I was lost, and then I was found

I received two packages the other day. The first was a substantial box, and when I opened it, I discovered a Bible, something called the Amplified Bible, a CD called “He is exalted” with recorded sermons just in case I was illiterate, a bookmark with a quote from Proverbs, a thank you note for allowing them to share the word of god with me today, and a copy of Bill Wiese’s “23 Minutes in Hell”, which purportedly documents in graphic detail an account of the author’s brief sojourn in Hell, just in case the nice approach didn’t work on me. Apparently someone decided to buy the missionary package from some commercial gospel outfit and send it to me.

i-da452f9aa51dac82e4d2ba52de9e3b10-package1.jpeg

Wow. Look at all that slick stuff, all just for me, because someone loves and cares for me so much.

Well, you can guess what happened next. I converted. I found Jesus in a box of cheesy books from a religious supply house. How could I not? That’s what it was all for, wasn’t it? I’m sure when someone waves a Bible at you, you find it irresistibly persuasive, right?

So then I turned to my second package, a slim and floppy thing, hardly impressive next to that box. But within it, I found a message…a message I needed to hear, that was perfect after my sudden conversion: SAVE YOURSELF, MAMMAL.

i-dd366b4c2c7eae7a64135ac67efb70ef-package2.jpeg

Yes.

Hallelujah, I said. I will save myself. I don’t need any gods or fairy tales, I will save myself. And mine eyes were opened, and I saw the glory. And I read the funny pages therein, and they were profane and twisted and hilarious, and I did fall on my knees and praise Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal. The box is forgotten, totally displaced by one slim treasure of great truth.

And that is how Zach Weiner saved my life and my sanity.

Hmmm. He does look like a kind of skinny Nordic Jesus, doesn’t he?

My secret addiction, revealed!

Back in the day, when I was a teenager, I used to hop on the bus to Seattle and spend a day wandering the seedier parts of town. I’d get off around Pike Street, near the Farmers’ Market, and wander around 1st and 2nd Avenues, which were not nice places for a quiet young man. But I had an obsession and a pocket full of change, and I was jonesing for a fix. I’d go to the porn shops.

Maybe you don’t remember 70s-era porn shops. Maybe you weren’t even born then. But the like of these beasts is something that we’ll not see again. They were beautiful.

The typical layout was to have walls covered with display racks, and displayed in all their blatant, lurid glory would be the covers of these glossy, over-sized magazines, and the covers would always be closeups of orgasmic women in hardcore action. There was a kind of battle going on: each one was competing to be brighter, shinier, brassier, sexier than the next, so you’d walk in to these little shops and be radiated with pink. Squirming, pulsing pink. There’d be spots of contrast provided by silky mats of pubic hair — this was the 70s, when “beaver” was the usual synonym for good reason — and by the segregated strip on one wall of black women, usually entangled with pale pink men, set aside like some exotic perversion.

These did not look like cheap operations. The magazines were often European imports, printed on thick stock, and with prices that were hard to believe at the time: $30, $50 each. They were published as if they were museum-quality works of art, but they weren’t going to last. VHS was on the way, and it was first going to replace the tins of 8mm and 16mm films kept in a cabinet behind the clerk’s chair, and then it was going to creep out and replace the pink flamboyance with little plastic boxes. And then, of course, the internet was going to arrive like a bomb in the mail and demolish everything.

But this was still the 70s, and I would walk in and do my usual ritual: I’d stand near the center and turn in a circle, brazenly taking in the art on the wall with my eyes wide-open and startled, looking for the real treasures, the actual purpose behind my entry into this pinkly glowing den of iniquity.

You see, the owners would always have a stash of cheap, entirely random books somewhere, usually unsorted and piled without care somewhere in the store: in the front window, on a low table, in a bin near the clerk. They looked totally out of place, with their faded covers and yellowing pages, like dusty, tattered insect carcasses beneath the feet of the lubricious mammalian sleekness prowling above them. I always imagined there must be some loophole in a law book somewhere, so that when the police walked in to harrass the owner with the obviously pornographic nature of his wares, he’d be able to grandly sweep a nicotine-stained hand around his emporium and announce, “Nah, officer, see…this is a bookstore!”, just by pointing out a few tatty, moldering piles.

And it was. That’s what I was after. There was absolutely no discrimination in the collection, and the prices were cheap: 5 or 10 cents. There’d be old pulp novels from the 40s, there’d be cowboy stories and romance novels, there’d be stacks of National Geographics (there was always National Geographic, guaranteed), occasionally you’d find battered old comic books (but not often; comics were becoming serious collectables, so they’d be quickly gleaned when left there), and of course, what I was after: cheesy science fiction. It was my addiction.

I’d find old Hugo Gernsback stories buried in there. There’d be Asimov and Clarke and Bradbury and A.E. van Vogt. I discovered the SF New Wave in a porn shop, with worn copies of Moorcock’s New Worlds, Leigh Brackett, Alfred Bester, and Harlan Ellison lying discarded and neglected until I picked them up and brought them back to life. I remember one beautiful moment when I pushed aside a stack of Argosy magazines and there beneath them was a black-bound, thick hardcover book, which I opened to discover Tennyson’s Idylls of the King, with color plates, waiting for me. $3. The clerk gave me such a strange look when I bought it, reverently — an old poem? When I was surrounded by wide-open beavers? He probably thought I was a pervert.

Even now, with those old porn shops gone, I’m a sucker for a used book store. Amazon is very convenient, but there’s nothing like browsing through second-hand stores and being surprised by something eclectic and weird, the kind of thing you wouldn’t actually search for, but when it’s there in front of you, there’s an irresistible urge to pick it up, read a bit of it, and then, of course, take it home with you. And like a true addict, I also hooked my kids on the habit, taking them on trips to Cummings Books in Minneapolis (which is no more, alas, and fortunately also lacked the pink walls of my youthful haunts), and coming back with a car trunk of exotica.

Nowadays when I prowl the second-hand stores it’s with a decided kink: I’m usually looking for creationist literature. I’m gleeful when I find a copy of the Necronomicon of creationism, The Genesis Flood, by Whitcomb and Morris, or some obscure tract that I only knew otherwise from some brief reference by a creationist elsewhere. I collect these things: I have a cluttered shelf in my office reserved for wacky religion.

What triggered this reminiscence is that on my trip to London, while browsing a bookstore (a dangerous habit, since if I succumbed to my addiction I’d be hauling trunks of books back across the Atlantic), I discovered a man after my own heart in Robin Ince’s Bad Book Club: One Man’s Quest to Uncover the Books That Time Forgot(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Apparently, Robin Ince has my same addiction, but lacks the discipline and restraint and willpower that I possess, because he seems to make the most amazing hauls of diverse printed matter during his comedy tours. I envy him so much.

Also, I feel so narrow-minded now. Robin Ince collects everything, and he describes it all in the book. When he finds poetry, for instance, it’s not just some hoity-toity Alfred Lord Tennyson cast-off, it’s epic doggerel about Elvis. While I considered those common romance novels to be the chaff that I had to wade through, Ince picks them up and reads them, and discovers jewels of weird prose. Ince possesses the secrets of how to pick up sexy ladies — although, I doubt that he’s actually tried them out, because if he had, I suspect we’d see him wandering about on the arm of a brain-damaged, drug-addicted chimpanzee, because I think that’s the only population that might fall for those secrets. Ince finds books about vicious predatory earthworms and sordid thrillers about a menage a trois involving a woman and trawlermen.

I did detect some differences in our national populations, though. He talks on and on about Mills & Boon, publishers of common generic romances, but I’ve never heard of them. Instead, the ubiquitous American version is Harlequin; I recall appreciating them greatly, because their hot pink covers and spines made it easy to recognize and ignore them while I was rifling through piles of miscellany. Also, in the US, the other extremely common paperback is the generic western cowboy story, which generally did their covers up in manly brown, with a picture of a rifle somewhere on it. Ince doesn’t even have a chapter on cowboy stories. I can’t really blame him: I tried reading some of those, once, and learned only that Louis L’Amour is an appallingly bad writer, with all the style and grace of a brain-damaged, drug-addicted chimpanzee. Which means that maybe Ince’s special secret pick-up book is about how to get a date with the sexy zombie Louis L’Amour, so maybe Ince did try them and was repelled from the cowboy genre forever, explaining why there is no discussion of them in his book. My logic there is impeccable, I think.

Anyway, I’m inspired. Next time I’m in a second-hand bookstore, I’m going to wander from my usual narrow range and peek into the romance novels, the horror stories, the poetry section, and broaden my horizons awfully.

I’m off to a good start. While browsing a London bookstore, I found this bizarre book by Robin Ince about bad books…

Reading for non-psychopaths

I’ve met Jon Ronson a few times, including this past weekend, but I can’t say I really know him — we’ve exchanged a few words, I’ve heard him give a talk, I now him as the short intense guy with the very bad hair, slightly neurotic, expressive, and funny. But I read his book, The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll) this afternoon while on the train from Cheltenham to Heathrow, and I have this idea of who he is.

He’s Hemingway. Yeah, you know, the macho, hard-drinking man’s man who would run with the bulls or fish for the marlin or pretend to be a war correspondent, who was all about his image as a man of danger or adventure. Only Ronson is more of a nerd’s nerd, and instead of physical danger, he’s all about deep psychic weirdness. So he writes about conspiracy theorists in Them(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), or weirdos with purported psychic powers in The Men Who Stare at Goats(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), or he charges off to interview the Insane Clown Posse. And now, in this book, he hangs out with psychopaths. He’s much freakier than Papa.

So the book is a tour of psychopaths and the people who study them. I don’t quite understand how a guy as anxious as Ronson could do it, which again speaks to his nerd machismo. Early on, we get introduced to the criteria for psychopathy:

1 Glibness/superficial charm
2 Grandiose sense of self-worth
3 Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
4 Pathological lying
5 Cunning/manipulative
6 Lack of remorse or guilt
7 Shallow affect
8 Callous/lack of empathy
9 Parasitic lifestyle
10 Poor behavioural controls
11 Promiscuous sexual behaviour
12 Early behaviour problems
13 Lack of realistic long-term goals
14 Impulsivity
15 Irresponsibility
16 Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
17 Many short-term marital relationships
18 Juvenile delinquency
19 Revocation of conditional release
20 Criminal versatility

I read that and mentally checked off which characteristics fit myself (I know you’re doing it yourself) — surprisingly, none of them fit me at all, which makes me a kind of anti-psychopath. But then, I started thinking…isn’t that just exactly what a psychopath would say? And all we’d need to do is be really good at #4 to conceal everything else. This is what happens as you read the book; everything gets all twisty and you start getting paranoid and confused, because you start applying the criteria to everyone you know.

Or to entire institutions. Just try assessing the Republican party or the Catholic church by that list. The psychos are everywhere.

It’s good reading, anyway. It kept me engrossed for the whole trip, and left me wide-awake and a little jumpy as I worked my way through the airport.

Next on the reading list…

I am looking forward to reading Anthony Grayling’s new book, The Good Book, with considerable anticipation — I’ve ordered a copy (it’s not as if it would be easily available in Morris!) which hasn’t arrived yet, but what has arrived are teasers from Grayling himself. Here’s a Q&A about the book that might have you itching for a copy as much as I am.

WHEN AND WHY DID YOU BECOME AN ATHEIST?
I was brought up in a non-religious family, and when I first encountered religion it simply seemed incredible, no more believable that the fairy stories and Greek myths that I had read and enjoyed as a child.

WHAT MOTIVATED YOU TO WRITE THE GOOD BOOK?
Several decades ago, while studying the ethical theories and systems of the world, I saw a fundamental difference between religion-derived ethics and what I call ‘humanism’, that is, non-religious ethics, namely, that the former present themselves as the commands and requirements of a monarchical deity whereas the latter premises itself on efforts to understand human nature and the human condition – and whereas the former typically cut across the grain of human nature by requiring self-denial and control of control functions, the latter is more sympathetic and reasonable by far.

HOW MUCH TIME DID IT TAKE YOU TO ORGANISE ALL THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO MAKE THE BOOK AND TO WRITE IT?
I started to gather the materials for The Good Book about 30 years ago, after the realization described above, and as time went by began the process of selecting and editing – going from a great quantity of material to the final selection and arrangement that constitutes The Good Book now.

WHY DID YOU DECIDE TO PUBLISH IT NOW? HAS IT SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE 400TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE?
The 400th anniversary of the KJB is coincidental; unlike sending a rocket to the moon where precision of timing is possible, I couldn’t have planned that this would be the year of publication when I began this so long ago! But it is a useful coincidence, because the KJB provides a good example of how the religious Bible was made, and why it is printed as it is, and why its language is deliberately archaic (even in 1611 the English of the KJB was 100 years out of date, on purpose to give it that authoritative, vatic, somewhat heightened tone).

AREN’T YOU AFRAID OF BEING CALLED PRETENTIOUS OR ARROGANT FOR THIS AMBITIOUS INITIATIVE?
I’ve already been called even worse things than either of those! – I don’t expect that anyone who is hostile to the idea of The Good Book will readily believe this, but I have done it in a sober and collegial spirit. After all, almost all the words in The Good Book are from great minds of the past, from people who experienced much and thought deeply, and in almost all cases were people of great intellect – so when people attack The Good Book they attack Aristotle, Pliny, Seneca, Cicero, Confucius, Mo Zi…all the way to Spinoza, Hume, Chesterfield, Mill and Pater. If they read these people outside the context of The Good Book they would be struck by their insight and wisdom – so if they give The Good Book a fair chance, they would see that I have collected and arranged these valuable texts as a resource for everyone, so that even religious people would find good things in it.

IN YOUR OPINION, DO ATHEISTS REALLY NEED THEIR OWN BIBLE?
No one needs a bible, because everyone has the potential to find things out and read for themselves. Since atheists are more likely than religious people to be independent-minded, they are even less in need of guidance and help, because they can go to libraries, learn, and think for themselves. But even atheists need to read and study, and a distillation of the past’s insights and experience relating to questions about how to live (Socrates’ question!) might be of use to some. No-one is under an obligation to read The Good Book given that they can do the work for themselves, and indeed this latter would be the best way; but I offer it anyway as a resource should it be of value to some. And given the wealth of insight, inspiration and consolation that the book gathers together, I have good hopes that some will indeed find it useful, as a starting point for their own reflections. The one demand that The Good Book makes is for people to go beyond all teachings and teachers (and therefore beyond books like The Good Book) and think for themselves.

IS THE GOOD BOOK MADE FOR EVERYONE? CAN A RELIGIOUS PERSON READ IT?
As just indicated, yes, definitely: there is nothing in The Good Book that a religious person could or at least should disagree with – except for those who say we must not think for ourselves but must submit our will and intellect to the doctrines of a religion.

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO ACHIEVE WITH THE GOOD BOOK?
Again as noted in the preceding remarks, The Good Book is intended as a resource to help anyone who cares to use it as such on their journey to autonomy and independence of mind.

DON’T YOU FEAR THAT IT WILL BE CONSIDERED A SELF-HELP BOOK, FULL OF PRESCRIPTIONS FOR A GOOD LIFE?
Not prescriptions, but suggestions; and from very great minds of the past.

HAVE YOU FACED ANY CRITICISM FROM ATHEISTS OR HARSH REACTIONS FROM RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES?
Those atheists and theists who have not seen the book or who have not grasped its purpose, and either think it is a rule-book for atheists (so some atheists might think) or an attack on the religious bible or religion itself (so theists might think) have of course been critical – but the kind of criticism that would be truly germane would concern itself with the choice of texts, their arrangement, the translations used, &etc, unless the critics in question are so authoritative that they disagree with what Aristotle et. al. have to offer in the way of suggestions for reflecting on ethical questions.

YOU SAY THAT RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE IS OVERINFLATED IN OUR SOCIETY. WHAT ARE THE BIGGEST CONSEQUENCES OF THIS IN OUR LIVES?
This question is almost too big to answer in a few lines. All the way from distortion of education (opposition to evolutionary biology, false views of the nature and origins of the universe, corruption of science &etc) to oppressive moralities (think of teenagers fearfully struggling with ‘sinful feelings’ because of their burgeoning sexuality) to policies on contraception, AIDS prevention, abortion and stem cell research, to persecution of gays, to murderous interreligious conflicts in many countries (Christians versus Muslims versus Hindus – and Protestants versus Catholics, and Sunnis versus Shias, attacking each other in Nigeria, Iraq, Pakistan, India, Ireland, Croatia…) to religious leaders (e.g. mullahs) inciting hatred, terrorism and mass murder – where are the aspects of our lives that are not in some way affected by the toxin of religion?

IN AN INTERVIEW IN THE GUARDIAN, YOU JOKED ABOUT BEING A GOD IN FIVE CENTURIES. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE GOOD BOOK MESSAGE CAN AND WILL LAST AS LONG AS GREAT PHILOSOPHICAL BOOKS?
The message of the great philosophical books will last as long as there are intelligent minds to appreciate them. Whether The Good Book, which is a distillation of some of the best of these books, will last with them, is an open question. I certainly hope not to be a ‘god’ because, even though history shows that the bar has not been set very high in this regard, I would not be a good one, and anyway if I have a message it is ‘think for yourself, take responsibility for yourself, do not be a disciple, do not abdicate your mind and put it under the feet of someone else’s ideology’.

IN THE SAME INTERVIEW, YOU SAID THAT BEING A ‘MILITANT ATHEIST’ WAS LIKE ‘SLEEPING FURIOUSLY’. BUT HAVEN’T YOU WORKED AND STILL WORK REALLY HARD TO DEFEND THE ATHEIST POINT OF VIEW?
‘Militant’ is a term used by religious people who wish that they could continue to enjoy the status and privileges which the now-lost ‘respect agenda’ (‘I think weird thoughts so respect me, I am a man of faith’) once protected for them. My friends Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens do not burn people at the stake for holding opposite views, but criticize them by speaking frankly and bluntly; and I have done the same in other places. There are three areas of debate: metaphysics (does the universe contain supernatural agencies? Answer: No; learn some science) secularism (what is the place of religion in the public square? Answer: it has every right to have its say, but no greater right than anyone else – yet for historical reasons it has a massively over-amplified voice there) and ethics (do you need a ubiquitous invisible policeman watching everyone for people to be good? Answer: No, read e.g. the Good Book). My interest is in all three, but as just noted The Good Book addresses the third of these, by showing that there is a rich, deep, serious non-religious tradition of thought about the good, which is in fact richer and deeper than religious ethics (New Testament ethics says ‘give away all you own, make no plans, do not marry…’ i.e. the ethics of a people who thought the Messiah was very soon going to return; after four centuries Christianity had to borrow great swathes of Greek non-religious ethics to bolster itself.)

WHAT DO YOU SAY ABOUT THE THESIS THAT NEW ATHEISM LOOKS LIKE A RELIGION?
That is nonsense. As has been well said, atheism is to religion what not collecting stamps is to stamp collecting. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Not believing in gods and goddesses is not a religion.

CAN WE LIVE COMPLETELY GUIDED BY RIGOROUS REASON AND RATIONALITY? DO YOU YOURSELF TRY TO LIVE THAT WAY, WITHOUT EMOTIONAL SUBJECTIVITY?
Of course we need emotion; who said that we do not? This is the most important part of our lives: loving, responding to beauty, feeling joy, coping with grief and loss, being human. But we know that a partnership of emotion and reason makes our emotions deeper and finer; the emotions can be educated by reflection – as when we read thoughtfully, learn, study science, acquire greater appreciation of music and painting – recognizing the central importance of emotion does not exclude being rational where rationality is called for (from science to thinking about our children’s health and education to voting to planning our pensions – these are not matters for emotion) and emotion is not mere thoughtless whim and arbitrariness. To go from the thought that emotion is central to life to saying that therefore we can believe any old nonsense is an example not of emotion but or irrationality or even stupidity.

ANY SPECIAL MESSAGE TO AN ATHEIST READER?
I congratulate any atheist on being one, and wish him or her well.

See Sikivu Hutchinson in LA!

Sikivu Hutchinson has a new book out, Moral Combat: Black Atheists, Gender Politics, and the Values Wars, which I have just ordered for myself. You fortunate people in LA, though, could also go hear the words straight from her mouth: she’ll be be speaking at Revolution Books on 3 April. Apparently they’ve moved since the last time I was there: they’re now located at 5726 Hollywood Blvd. You should go, if you can, or at least pick up a copy of her book — she’s one of the strong sharp voices of modern atheism.

I get strange books in my mailbox

I must be a magnet for madness. The latest treasure to manifest itself in my mail is a book by Stefano Polidori called The Chaos Riders. It may be a rare artifact; it’s not listed on Amazon, but it’s expensively bound with an inset photograph of Da Vinci’s The Last Supper on the cover, with thick glossy pages and profuse color illustrations throughout, but no publisher is listed anywhere. It’s hot off the vanity press.

I have tried to read bits and pieces of it. I was a bit put off by the translator’s remarks that claim the author is a scientist, but the first words in the preface are Polidori proudly telling us that he doesn’t read anyone else’s work, and the last book he read was Jonathan Livingston Seagull, and by the way, he dropped out of university because he “refused to accept others telling me how my brain should work.”

I was not able to figure out why the book is called The Chaos Riders or even what it is about. I did learn that Stefano Polidori possesses the reincarnated soul of John William Polidori, and that he vibrates at the same frequency of the prior Polidori, which attracts UFOs to hover over him. He carries a mutation which equipped his brain with an electromagnetic transmitter, which allows telepathy. He’s also obsessed with a friend named Henrik Dreyer, who knows a lot about past lives and gets his information by talking with plants. He does nicely spill the beans on the current identities of the reincarnated Lord Byron and Percy Shelley, in case you’re looking to commission some poetry.

But there’s something else that’s notable about this book, that simply blew my mind when I opened it and leafed through the pages.

The entire book, every word, is typeset in Comic Sans.

You doubt me. No one could be that mad, you think. But I tell you, it is so! And you can trust me, after all, since I am the reincarnated Hypatia of Alexandria, and you know she’d never tell a lie. Like a true skeptic, though, even that isn’t good enough, so I am currently broadcasting images of this book via my mutant electromagnetic transmitter brain, images that will be displayed on the undersurfaces of passing UFOs like advertising on the Goodyear Blimp, so just look up.

What, you still doubt me? You must have only limited, mundane senses. Therefore, to aid the handicapped, here is a scan of page 97. Behold!

[Read more…]

Evolution: The Story of Life on Earth

Have you got kids? Are you tangentially related to any young people? Are you young yourself? Do you know anyone who just likes a good story and interesting science?

Well, then, I’m sorry, but reading this article will cost you $12.89. Jay Hosler has a new book out (illustrated by Kevin Cannon and Zander Cannon), Evolution: The Story of Life on Earth(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), and I’m afraid it’s going to be required reading for everyone, and you’re also all probably going to end up buying multiple copies for gifts.

Really, it’s that good. It’s a comic book about aliens from Glargalia explaining the history of life on earth to young Prince Floorsh by going over the fundamental concepts and hitting a few of the details. It’s entertaining and fun, and sneakily informative.

If you don’t simply trust me, check out the extensive excerpts at the NCSE and at Scientific American.

Hey, and if you don’t like comic books, don’t know any young people, and don’t want to read it yourself, buy a copy anyway and give it to your local library. For America.

Remembrances of books past

Our university library is having a book sale today, one of those unfortunate but necessary events where they purge old or duplicate items from the collections to make room for new books, and I had to make a quick browse. What did I discover but an old children’s book that startled me with fearful and powerful remembrances — this is a book that I checked out from the Kent Public Library when I was ten years old.

i-42323a240c23f6619ccc6b6598f0921b-zim.jpeg

That’s the Golden Guide to Mammals by Herbert S. Zim and Donald F. Hoffmeister, copyright 1955. It features “218 ANIMALS IN FULL COLOR”, with maps of their distribution and short descriptions of their habitat and life histories. I remember reading that from cover to cover, practically memorizing it, and going on long walks out into the fields and forests around my home, looking for the elusive Boreal Red-Backed Vole or the dens of the Hoary Bat, or using it to try to identify the shredded carcasses of road kill.

Now with hindsight I realize it’s a rather awful little book, simultaneously too thin on information for each species to be really useful, and far too limited in breadth to be helpful in actually appreciating diversity, but I have to appreciate it for being an early provocateur, telling me that there was more to the life around me than people, my dog, and the lettuces and corn growing in the nearby fields. So thank you Drs Zim and Hoffmeister! I had to buy the rather ragged copy on sale at the library today as a nod to my early years.

I also had to buy it as an act of expiation. I sinned in my youth, and it curiously still nags at me. I checked the book out of the library when I was 10, and I didn’t return it. I kept it hidden away in my bedroom for a long, long time, and it was small enough to fit in my pocket when I went out, so I just…kinda…kept it. The library sent out all kinds of late notices and my parents kept nagging me to find the damned overdue book, while I just willfully pretended I didn’t know where it was, and they eventually had to just pay to replace it (so I’m pretty sure the Library Police aren’t still trying to hunt me down). I was so bad.

When I look back on my childhood and recollect the naughty things I did, I have to say that my appropriation of that shallow little book is at the top of my list of criminal acts, and I still do feel a bit guilty about it. But now I have my very own copy, openly and rightfully paid for! It’s not as if I’ll ever actually use it, but it’s sweet how holding it now brings me back to the edges of old ponds, hiking the steep flanks on the west side of the Green River Valley, wandering half-lost through silent forests, and that time I climbed up the side of an abandoned gravel pit to startle a grouse at the top who almost sent me plummeting backwards to my likely death when he puffed up and flew right at me.

Which led me to check out the Golden Guide to Birds, which was another story…

The sexist brain

It looks like I have to add another book to my currently neglected reading list. In an interview, Cordelia Fine, author of a new book, Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), has a few provocative things to say about gender stereotypes and the flimsy neuroscience used to justify them.

So women aren’t really more receptive than men to other people’s emotions?

There is a very common social perception that women are better at understanding other people’s thoughts and feelings. When you look at one of the most realistic tests of mind reading, you find that men and women are just as good at getting what their interaction partners were thinking and feeling. It even surprised the researchers. They went on to discover that once you make gender salient when you test these abilities [like having subjects check a box with their sex before a test], you have this self-fulfilling effect.

The idea that women are better at mind reading might be true in the sense that our environments often remind women they should be good at it and remind men they should be bad at it. But that doesn’t mean that men are worse at this kind of ability.

But it seems like a Catch-22: Women who pursue careers in math are being handicapped by the fact that there are so few women pursuing careers in math.

Gender equality is increasing in pretty much all domains, and the psychological effects of that can only be beneficial. The real issue is when people in the popular media say things like, “Male brains are just better at this kind of stuff, and women’s brains are better at that kind of stuff.” When we say to women, “Look, men are better at math, but it’s because they work harder,” you don’t see the same harmful effects. But if you say, “Men are better at math genetically,” then you do. These stem from the implicit assumption that the gender stereotypes are based on hard-wired truths.

Here we have a brain, receptive and plastic and sensitive to learning, constantly rewiring itself, with a core of common, human traits hardwired into it, and over here we have scientists who have been the recipient of years of training, often brought up in a culture that fosters an interest in science and math…and somehow, many of these scientists are resistant to the idea that the brain is easily skewed in different directions by the social environment. I don’t get it. I was brought up as a boy, and I know that throughout my childhood I was constantly being hammered by male-affirmative messages and biases, and I think it’s obvious that girls were also hit with lots of their gender-specific cultural influences. Yet somehow we’re supposed to believe that the differences between men and women are largely set by our biology? That women aren’t as good at math because hormones wire up their brain in a different way than the brains of men, and it’s not because our plastic brains receive different environmental signals?

Fine appeals to my biases about the importance of environmental influences, I’ll admit; the interview is a bit thin on the details. But I’ll definitely have to read her book.