the net effect is to contribute to an increase in inequality.  But there is status mobility, right?  Social inequality is not a bad thing because it entices people to strive for more status.  America is the land of opportunity, and people have more chances to become wealthy here than anywhere else.  These points are not necessarily wrong, but they miss an additional effect. Where we stand in the hierarchy relative to where another person stands, affects our health and happiness.  The better positioned we are, all else equal, then the happier and healthier we are relative to others with less status, anywhere along the continuum.

Average happiness levels do not rise with increasing average of the society, because whether societies are rich or richer, there will always be those who are better off, and those who are worse off; there will always be relative inequalities.  [This should answer the “Inequality increases. So what?”  It makes no difference if we increase GDP or raise people out of poverty.  None whatsoever!  Becuase it is where we stand relative to others that matters.  This is an additional effect that must be taken into account.  It is shown across most species in the animal kingdom too.  Having gratitude for where we are at, taking good health advice, and trying to be satisfied is not enough to buffer the effects of relative status differences.  The research bears this out.]

 

NA

Researchers followed 8,500 men and women over a twenty-year period and reported the results above.  If we made less than $15k (~$30k today), then we were nearly four times at risk of death compared to someone who made $70k (~ $140k today).  This distribution has been replicated for many other time periods and has gotten worse [5].  All factors that may influence the result were adjusted.  We may say to ourselves, oh, well, that is easy to explain.  Those who have a higher income have a better education. Better education and more income mean making healthier decisions, taking fewer risks, and having access to better health care.  It turns out that this effect is not big enough to explain these disparities.  That is, once we are out of poverty and do not have to worry about malaria, dysentery, and starvation, education and income have little effect in themselves.  It is what status brings us, which is an increase in influence, control over our lives, social engagement and benefits.  Status matters a whole lot.  

Humans have a pervasive need to be valued and to court good feelings about the self in the mind of “the other,” in order to be chosen for a role (as an employee, a friend, a lover, etc.). We have evolved special processing systems underpinning self-processing competencies that tract our social standing and how we think others think about us. [3]

Studies show that we care a great deal about what others think of us.  We also care about the amount of status our friends, rivals, and spouses have relative to us [7].  In fact, our happiness depends, amongst other factors, on how we compare ourselves to others.  Popular culture says that it should not matter what other people think and that we should only compete with ourselves.  This is good advice since unfavorable comparisons can cause a negative mood.  In fact, if we are constantly comparing ourselves and fail to measure up, then we can experience low self-esteem and inferiority.  This is a recipe for an unhappy life.  Still, it is inevitable that we will size one another up since the mind automatically assesses others as either a threat or non-threat to our interests.


Relative Status: on Health and Happiness

Most mental illnesses, such as depression and social anxiety, have their origins in striving for status [3].  In the United States, the mental illness rate is over twenty-percent.  Depression is a perfect example of status striving.  Depression is a “failed struggle” or a “failure to yield” [3].  This means that when we are experiencing interpersonal conflict (peer abuse, competing for positions, spousal criticism, etc.) or our goals become blocked (unrequited love, stagnant at work, can’t live up to expectations, etc.), and there’s no hope to reach these goals or to “win”, then we will become depressed if we don’t accept or accommodate ourselves to the situation.  In other words, the more we escalate or try harder to get what we want, whatever that may be, and we can’t get what we want, the more the body naturally deescalates itself and we become depressed.  Depression tells the body to seek more fruitful paths in life.

Commentator:…that relatively large disparities in status differences result in a reduction in health and happiness.” Really? Where is the evidence? Just J.E.A.R. (Jealousy, Envy, Anger, Resentment) degrades health and happiness. [Negative emotions can reduce subjective well-being (aka happiness), but the point is missed.  As much as we can wish or practice CBT to reduce these feelings, these feelings are inevitable.  In fact, they are a direct result of us not being equal, which is why we have status inequality.]

The negative emotions listed above are the result of us living in a social world and are not so much dependent on our ideology. Conservatives, however, are found to score higher, not by much, on measures of subjective well-being.  Subjective well-being is a common measure of happiness and is a function of life satisfaction, positive affect, and lack of negative affect.  The quotes below list some of the ways in which they accomplish this.  I suppose by liberals focusing on what they do not have or how the world should be, they can develop general envy towards others and resent the system and those who participate in it.  But I have not seen any research on this.  There is reason to believe that liberals may feel more discontent and unsatisfied because they view the world more accurately.  To change something, there must be some dissatisfaction with the way things currently are.  

Some say that conservatives have a greater sense of agency (they believe that they are in control of their life) and optimism (believe that meritocracy is fair, that is, with a little effort anyone can be successful) or they have certain social and cultural values that promote happiness (they derive meaning from religion and work). Others have been less flattering, saying that conservatism helps people feel less troubled about social inequalities by helping them to rationalize them away. [9]

High political conservatism is associated with preferences for stability, conformity, tradition, and order and structure. High political liberalism, in contrast, is associated with preferences for creativity, curiosity, novelty-seeking, and new experiences. Highly politically conservative people eschew ambiguity and disorganization and prefer closure and limited shades of gray (“hard categorizers”). Highly politically liberal people tolerate ambiguity and disorganization and favor flexibility and taking on cognitive conflicts. []

The relative risk of death does not segment itself into different ideologies.  We have no way of knowing how conservative beliefs and practices would help reduce the relative risk of death.  Since happiness is highly correlated with health, then it is conceivable that it would.  The key to understanding relative status is that its effect is often incremental and subtle.  If we have something “to offer”, which is what status is, we are more likely to be chosen for roles to participate in.  People invest in us because they believe in us. They are more likely to help us when in need.  We have increased access to resources, which come in many different forms (psychological, social, etc.), to help us solve problems.  We can take control of the situation instead of the situation controlling us [5].

All of these things, however subtle, accumulate to decrease the likelihood of stress, which is highly correlated with mental and physical health.  It is simply not true that high-status jobs are more stressful, such as being a physician.  This is because of the respect that is accorded to them.  The more that people defer to us, then the less stressful life is.  People are less likely to directly express their disapproval, anger, or criticism towards us.  The benefits of being valued pay off in psychological dividends.  People that are lower in status relative to their peers are more likely to experience anxiety and depression [3].  They are often in a state of “embraced readiness” because they must defend themselves from being harassed.  Think of extreme cases of high-status others, such as CEOs from successful companies.  They were not always calm, cool, and collected.  The brain increases neurotransmitters that signal to others that they are of high status.  They do not need to defend themselves because others will automatically submit.


Resentments: Much-Needed Distinctions

Commentator: Yes, I believe in many but not all cases envy and indignation can be at the root of a liberal worldview. [Not accurate.]  Leftism encourages fear, not respect.[Feeling threatned (fear) by Others, say minorities or those who threaten the establishment are more typical of conservative authoritarians.] Leftism encourages J.E.A.R. (Jealousy, Envy, Anger, Resentment).  [Sometimes they can feel indignation at the wealthy, especially those who don’t contribute to the welfare of others.]

Certainly, some liberals feel envy and indignation over the wealthy.  This could be reflected in the fact that they are for the redistribution of wealth. But envy and indignation are different things.  Envy is when we want someone else’s status and indignation is when we feel outraged over a grave injustice.  When it comes to the wealthy, I suspect that liberals are more likely to feel indignation than envy.  They feel that it is a scandal of capitalism that billionaires exist while 40 million people are at the poverty level.  A typical conservative, on the other hand, would see this as fair.  Because they believe fairness is proportional to the effort put forth in the market.  Of course, it is not quite that simple.  Regardless, most hate that we see from liberals is from their tribal instincts of Us vs. Them not from envy.  We feel hate when others are a threat to us, like someone we are competing with or who has different views than us, and we feel contempt for those who we perceive are beneath us.  Note that I choose more technical definitions than Webster’s but others are possible.  In short, envy is not “at the root of a liberal worldview”, not by a long shot.

What guides most liberals’ reasoning and stance on issues is compassion and empathy, sometimes to a fault.  Their worldview, not as a political philosophy but as a mode of thought and reasoning that prioritizes their values, has been more or less worked out by Lakoff and Haidt.  Their personalities tend to be more sensitive to feelings of compassion than conservatives, and they are more open to new experiences.  Again, this is just a model and variations exist.  Think about how they want to protect people from themselves, the market, corporations, guns, and so forth.  We can argue whether liberals’ approach to configuring society is ideal or not, but just like conservatives, they are coming from a particular point of view.  If we get their view, then we can understand them.  The antidote to our tendencies to engage in tribal warfare is to look at what we have in common with Others, not our differences. This may be difficult for authoritarians since their personality traits don’t easily lend a hand to empathy or openness to new ideas.

More distinctions must be made here too.  Those damn details.  Resentment is feeling anger and disgust towards another for perceived unfair treatment.  Whether or not the resentment is rational is something entirely different.  But resentment can also mean that we can resent when unfair things happen to us or when someone else gets something that we they do not deserve.  In a sense, envy is similar to resentment since we can have envy towards someone getting a new position (status), which could lead us to resent them.  And yet another nuance, indignation usually involves moral scenarios against members of society, whereas resentment is at the level of the individual.  When resentments include the thoughts “I deserve it”, and “they don’t deserve it”, then this may be fueled by a sense of entitlement.  Now that we have defined our terms, we need to ask if the liberal worldview fosters a sense of entitlement and resentment.  The answer is yes to the former.  But the word entitlement means something different to a liberal than a conservative (ii).  It is how we frame these very concepts that cause disagreement among the parties.

Psychological entitlement refers to an inflated and pervasive sense of deservingness, self-importance, and exaggerated expectations to receive special goods and treatment without reciprocating. [4]

For the mentally rigid, this may be a difficult concept to grasp, namely relativism.  Not relativism in the postmodernist sense where we cannot give priority to any truth at all, but in the sense that everything is relative to something to give it meaning.  In the definition of entitlement above, what do exaggerated expectations mean?  What is considered exaggerated is relative to the beliefs held within a worldview.  Liberals, for example, believe that health care is a basic need that everyone should have.  Conservatives say not a chance.  Conservatives’ belief in self-reliance drives all of the entitlement logic to be cases of unreasonable expectations.  Since we are supposed to be self-reliant and self-disciplined, then entitlements are always an unreasonable form of coddling.  But liberals believe that providing health care is empowering and nurturing the individual to help them realize their full potential.  Thus, what are exaggerated expectations in one worldview turn out to be reasonable in another.  We cannot possibly say that liberals are excessively entitled within the liberal sense of the word.  Putting liberal concepts within a conservative frame becomes incoherent.


Not that Simple: Shutup and Be Grateful

Commentator: Who is more likely to be a criminal: a resentful person? an unresentful person? Have you ever met a happy ungrateful person? [Notice the use of categorical reasoning.]. Gratefulness is the essential ingredient to happiness. [Yes, on the right track, but it is not the only factor.]

Psychology does show that gratitude is related to happiness.  Conservative pundits, with the exception of Peterson, are not psychologists.  They make it sound like gratitude is a simple choice.  It takes effort to be aware that we are feeling resentful and to put gratitude into practice. It takes even more effort to override feelings of resentment that we may harbor for society in general, which can exist in some.  Take an extreme example of mass shooters, who mostly start with no mental illness, and have been physically abused by parents and chronically rejected by their peers.  [I say start with no mental illness because, after abuse, they develop depression, trauma, and other mood disorders.]. They develop resentment towards society in general and then anger turns outward towards the Other.  The advice of being grateful is something that will have little to no effect on “categorically” resentful people.  There are of course a lot of people who have good genetics and upbringings that would prevent them from becoming mass shooters if abused and rejected.  And, no, I am not saying that mass shooters should not be accountable for their actions.

To say that a resentful person is more likely to be a “criminal” is an empirical question.  How do we know which came first, the resentment or the criminal act?  To even start, we would have to ask how frequent, to what magnitude, and how people experience resentments in order to qualify as a categorically “resentful person”.   If we exclude the pathological cases of those who experience resentment towards life, others, and the world in general, then there is no reason to believe that liberals experience it more than others.  Most resentments that we experience are not in general but occur in our daily interactions with other individuals.  Think about when someone snubs us, criticizes us, or does not take us seriously.  We either feel hurt feelings or anger and then later can develop resentment towards that person.  If they are rivals at work, we may even feel hate towards them.  The solution from a conservative is to toughen up or have gratitude that you are alive.  This advice is silly when we are feeling these emotions.  If we are pervasively not taken seriously, then maybe there is some truth to it.  We can instead focus on self-improvement or adjust our level of self-importance.  When we decrease our expectations of how we are supposed to be treated, then we are less likely to develop resentment.  On the other hand, perhaps the individuals who said this wasn’t high in status, and we could care less about their opinion and choose to dismiss it.  Life is complex and using pithy expressions as a strategy for navigating our social worlds is a start but not enough.  Conservatives’ advice always has a grain of truth to it, which is why it is contagious.

Have we ever met a happy ungrateful person?  There is truth in this oversimplification, but the “how” is missing, which makes it easy for self-righteous conservatives to stand in judgment instead of trying to understand why someone is resentful.  Some people’s personalities and environments make it challenging to accomplish this.  We would need to be in a milieu in which we could become content by finding satisfaction in the small things and lowering our expectations for status attainment.  There are a lot of people, however, who want to obtain more status in life, whether it is more respect, influence, love, sex, care, support, friends, high-status positions, etc., but they are failing at bringing this about.  Feeling trapped and powerless is a real phenomenon.  Lowering our expectations for status and accepting our position in life is one strategy, but giving advice to someone who wants more out of life to “be grateful” invalidates their struggle.  One strategy is to heed Peterson’s advice.  But there are no guarantees for advancing or becoming content.  Those who are truly low in status, that is, do not have much to offer in the domains of intelligence, attractiveness, ability, or personality, then they will struggle if they do not accept their status.  They will have a pervasive “chip on their shoulders” if they do not lower their expectations and self-importance.  In fact, experts claim that low-status individuals get rejected often and are at risk of just giving up on life.  The advice is for them to become more affable and giving.  In other words, if we can’t beat them then join them by subordinating ourselves.  This leaves the undesirable worrying about sacrificing too much and becoming exploited.  Since they are not good enough to be accepted or compete in this world, yet they do not want to be taken advantage of, then they must either subordinate themselves or live as the proverbial resentful person.  These people, the “undesirables”, have it rough, to say the least.  Those who are lower in social status are often on the periphery and become invisible.


The Science of Status Hierarchy 

Commentator:…the problem we have with status hierarchy…” A pointless statement. No matter how you re-arrange society, economy, and government, new hierarchies will arise with associated strata and status levels. Only in Dream-Land do strata-less, status-less societies exist. [Again, the difficulty with nuance.  It is a matter of degree.]

Anthropologists:  And as a large body of anthropological research shows, long before we organised ourselves into hierarchies of wealth, social status and power, these groups rigorously enforced norms that prevented any individual or group from acquiring more status, authority or resources than others. [6]

Whenever people get together status hierarchies form. The criteria that determine rank depend on the goals of the group, which is usually some combination of competence, intelligence, assertiveness, resources, and physical attractiveness.  Status hierarchies have the benefit of being an efficient means to economic progress because they put the more capable in charge.  They weren’t always this exaggerated though.  It was not until we started to grow our own food and settle down did we start to acquire vast amounts of material status.  But our psychology has not changed from 10,000 years ago.  Instead, our social norms have changed; we advocate competition, self-reliance, and materialism within our own tribe (U.S.).  It is not that we did not compete with one another, but solidarity must have been more pervasive for survival.  And competition was primarily with other tribes.  There had to have been a counterbalance to our tendency for self-interest.  In fact, the definition of morality is about suppressing self-interest in order to allow for cooperation.  From an evolutionary psychologist’s perspective, having envy motivates us to want to achieve more status ourselves.  On the other hand, having an awareness that we can make others feel uncomfortable with our status keeps us humble. In other words, envy may have evolved as a way to equalize status and to help us bind together.  Think about the feelings we have when someone close to us increases their status.  It is not always envy that we feel but that we don’t want to be left behind.

Commentator: According to the dictionary, FORMIDABLE = inspiring fear or respect through being impressively large, powerful, intense, or capable. Fear (aka intimidation) versus Respect. Fear is not Respect. Fear is a reaction; respect is a decision. Going back to the subject of play, no one gets invited to play through intimidation. Peterson definitely advocates people to strive to be capable, competent, and (IMPORTANTLY) playful. Formidable and playful inspires much more respect than fear. Fear and Respect are functions of the beholder more than of said formidable person. [Not quite the whole story. See below.]

According to the dictionary, RESPECT = a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements. Respect opens one to improve oneself, to educate oneself. Fear closes one to improvement and education. Leftism encourages fear, not respect. Leftism encourages J.E.A.R. (Jealousy, Envy, Anger, Resentment). The Left fears the competent. The Left resents the competent.  [Not quite acccurate.]

For the above, some of the concepts are correct and others are conflated.  Respect is an easy concept to understand if explained by an evolutionary psychologist.  Its end result is deference.  The ones that are “looked up to” are who we defer to but are also the ones that can do the threatening.  They threaten not with violence or aggression, as that is no longer acceptable, but with disapproval, anger, or rejection.  On average, we care more about the opinion of those above us than those on the same level or below us.  Because those are the people that can affect our position (status) in the world.  In the mind, respect can manifest as feelings of admiration over someone’s attributes and accomplishments.  But respect need not be only admiration.  If we define respect as being dependent on its outcome, which is deference, then invoking fear in others also results in a form of respect.  We just do not accept this form of respect anymore because we have evolved from a dominance-based to an affiliative-based system.

Respect is more likely to be an unconscious response than a choice; it is deeply rooted in our evolutionary past.  We unconsciously appraise situations quite quickly often without making any choices at all.  If we size someone up as stronger, more attractive, or more intelligent, we may automatically defer to them.  It is a fact of life that many get deferred to automatically without putting much effort into it—for example, those who are tall and physically attractive are treated better, all else equal.  We do not have fear anymore of someone retaliating with violence but rather have fear of being judged as inadequate or undesirable.  But feeling fear is still possible when we interact with others that we appraise as more capable, attractive, and accomplished.  I would call it insecurity, which if we study the mind, we will see that insecurity is rooted in the same parts of the brain as fear induced by the threat of violence.  In fact, there is a ton of research on how many will get social anxiety around those who pose a threat to their status.  Who we defer to and admire versus who we challenge or even hate would likely be based on who is our ally versus who is our competitor.

The point of contention was whether or not Peterson is accelerating the rate of people becoming dominant, not through force, but by virtue of what Peterson believes creates success.  For Peterson, the traits that create success are “disagreeableness, intelligence, and toughness”.  As a side, the commentator is taking my hypothesis more seriously than needed.  I have no way of testing this empirically.   In any event, let me start out by describing the status system that we currently work in.  We largely compete now to bestow positive value upon one another in order to be valued or chosen as relational partners or workers.  We advertise our worth through our abilities, smarts, character, and appearances.  Possessing these things equates to status and prestige.  We attract attention through our status with an, often unconscious, goal to stimulate positive feelings in the minds of others.  Although in the process we can create insecurity in some, the objective is to inspire others to improve their own status in a way that benefits others.

This system’s outcome is cooperative since we are competing to engage in mutually beneficial activities, say to be valued as a friend or to provide services to others as a valued worker.  In this type of system, we do not want to be seen as undesirable which means unattractive to others in some kind of way.  We care what others think, and we want to be accepted and valued.  This system is known as the hedonic system by evolutionary psychologists, which is “affiliative based on mutual benefit through positive displays”[1].  By contrast, the older system, which is the agonic or dominance-based system, still exists and in some ways has been coopted for the newer system.  The agonic system uses the threat of force and intimidation with the goal to get what we want by inhibiting others.  This system causes us to rank one another by virtue of who is better at whatever the relevant domain may be.  We can thank this system for us wanting to feel formidable, a force to be reckoned with, to be Machiavelian, and to be submitted to.  For those who liked “Better Call Saul” and “Breaking Bad”, Saul Goodman wanted to be accepted and well-liked (hedonic), while Walter White wanted to be respected and submitted to (agonic).  Both systems of course coexist since evolution is a conservatory force.


Peterson’s Experiment: Escalating Conflict of Interests

Peterson cites the evidence for success, which is to possess the traits of “disagreeableness, conscientiousness, intelligence, and toughness,” more than enough to know that he has extensively researched this.  Disagreeableness is a trait that is correlated with a lot of other traits, even from the dark triad which involves manipulatory and uncooperative behavior.  We possess this trait when we score low for agreeableness, which comes from the Big Five personality model.  Agreeableness is about being compassionate, cooperative, and putting the interests of others first.  As far as disagreeableness and success, the research has mixed results. Because some studies show that the advantages of selfish and brazen behavior for moving up the ladder are offset by the inability to form strong interpersonal relationships.  In my own experience with the corporate world, I would have to agree with Peterson. Regardless, Peterson is encouraging us to become formidable and self-interested, which means exuding the traits of toughness and disagreeableness   This is why I have said that if we want to be successful, then we should be willing to take Peterson’s advice.

Commentator: The Left fears the competent.  The Left resents the competent. [Having insecurity over someone being more competent and formidable than you is a function of the human condition not of an ideology.  We all can feel insecure over those higher in status than us, that is, those who are more attractive, capable, stronger, and talented than us.  They pose a threat to our own status because they attract more attention.  Status is defined as the increased influence we have over others by virtue of the amount of deference and positive attention we receive.]

Peterson is activating the agonic system since he believes being disagreeable and formidable are needed for success.  To be disagreeable is to act selfish, manipulative, and aggressively [1].  Since there is flexibility in these systems, Peterson, however, is also activating the hedonic or affiliative-based system when it is time to play.  But the play does nothing to negate the dominant-to-subordinate configuration that we create by becoming formidable.  It just means that when the dominant wants to play, it is time to play.  Peterson is encouraging the worst kind of competition by evoking the agonic system, which is characterized as being about “inhibiting others” through intimidation.  We do not become formidable in order to inspire others; we do so in order to become a “force to be reckoned with”.  We want people not to only defer to us but to submit to us when they are inferior to us.  In Peterson’s world, there is either the formidable or the opposite of the formidable, which is the weak.  Although he does not advocate the threat of aggression or force, he advocates the threat of creating insecurity in others by displaying superior competencies.


Conclusions

The purpose of this exhaustive post was not to defend the idea that Peterson contributes to status inequality.  Its purpose was to show how status inequality contributes to health and happiness.  Perhaps Peterson should not be reprimanded for helping others do what is partly instinctive, which is to strive for status.  The bigger point remains that anyone who selfishly strives for status will be contributing to status inequality.  Whether or not they become winners or losers, depends upon a host of factors—the primary of which is where they fall on the status continuum relative to others.  We all know that life, in terms of status striving and being valued by others, is based on how well we are positioned relative to others.  So the advice is to go where we can shine relative to others. This increases our chances of being valued and advancing our interests.  But what about the losers just below us.  Well, become more formidable and advance, or be grateful and accept.  In the former case, this creates more losers, and in the latter case we convince ourselves that we are happy, yet the statistics say that stats still matter.  Maybe we should change our approach instead.

But the following narrative is so ingrained in us that it will not be easy.  Status inequality creates incentives for us to want to achieve and be on top.  But no one is suggesting getting rid of status inequality since it is an inevitable result of what it means to be human. Solutions are for another post though.

Without competition, there is no source of reward for self-discipline, no motivation to become the right kind of person.  It is through competition that we discover who is moral, that is, who has been properly self-disciplined and therefore deserves success, and who is fit enough to survive and even thrive in a difficult world.  [4.5]


References:

[0.5] Christie Aschwanden.  Maybe Conservatives Just Think They Are Happier.    FiveThirtyEight

[1] Cameron, Anderson.  People with disagreeable personalities … PNAS.

[2] Deaton, Angus. The Great Escape. Princeton University Press.

[3] Gilbert, Paul.  Subordination and Defeat: An Evolutionary Approach To Mood Disorders and Their Therapy.

[4] Jens Lange.  A Status-Seeking Account of Psychological Entitlement.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

[4.5] Lakoff, George.  Moral Politics.

[5] Marmot, Michael. The Status Syndrome. Henry Holt and Co

[5.5] Ross Pomeroy. Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?  RealClearScience.

[6] Rogers, Deborah.  Inequality: Why Egalitarian Societies Dies Out.

[7] Sandel.  Michael.  The Tyranny of Merit.

[8] Starmans, Christina.  Why People Prefer Unequal Societies.  Nature Human Behavior.