Category: Daily Reads

  • Daily Read: Chocolate-Dipped “Science”

    Daily Read: Chocolate-Dipped “Science”

    Are you confused by science reporting about health and nutrition? Have you given up listening to what the media reports about our diets and what foods are good (or bad) for us? If you answered yes, I’m not surprised, and I fear that reading this article will give you even less confidence in media reporting on these important topics. But I still think you should read it. John Bohannon explains the hoax he perpetrated with the help of some German researchers in a bid to illustrate how easy it is to dupe the media into publishing bad science. In brief, Bohannon did an actual scientific study that generated real results showing that eating a bar of dark chocolate every day accelerates weight loss – but his methodology was full of holes and his conclusions were weakly supported. Nevertheless, when he got his study published in a pay-to-play “science” journal  that will take any study as long as the author pays the fee (an enormous problem itself and the topic of a future rant), and then released an accurate – but detail-scant – press release trumpeting his results, it was snapped up immediately and uncritically by media outlets throughout the globe and published with no scientific fact-checking.

    The upshot? We need more critical thinking not just in our media but in media consumers. People need to be taught how to critically evaluate how a study was conducted and ask the right questions: what was the sample size? What statistical tests were used to calculate the results? How many parameters did the study measure? I realize that learning how to do this takes education and experience, but we need it. It’s not enough to rely on media outlets to do it for us when their bottom line is driven by clicks, shares, and page-views. And this article also illustrates why it is so unbearably easy for the unscrupulous purveyors of modern snake-oil to fool their customers with sophisticated nonsense. It’s a large part of the reason the anti-vaccine movement has any traction at all, why the Food Babe has any followers, and why homeopathic remedies have yet to be banned from store shelves. We have to learn for ourselves how to spot bad science.

    I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here’s How.

  • Daily Read: Social Illness

    Daily Read: Social Illness

    In scanning today’s headlines about the horrific act of racial terrorism in Charleston, in which nine Black people lost their lives, there were only a few that grabbed my attention enough to click through. I didn’t feel up to the mental exhaustion of reading every article; however,  this one, by Arthur Chu, merited a full reading simply because I’ve learned that Chu is always worth reading. He focuses on why it’s a cop-out and a whitewash of what happened in Charleston to attribute it to mental illness. A quote: “We love to talk about individuals’ mental illness so we can avoid talking about the biggest, scariest problem of all–societal illness. That the danger isn’t any one person’s madness, but that the world we live in is mad.” I won’t try to summarize further. Read it.

    It’s not about mental illness: The big lie that always follows mass shootings by white males

  • Daily Read: Transracial Profiling

    Daily Read: Transracial Profiling

    Ever since the revelation on June 11, 2015 that Rachel Dolezal, the president of the Spokane NAACP, is a white woman who has been masquerading as black, I have been voraciously devouring articles about her. I am appalled at what she has perpetrated, and even more dismayed at the ways she has tried to justify her deception. She uses the language of the academy to bob and weave around the straight answers to questions about her race. I understand that language much better than the average person, and I see how damaging it is to use the important theoretical and real-world advancements we have made in understanding race (as well as gender, sexuality, ethnicity, etc.) to justify what Dolezal has done.

    One of the more damaging comparisons that is being consistently drawn is between Dolezal’s racial appropriation and the transition of Caitlyn Jenner. I knew instantly and viscerally that this is a false equivalence (and it is explained beautifully in this article by Meredith Talusan). But another important issue is what is actually meant by the term “transracial.” Today’s Daily Read by Syreeta McFadden (writing in Alternet by way of The Guardian) is one of the better articles I’ve read on why Dolezal cannot be considered transracial. That is a very specific term that applies to very specific circumstances, and it does not apply to Dolezal. McFadden does not specifically address the difference between being transracial and transgender, but she does explain very well why what Dolezal has done is abetted by the white privilege into which she was born.

    Rachel Dolezal’s Definition of ‘Transracial’ Isn’t Just Wrong, It’s Destructive

  • Daily Read: Liberal Triggers Part II

    Daily Read: Liberal Triggers Part II

    Today we have a response to yesterday’s Daily Read that brings up some important points. Amanda Taub addresses the focus on identity politics in Edward Schlosser’s article (which, as I failed to point out yesterday, is written under a pseudonym), and argues that identity politics aren’t the real issue. Taub stresses that the problem stems from fear of the university and its modern business model that treats students and professors as an “interchangeable means of production.” This means that liberal professors like the pseudonymous Schlosser aren’t actually afraid of their students; they are afraid of a system in which they could lose their jobs by exercising their academic freedom. I think Taub has an excellent point that we shouldn’t distract from this problem by deflecting it onto students who may have sensitivities to difficult subject matter. Blaming identity politics may only serve to further disempower and silence the voices of those who are most in need of acknowledgement. As Taub points out, “If adjuncts and junior faculty members feel insecure enough to censor their teaching or work, then that’s a problem in their relationship with their universities, not in their relationships with their students.”

    I was a liberal adjunct professor. My liberal students didn’t scare me at all.

  • Daily Read: Liberal Triggers

    Daily Read: Liberal Triggers

    I am a liberal (shocking, I know). I am also a college professor. This combination causes distress for some people who argue that our universities are “liberal indoctrination centers” where the professors mock conservatives and teach students to be politically correct and overly sensitive victims of identity politics. So why is it that I keep coming across articles like today’s Daily Read, in which a self-identified liberal professor addresses his concerns about how liberal his students have become? Edward Schlosser discusses the new landscape of college teaching, in which professors have become fearful of engaging students on difficult topics such as racism, gender discrimination, sexuality, and violence. Schlosser is afraid that students have become so sensitive to the travails of their particular identities (race, gender, sexual, et al) that they will raise a hue and cry of discrimination if varying ideas about these identities are even discussed. Students have come to believe that they should always feel “safe,” and therefore should not ever be subjected to difficult content in a classroom, even if the content is discussed with respect and sensitivity.

    Many of Schlosser’s points resonated with me, even though I have not had any backlash in my nine years of teaching about sometimes extremely uncomfortable topics such as female genital mutilation, infanticide, violence against women, and racial violence (not to mention teaching evolution to students who frequently come from religious backgrounds). But I have become aware of the trend towards protecting students’ emotional equilibrium by including trigger warnings before difficult material or even professors avoiding topics entirely because of the fear that some students will protest.

    I agree with Schlosser that there may be a threat to free and open exchange of ideas on campus if we cater too much to the idea that students should never feel uncomfortable; however, I also believe that there may be an echo-chamber at work here as articles like this reinforce each other and make it seem as if this is a bigger problem than it actually is. It also relates to the topic of what debates should take place on campuses – e.g., there has been an uptick in students protesting the inclusion of controversial speakers such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali in campus events (or in the case of a debate between skeptic Michael Shermer* and Christian Frank Turek, a letter to the school paper from the Graduate Queer Alliance at Stony Brook University asking for the university to apologize for allowing Turek, who is opposed to gay marriage, to appear. Shermer and Turek co-authored a response that is worth reading. Also, let me make clear that I disagree with much of what Hirsi Ali has to say, but I think it’s still important to allow her a venue in which to say it).

    This is supposed to be a short post so I’m going to leave the topic for now, but there is much more to tackle regarding how to deal with sensitive topics on campus and the liberal response to ideas we find distasteful at best, and openly bigoted at worst. I support having an open, inclusive, and safe (in the traditional sense of the word) environment on campus; but I also believe we can’t truly teach our students how – and not what – to think if we don’t expose them to topics, concepts, and speakers that may sometimes make them feel both emotionally and intellectually uncomfortable.

    I’m a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me

    *Full disclosure: I am a member of the Skeptic Society, of which Shermer is president.

  • Daily Read: Bankrupt Reality

    Daily Read: Bankrupt Reality

    I’ve been feeling off my blogging game lately, which is why I haven’t been posting, but how could I not share this story about the worst excuse for a “reality” show I’ve seen yet? I’ve seen a few headlines about this over the past few days so I finally clicked on this story from Alternet, and read about the horror-show called The Briefcase. In short, the show pits two needy families against each other in a televised version of the prisoner’s dilemma in which they are asked to make decisions about how to use a briefcase full of money ($101,000, to be precise). They could keep it, donate some of it, or donate it all – and each family is mislead into thinking that the other family is the one in need of help when in reality they are both playing the same game (that is, EACH family has the same amount of money, but they believe that the other family has nothing). The decisions they make determine how much cash they walk away with in the end. Essentially, if one of the families decides to give all the cash to the other family, but that family chooses to keep all the cash, one family ends up with $200,000 while the other family has nothing. Vox has another take on the show that explains these details (and incidentally, from a viewer’s standpoint, pans the show as boring).

    I don’t know what to say about this other than that it fills me with disgust and rage. The rank exploitation of two families who are struggling to keep their heads above water and yet still bravely refer to themselves as middle class is horrifying. To call this entertainment is an insult to every performer who wished to please an audience. To call the executives at CBS who greenlit this monstrosity human strains credulity.

    New Reality Show Exploits Poor Families, Makes Them Grovel Over the Thing They Need Most

    ETA: Here’s another article that really does a good job of expressing how horrible this show is, from Vulture: On The Briefcase, Poor Americans Have to Prove Themselves