One of the classic sporting stories out there is the ruffian made good by virtue of learning to box. A classic example is stories such as this and this. But I feel that you have to ask some searching questions about this narrative. In the long run does a violent sport such as boxing prevent or encourage violent behaviour? My suspicion is that in most cases it helps prevent violent behaviour by giving people confidence, discipline and something to do. But it also brings with it exposure to other violent people, and training in how to fight. In addition there is a risk of brain damage.
So how can we answer this question? I’m not aware of any specific research into the issue, but I think there are some clear ways we can answer it. The first would be to find out what percentage of violent criminals are boxers and compare it to the population as a whole. So for example if five percent of violent criminals are boxers and five percent of the general population are, then that would suggest it has no impact. If there is lower percentage of boxers among violent criminals then that would suggest that boxing prevents violent crime and if there is higher percent then it encourages it. However this by itself would risk falling for the fallacy of suggesting correlation implies causation. I suspect people who are drawn to boxing tend to be more violent than those who aren’t. Another way to investigate would be to follow the lives of some of the students of the previously mentioned projects. I would love to know more. Particularly as this article highlights the anecdotal evidence is good.
Of course just opening lots of free boxing gyms won't solve violent crime and antisocial behaviour by itself. But it strikes that this option really should be researched.
Sunday, 29 August 2010
Thursday, 26 August 2010
Eh?
A recent article from the BBC claims in its subtitle that “Charles Darwin may have been wrong when he argued that competition was the major driving force behind evolution.” Now if this is true then it’s pretty revolutionary. However when you read the article it fails to show anything which suggests Darwin was wrong.
What the article argues is that the main driving force behind evolution was the opening up of new ecological niches. The example they give is:
“… When birds evolved the ability to fly, that opened up a vast range of new possibilities not available to other animals. Suddenly the skies were quite literally the limit, triggering a new evolutionary burst.”
Now the article itself has a quote from Prof. Stephen Stearns which show’s the problem with this argument.
“… In general, what is the impetus to occupy new portions of ecological space if not to avoid competition with the species in the space already occupied?"
It seems fairly obvious to me, a philosophy graduate with only a layman’s knowledge of evolution; that even if ‘an evolutionary burst’ occurs when a new ecological niche opens it still requires competition to persuade species to occupy the space and to diversify once they are within it. So the subtitle seems to be at best a lazy error, or a worst dishonest. So why did they do it. My suspicion is that it was an attempt to try to get more hits by tapping into the supposed ‘evolution-creation controversy’.
And yes I feel very comfortable talking about a supposed ‘evolution-creation controversy’ because there isn’t actually a scientific one. There might be a political one in the US, but the truth of evolution is as close to proven as the theory of relativity or germs.
What the article argues is that the main driving force behind evolution was the opening up of new ecological niches. The example they give is:
“… When birds evolved the ability to fly, that opened up a vast range of new possibilities not available to other animals. Suddenly the skies were quite literally the limit, triggering a new evolutionary burst.”
Now the article itself has a quote from Prof. Stephen Stearns which show’s the problem with this argument.
“… In general, what is the impetus to occupy new portions of ecological space if not to avoid competition with the species in the space already occupied?"
It seems fairly obvious to me, a philosophy graduate with only a layman’s knowledge of evolution; that even if ‘an evolutionary burst’ occurs when a new ecological niche opens it still requires competition to persuade species to occupy the space and to diversify once they are within it. So the subtitle seems to be at best a lazy error, or a worst dishonest. So why did they do it. My suspicion is that it was an attempt to try to get more hits by tapping into the supposed ‘evolution-creation controversy’.
And yes I feel very comfortable talking about a supposed ‘evolution-creation controversy’ because there isn’t actually a scientific one. There might be a political one in the US, but the truth of evolution is as close to proven as the theory of relativity or germs.
Facebook Places
We all know Facebook, and most of us use it. However it has hardly been without its controversies. Most of these have been around the collection of data about its users, both overtly and covertly. However the latest one, for US users at least is an application called ‘Facebook Places’. This app lets US users share their location in real time with their friends and any marketers who happen to be interested. Now whilst I can see the whole invasion of privacy thing; my objection to this is not so high minded. My objection is that like 99% of Facebook apps it’s boring. I’m afraid to say that even if you’re my closest friend I’m not that interested in having a record of everywhere you went today. For that matter I’m pretty certain that you don’t want a record of everywhere I went today. If you’ve got an interesting story to tell or somewhere to recommend, or if we’re catching up; then sure lets have a chat about it. But that’s the point. What you did today is for small talk over a pint or dinner in the evening. So my suggestion ignore Facebook Places, because it’s just plain boring.
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Offence and Freedom
An issue that I have noticed occurring very frequently at the moment is the relationship between freedom and offensive speech. In fact it is not just offensive speech but various other actions that whilst doing no physical harm, are seen as offensive. A far from exhaustive list of related controversies include the ban on religious hate speech, Danish Cartoons and most recently the building Cordoba House near Ground Zero. So this raises two questions, first what makes words or actions offensive and secondly how should we react to offensive speech and actions. The definition of offensiveness is that it causes ‘anger, displeasure or injury’. For the sake of this discussion I’m not concerned with actions which cause physical injury, as we can generally accept that they are wrong, with a few exceptions. What interests me is the causing of anger or displeasure.
I also want to make a distinction between legal and moral, two things that are surprisingly often confused. For this article legal refers to the laws that governments make and moral refers to what individuals should or shouldn’t do. (Of course both these definitions are sketchy, but this blog post is not an academic essay.) What I want to argue is that individuals are morally obliged to try to avoid unnecessary offence, but that this should not be a legal matter. In other words it is wrong for me to call someone a prick but it should not illegal for me to do so. Why? There are three reasons I shall go through.
The first reason is the subjectivity of offence. Say I’ve go two friends, Dave and Mike. One evening, down the pub I greet them by saying ‘how are you two bastards doing?’ (Not the best banter ever I realize, but what can you do?) In this example Dave responds with a witty response, but Mike finds my greeting offensive. (We needn’t go into the reasons why.) The point here is which one, if either is in the right? I didn’t intend to offend either but the fact is I did. Now is this offensive, or is that just the case that Mike cannot take a joke. It seems to me that the answer is both; it offends Mike because he cannot take the joke and that makes it offensive. This illustrates one reason why it offence should not be a matter of legality. We frequently give offence without meaning to, and in ways that offend one person but not another. How therefore is the law, which by nature must deal with a large number of humans, supposed to regulate this?
Related to this is the second and to my mind most important reason. Offence is frequently an unintended consequence of criticism. Willingness to give and recive robust criticism is vital to many endeavours. Who hasn’t been told things that they are doing wrong, or could do better? Similarly if I disagree with your point of view, then the way for me to try and convince you, is to criticize that view whilst offering reasons to follow mine. Of course not all criticism is seen as offensive but it can be hard to predict what will be. There is also the fact that sometime the way to make a point is to do it in a very direct and robust value. If you try to soften a criticism you can obscure the point.
The third reason is that we are not talking about physical injury here. I would also include things like defamation whereby there is an obvious harm and a clear test as things we can legislate. But when it comes to statements, critcisms and actions, where the worst they do is insult and which aren’t lies then it seems that there are two things to be done. The first is to grow a thicker skin and the second is to try to avoid and challenge offence, but to do so individually and with words rather than anything else. An issue that I have noticed occurring very frequently at the moment is the relationship between freedom and offensive speech. In fact it is not just offensive speech but various other actions that whilst doing no physical harm, are seen as offensive. A far from exhaustive list of related controversies include the ban on religious hate speech, Danish Cartoons and most recently the building Cordoba House near Ground Zero. So this raises two questions, first what makes words or actions offensive and secondly how should we react to offensive speech and actions. The definition of offensiveness is that it causes ‘anger, displeasure or injury’. For the sake of this discussion I’m not concerned with actions which cause physical injury, as we can generally accept that they are wrong, with a few exceptions. What interests me is the causing of anger or displeasure.
I also want to make a distinction between legal and moral, two things that are surprisingly often confused. For this article legal refers to the laws that governments make and moral refers to what individuals should or shouldn’t do. (Of course both these definitions are sketchy, but this blog post is not an academic essay.) What I want to argue is that individuals are morally obliged to try to avoid unnecessary offence, but that this should not be a legal matter. In other words it is wrong for me to call someone a prick but it should not illegal for me to do so. Why? There are three reasons I shall go through.
The first reason is the subjectivity of offence. Say I’ve go two friends, Dave and Mike. One evening, down the pub I greet them by saying ‘how are you two bastards doing?’ (Not the best banter ever I realize, but what can you do?) In this example Dave responds with a witty response, but Mike finds my greeting offensive. (We needn’t go into the reasons why.) The point here is which one, if either is in the right? I didn’t intend to offend either but the fact is I did. Now is this offensive, or is that just the case that Mike cannot take a joke. It seems to me that the answer is both; it offends Mike because he cannot take the joke and that makes it offensive. This illustrates one reason why it offence should not be a matter of legality. We frequently give offence without meaning to, and in ways that offend one person but not another. How therefore is the law, which by nature must deal with a large number of humans, supposed to regulate this?
Related to this is the second and to my mind most important reason. Offence is frequently an unintended consequence of criticism. Willingness to give and recive robust criticism is vital to many endeavours. Who hasn’t been told things that they are doing wrong, or could do better? Similarly if I disagree with your point of view, then the way for me to try and convince you, is to criticize that view whilst offering reasons to follow mine. Of course not all criticism is seen as offensive but it can be hard to predict what will be. There is also the fact that sometime the way to make a point is to do it in a very direct and robust value. If you try to soften a criticism you can obscure the point.
The third reason is that we are not talking about physical injury here. I would also include things like defamation whereby there is an obvious harm and a clear test as things we can legislate. But when it comes to statements, critcisms and actions, where the worst they do is insult and which aren’t lies then it seems that there are two things to be done. The first is to grow a thicker skin and the second is to try to avoid and challenge offence, but to do so individually and with words rather than anything else.
I also want to make a distinction between legal and moral, two things that are surprisingly often confused. For this article legal refers to the laws that governments make and moral refers to what individuals should or shouldn’t do. (Of course both these definitions are sketchy, but this blog post is not an academic essay.) What I want to argue is that individuals are morally obliged to try to avoid unnecessary offence, but that this should not be a legal matter. In other words it is wrong for me to call someone a prick but it should not illegal for me to do so. Why? There are three reasons I shall go through.
The first reason is the subjectivity of offence. Say I’ve go two friends, Dave and Mike. One evening, down the pub I greet them by saying ‘how are you two bastards doing?’ (Not the best banter ever I realize, but what can you do?) In this example Dave responds with a witty response, but Mike finds my greeting offensive. (We needn’t go into the reasons why.) The point here is which one, if either is in the right? I didn’t intend to offend either but the fact is I did. Now is this offensive, or is that just the case that Mike cannot take a joke. It seems to me that the answer is both; it offends Mike because he cannot take the joke and that makes it offensive. This illustrates one reason why it offence should not be a matter of legality. We frequently give offence without meaning to, and in ways that offend one person but not another. How therefore is the law, which by nature must deal with a large number of humans, supposed to regulate this?
Related to this is the second and to my mind most important reason. Offence is frequently an unintended consequence of criticism. Willingness to give and recive robust criticism is vital to many endeavours. Who hasn’t been told things that they are doing wrong, or could do better? Similarly if I disagree with your point of view, then the way for me to try and convince you, is to criticize that view whilst offering reasons to follow mine. Of course not all criticism is seen as offensive but it can be hard to predict what will be. There is also the fact that sometime the way to make a point is to do it in a very direct and robust value. If you try to soften a criticism you can obscure the point.
The third reason is that we are not talking about physical injury here. I would also include things like defamation whereby there is an obvious harm and a clear test as things we can legislate. But when it comes to statements, critcisms and actions, where the worst they do is insult and which aren’t lies then it seems that there are two things to be done. The first is to grow a thicker skin and the second is to try to avoid and challenge offence, but to do so individually and with words rather than anything else. An issue that I have noticed occurring very frequently at the moment is the relationship between freedom and offensive speech. In fact it is not just offensive speech but various other actions that whilst doing no physical harm, are seen as offensive. A far from exhaustive list of related controversies include the ban on religious hate speech, Danish Cartoons and most recently the building Cordoba House near Ground Zero. So this raises two questions, first what makes words or actions offensive and secondly how should we react to offensive speech and actions. The definition of offensiveness is that it causes ‘anger, displeasure or injury’. For the sake of this discussion I’m not concerned with actions which cause physical injury, as we can generally accept that they are wrong, with a few exceptions. What interests me is the causing of anger or displeasure.
I also want to make a distinction between legal and moral, two things that are surprisingly often confused. For this article legal refers to the laws that governments make and moral refers to what individuals should or shouldn’t do. (Of course both these definitions are sketchy, but this blog post is not an academic essay.) What I want to argue is that individuals are morally obliged to try to avoid unnecessary offence, but that this should not be a legal matter. In other words it is wrong for me to call someone a prick but it should not illegal for me to do so. Why? There are three reasons I shall go through.
The first reason is the subjectivity of offence. Say I’ve go two friends, Dave and Mike. One evening, down the pub I greet them by saying ‘how are you two bastards doing?’ (Not the best banter ever I realize, but what can you do?) In this example Dave responds with a witty response, but Mike finds my greeting offensive. (We needn’t go into the reasons why.) The point here is which one, if either is in the right? I didn’t intend to offend either but the fact is I did. Now is this offensive, or is that just the case that Mike cannot take a joke. It seems to me that the answer is both; it offends Mike because he cannot take the joke and that makes it offensive. This illustrates one reason why it offence should not be a matter of legality. We frequently give offence without meaning to, and in ways that offend one person but not another. How therefore is the law, which by nature must deal with a large number of humans, supposed to regulate this?
Related to this is the second and to my mind most important reason. Offence is frequently an unintended consequence of criticism. Willingness to give and recive robust criticism is vital to many endeavours. Who hasn’t been told things that they are doing wrong, or could do better? Similarly if I disagree with your point of view, then the way for me to try and convince you, is to criticize that view whilst offering reasons to follow mine. Of course not all criticism is seen as offensive but it can be hard to predict what will be. There is also the fact that sometime the way to make a point is to do it in a very direct and robust value. If you try to soften a criticism you can obscure the point.
The third reason is that we are not talking about physical injury here. I would also include things like defamation whereby there is an obvious harm and a clear test as things we can legislate. But when it comes to statements, critcisms and actions, where the worst they do is insult and which aren’t lies then it seems that there are two things to be done. The first is to grow a thicker skin and the second is to try to avoid and challenge offence, but to do so individually and with words rather than anything else.
Tuesday, 3 August 2010
Affirmative Action and Discrimination against Whites
I know a couple of people who have claimed that because of positive discrimination it is now the case that White men are now face more discrimination than any other group. I think this issue is worth looking at for a couple of reasons. Firstly the most recent statistics I could find at the Office for National Statistics website show that the only group with a higher rate of employment is that of White women by around 1%. That is to say roughly that for a group of 100 White men around 95 would be employed whereas for White women it would be 96. In contrast the unemployment rate for most non-White groups was two or three times that. The sole exception was Indians at around 7% for men and 8% for women. This strongly suggests that discrimination against white men is likely to be marginal at best.
The second statistic I want to look at is the percentage of the population in managerial and professional jobs. Unfortunately these stats are only broken down by ethnicity and not by gender but they are still revealing. The most likely groups to be employed in managerial and professional jobs are in order Chinese, Indian and Whites. The least likely groups where Black Caribbean and Black African. As these jobs tend to be better paid than others this again suggests that there is little if any evidence of discrimination against White Men.
Of course these statistics are six years out of date and come from before the recession. It would be more interesting and illuminating to study statistics from 2008 or 2009 but as those are yet to be published we will have to stick with these. The other point to make is that my statistical analysis is crude at best. (Perhaps someone with a better understanding could crunch the numbers for me?)But given what we’ve got it suggests that White men do not need to fear discrimination. This raises two questions; the first is why do White men feel that they are being discriminated against? The second is whether the employment statistics show a case for affirmative action?
I suspect the answer to the first comes from an atmosphere whereby affirmative action schemes and minority pressure groups have received a lot of media attention. The effect is to create the impression of discrimination despite the lack of actual cases of it. Of there is some discrimination against White men put in proportion to the discrimination experienced by other groups it is small.
The second question I don’t feel able to answer, however it strikes me that there is a simple test for exploring whether there is a problem. If we assume that that there is no difference between ethnicities then we would expect business to have a roughly representative pattern of employment. Of course there are cultural and historical differences between ethnic groups so we should not be surprised when we find a group over represented in profession and under represented in another. However this lack of representation should be taken as a sign that there is something to investigate. Of course sometimes it may be obvious why this is the case. We would not expect to find many Pakistanis working behind a bar because most Pakistanis are Muslim and therefore regard bar work as haram (forbidden) but other times there may be a case of discrimination.
The second statistic I want to look at is the percentage of the population in managerial and professional jobs. Unfortunately these stats are only broken down by ethnicity and not by gender but they are still revealing. The most likely groups to be employed in managerial and professional jobs are in order Chinese, Indian and Whites. The least likely groups where Black Caribbean and Black African. As these jobs tend to be better paid than others this again suggests that there is little if any evidence of discrimination against White Men.
Of course these statistics are six years out of date and come from before the recession. It would be more interesting and illuminating to study statistics from 2008 or 2009 but as those are yet to be published we will have to stick with these. The other point to make is that my statistical analysis is crude at best. (Perhaps someone with a better understanding could crunch the numbers for me?)But given what we’ve got it suggests that White men do not need to fear discrimination. This raises two questions; the first is why do White men feel that they are being discriminated against? The second is whether the employment statistics show a case for affirmative action?
I suspect the answer to the first comes from an atmosphere whereby affirmative action schemes and minority pressure groups have received a lot of media attention. The effect is to create the impression of discrimination despite the lack of actual cases of it. Of there is some discrimination against White men put in proportion to the discrimination experienced by other groups it is small.
The second question I don’t feel able to answer, however it strikes me that there is a simple test for exploring whether there is a problem. If we assume that that there is no difference between ethnicities then we would expect business to have a roughly representative pattern of employment. Of course there are cultural and historical differences between ethnic groups so we should not be surprised when we find a group over represented in profession and under represented in another. However this lack of representation should be taken as a sign that there is something to investigate. Of course sometimes it may be obvious why this is the case. We would not expect to find many Pakistanis working behind a bar because most Pakistanis are Muslim and therefore regard bar work as haram (forbidden) but other times there may be a case of discrimination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
