Cartoon Females and Feminism

I often encounter complaints about non-human female cartoon character appearance that focus on one of two features: the “problem” of “nakedness” or lack of clothing on certain female furry anthropomorphic cartoon characters and the stylistic human-like rather than cartoony proportions and body shapes drawn by some artists (cartoony look was first for the characters).

I dislike the argument for clothes on these female cartoon characters and feel conflicted about the overly-human proportions for the same reason: they both are based on sexualizing the female body. The human-like detail on female characters is presumably the artists sexualizing the characters (but this is not unique to the female characters as some of the male characters from the same series have been drawn overly muscled or, at a minimum, with broader shoulders/less-cartoony-oval-shaped bodies, generally corresponding to the exaggerated female form’s use in their art), and it does bother me, although I do usually like the overall look aesthetically. However, complaints about the “inappropriateness” of female cartoon character “nakedness” despite the lack of anatomical details beyond what would be visible through clothes also suggest sexualizing the female body because, when contrast with the accepted lack of clothing on male characters, imply that the female body is inherently sexually inappropriate. Wanting clothing when the non-human character has already been sexualized to me doubles the problem of sexualizing, by simultaneously accepting the “inappropriateness” of the female body by coving it (especially paradoxical when “cover” amounts to a simple recolor) and rejecting the option for a more “appropriate” less-sexy or cartoony body.

To me, insisting that they “cover up” or having a noticeable clothing-level contrast (in either direction) between what is acceptable for male and female characters puts the focus on sexuality or suggests that there is something inappropriate much more so than showing that there is nothing inappropriate about female cartoon characters by leaving them “naked” as their male counterparts are, or, more accurately, with the same range of degrees of clothing.

Not to discount the facts of biology or that most adult males (and arguably many females too) are going to find the female figure sexually attractive. But what I find inappropriate in children’s cartoons is a focus on that type of attractiveness through both exaggerated physical features and personality/behavior, not that an “attractive” female (or male) character exists, because how do you define “sexually attractive”? “Sexualized” figures tend to over-emphasize “sexy” traits such as narrow waists and large hips and breasts on females or broad shoulders and large muscles on males (or, alternatively, perfectly toned muscles on a more slender, athletic body), often combined with attractive facial features and either revealing or fancy clothes, and this I find questionable in children’s entertainment. But this is different from the fact that even a realistic or underemphasized female (or male) figure can be found sexually attractive, even if the character is animated or not intended to be “sexy.” Thus, it seems like trying to cover female characters because someone may find sexually attractive amounts to blaming the reality of a female body for “undesirable” or contextually inappropriate adult feelings that a child likely doesn’t even have. And it doesn’t necessarily “fix” anything because clothing can be “sexy” or inappropriate too, and often are, within the same series, such as skin-tight black leather bodysuits. To me, that double-standard is worse than some artists giving non-human cartoon characters unrealistic-human proportions because it implies not only a responsibility for other’s behaviors, but defectiveness – that there is no "outside of sexuality," and females should be ashamed of their bodies beyond the already invisible/covered anatomical details, while males should not.

To quote Jessica Rabbit, “I’m not bad; I’m just drawn that way.” Maybe, but owning that perception is as much the responsibility of the viewer as it is the artist.

Keep Laws and Morality Separate

Laws and morality are two different things. Morality has a spiritual context, guidelines for how best to exist in the world, how to interact with other people and things around you, rules for person fulfillment and wellbeing, for an existence beyond the physical. Out in the world, morality comes in different forms; different people will follow different moral codes and will disagree about which, if any, are correct, true, best. Morality is internalized and self-enforced; no other person can impose a particular moral code on you, no one but you can enforce what is in your heart.

Laws are external; if you believe in freedom and equality, they are rules that exist to protect you from others and others from you, they establish a balance between the freedoms of the many interacting people in a society. Laws should prohibit murder not because murder is immoral but because it is an assertion of one person’s freedom over another. Laws should not pick a particular moral code and enforce that; if you believe in freedom and equality, governments have no business dictating morality. What if they pick the “wrong” one? What if they pick the “right” one? Laws cannot tell a person what to feel, only morality can. Laws can only specify what to do or not do.

Laws cannot dictate what to believe; doing so only creates insincerity. Laws can be followed without sincere belief in them. Morality cannot. Laws cannot dictate values, but may be influenced by them; morality dictates values. Laws should be minimal to allow for different ways of being, different values; laws should not tell you how to talk to your parents. Morality is all-encompassing; morality does instruct you on how to treat your family, but you’re free not to follow it and accept the consequences instead. Laws come from people and societies trying to find a way to function as a group as a group and protect individuals. Morality can come from many places: religion, introspection, personal experience, nature, logic.

In much of Europe, hate speech and genocide denial are illegal because of the continent’s history with the Holocaust; hate speech is harmful to the survivors of the genocide. In the US, hate speech is mostly protected under the First Amendment. The laws are different because of different societal experiences and needs; mainstream morality on the topics of hate and genocide, however, is likely very similar between the different countries. The laws may change as situations and understandings change, but this is how it should be.

Stream of Thoughts, World Perceptions

Halloween is not a pagan Holiday. Samhain is a Celtic (pagan) holiday, and Halloween incorporates some of those traditions (as Easter and especially Christmas incorporate non-Christian traditions), but Halloween, or All Hallow's Eve, is the eve of All Saint's Day, a Christian holiday since the 700s. Halloween was brought to the US by Christians, not pagans, and is still official recognized by the Catholic Church, the largest religion (not just Christian denomination) in the world, with about 1 billion followers. It's a Christian holiday, even if it's not universally recognized by all Christians. I doubt anyone would argue the various Saint's feast days aren't Christian even if they're rarely celebrated anymore.

For that matter, calling things (religions, holiday, etc) "pagan" really bugs me...I never heard that until I moved to NC. When people call things pagan in the US, they usually really mean Celtic and English/Scottish/Irish traditions. They exaggerate the dichotomy of Christian vs Pagan; that "rivalry" concept doesn't exist for everyone within the US because not all of us share that history. Not everyone in the US has that Brittish heritage (it's a very small island after all), not all of the original colonists even, even if the colonies were controlled by Britain.

Likewise, 100 years ago, I would not have been considered white, even though by today's standards, I don't think there's a person in the US who would even consider I'm anything but white. So what it means to be "white" is just as complex as what it means to be "Asian" or any other race, so please, fellow white people, don't make assumptions about me just because you think I look like you. Back in NY, many people can tell my heritage immidiately and can be just as biased based on that as on race, so it's really all just silly perceptions anyway.

Actually, 100 years ago is when my ancestors first came to the US. That means I'm not a "Yankee" despite what some Southerners insist on calling me. I'm not from New England (NYC is not New England), not a WASP, have no family connection to the Revolutionary War or Civil War, and I don't play baseball, nor am I a candle. So if you simply must be predjudiced towards Yankees, don't take it out on me because I'm not one, and if you're still mad about the Civil War, well, again, don't take that out on me just because my Great-Grandparents all settled in New York.

And for the record, "Northerners" don't think of themselves as such. We identify by city, borough or county or immediate community, state, region (as in New England or Mid-Atlantic or Tri-State area), ethinic group, cultural heritage, political position, generation since immigration (like, I'm a 3rd Generation American by birth), immigration status, religious group, language...lots and lots of things, but almost never "Northerner". See the 2 above paragraphs; many of us have no connection to the Civil War, where that division arose. So don't call me that and don't judge people who's history you know nothing about.

Actually, you shouldn't judge people who do have ancestry from the Civil War either. Whether they were right or wrong, don't take out your hatred of long dead people on their decendants. That's not very nice or fair and isn't going to solve anything or make those living people think any better of you.

And as per the last two paragraphs, people from other parts of the US don't hate Southerners or think any less of them than they do of any of our other fellow Americans. At least, not until they insist on calling us things we're not or hating us for things out of our control. Until that point, we don't grow up with those perceptions of the world, so we can't judge people for those things be cause we don't think of the world and people in it that way.

Everyone has their own cultural biases; the categories we divide up the world into and make judgements on are all different. Don't think your perceptions of reality are universal, don't think everyone eats your foods, or sees religion and spirituality the same way, or has the same biases and preferences, or that there's only one right way to see things and judge others for that (or if there is only one correct "true" way to see things, don't assume you're the one who must be correct; use that for making decision in your own life, not for judging others). If you do, you just end up creating a self-fulfilling prophecy: if you're a jerk to someone "preemptively" because of your expectations of where they're from or how you categorize them, they're probably just going to respond by being a jerk back. That's just how most people are if you don't give them a chance and some initial level of respect and decency.

I'm sad that I even need to say any of this, but I've encountered it all to often since 1997 and I want to finally get it off my chest.

Certainty

I don’t like the last few blogs I wrote and I’ve been trying to figure out why I wrote them. It’s not that I disagree with what I said, but that they bring up polarizing issues, and when that happens, they detract from the main point I’m trying to make. But what was that point?

I now realized what that point was, what other people have been saying and doing that bothers me. It’s the absolute (or nearly) certainty that people have in those situations I listed. It’s not that people don’t believe doctors; after all, they’re fallible humans too. It’s that fear, extreme negative perceptions, the hatred, and it’s that certainty that people have in their own perceptions that scares me. The unchangeable view that their negative impression of someone else must be correct, even when that negative view is extreme and there are less negative but reasonable possibilities, and that it’s OK to act on that negativity despite the consequences. That people around you really are as bad as you think they are.

Of course everyone must have some acceptable level of certainty to make a decision. But it doesn’t need to be absolute, and when people act like it is, it scares me. How can our perceptions ever be absolute? We’re not perfect, we all have flaws in our logic and understanding, we all lack some information, and it’s something we all have to learn to live with. Denial isn’t a healthy way to deal with anything, let alone our own flaws.

When that denial is applied to negative reactions to and impressions of others, we risk hurting those others. Are people really OK with that, with letting ourselves think so highly of our own interpretations that we allow ourselves to hurt others, even when there’s no benefit to ourselves? In situations of crime and justice, we have to make decisions that ultimately do hurt one person or another. But we incorporate the concept of “reasonable doubt” and “innocent until proven guilty” to protect hurting more people than necessary. I’ve heard many people say it’s unfortunate our justice system has these principles, and they confuse wanting justice with wanting revenge, wanting to take out their anger on anyone even suspected of wrong doing. That certainty that they know the truth and that they would risk harming innocents to get to it…the certainty that they know who is innocent and who is not, that there are global conspiracies waiting to harm them…is frightening.

Over a year ago I saw the movie Doubt. The subject and setting for this movie is not typically something I care for in movies, but this one left a big, positive impression on me. Whether or not the priest was a pedophile is not made clear, and that’s a significant point of the story. What happened is left up to the characters and the viewers to determine (and everyone who’s seen it seems to have a different interpretation of what went on), and it’s up to the other characters to decide what, if anything, to do. And yet, even at the end, when everyone’s made their decisions and reacted the way they saw best, there’s still the acknowledgement that they could be mistaken, and it’s clear their decisions were not made easily.

That’s what’s important to me. The recognition that when you accuse someone of wrongdoing or evil, you’re not infallible and you could be hurting an innocent person, the recognition that other interpretations are valid, not just your own. Making a decision may be necessary, but it’s not a decision people should make quickly or lightly, and certainty shouldn’t come purely from gut feeling.

It is innocent until proven guilty, right?

I was planning on not using this blog to respond to things in the news, since there’s plenty of that out there, and I don’t see the point in just stating my opinion on a topic. But I guess working out my feelings about people, society, etc, means I have to use real examples. And I do have a related personal story that I’m still angry about wanted to talk about anyway.

I’m really disturbed by people’s reactions to this Casey Anthony not guilty verdict. I don’t mean people “out there”, but friends and people I know well, or somewhat well. I don’t like to comment on trials and such because I feel it’s not up to me to judge. I’m not in the courtroom, hearing the different sides, the testimonies, the evidence, etc. I usually do have an opinion, as I would imagine most people do, and I keep up with trials to see if my opinions and the justice system match up, but it’s not like my opinion counts for much. This case, though, I don’t really have an opinion; the evidence is weak, the story is weird, the defendant is weird, so I have nothing to say about it, and it’s not really my job to have a say anyway. The only reason I’ve even been following it is because of the reactions of people I know.

It seems to me that so many people are convinced she’s guilty because her behavior is not what you’d expect from someone who’s child died. She didn’t go to police right away, gave really strange explanations, did strange things…but personally, I have no idea what kind of behavior is normal in a situation like that! It’s not like many of us are familiar with people losing young children. I think we see it on TV quite often in crime shows, but TV can’t even accurately portray drowning, never mind more complex behaviors like grief or guilt. So seeing someone judge another because their behavior isn’t what they think it should be even though they probably know as little about psychology as I do really upsets me.

Seeing people act on their ignorance is worse.

When I was in high school, I had 3 guy friends who were really close. One was moving a few weeks after the school year started, so the other two decided, as a tribute to him, they would dress like him until he moved. Unfortunately, the friend’s regular outfit was a black trenchcoat, and he was moving September 10, 2002. I went to high school in one of those small towns that realistically, had little to fear from terrorists, but was so sure of the town’s importance and significance, that officials were convinced there was a real threat everywhere. My friends did not think this plan through.

These 3 were, in many ways, the typical anime geeks of the late 90s, early 2000s. No one outside of anime fans knew anything about it, and the level of expressed weirdness and fandom was certainly new to school officials. We were accused of watching porn in Anime Club, and this was to be expected. On top of that, their other friends were what I considered the end of “goth” before people started calling wearing all black “emo”. These terms meant little to me, and probably to those teens as well, but were undeniably obvious. One guy had a tattoo on his face and pieced his own eyebrow with a safety pin while in class (and his teacher didn’t even notice). But many teens in this group were just more of the typical “unable to fit in” group…they also wore a lot of black, shopped at Hot Topic, were regular members of Anime Club, liked to hang out at the nearby bookstore and read comics and manga without paying for them (until they eventually were kicked out), but on the whole, they were nice people who were just a little strange (a lot less strange than they looked). From what I saw, they mostly just wanted to find a way to express themselves as different from the rich, popular kids at the school. They thought the coats made them look cool, like Neo from The Matrix. I was unaware of any drug use, certainly never in school. Unlike some honors students.

I was an honors student, I think the only one who associated with this group. I didn’t dress like them (much) or spend a whole lot of time around them, and I think that protected me from what happened next. A girl who I had been friends with a few years before started telling people these guys were going to bomb the school. I don’t know what kind of sick person she was to think of spreading this lie, but it obviously, and understandably, lead to some school officials panicking. For the whole week this went on, school was not cancelled, and I don’t think most students or parents even knew what was going on. But the police went to house of every person these guys associated with and searched it. Except me. Why? I have no idea, and have to wonder if it’s because I was a “good” student living in a good neighborhood, with wealthy-looking parents. The other ~15 students? Not so much. They were average-poor students often from either poor or not-so-great families. The police didn’t have warrants, but no one turned them away. And surprise, surprise, the police found absolutely nothing! So that should have been the end of it right? No! The reason the police were called was because of one Assistant Principal (we had I think 4). When the rumors started, the 3 guys went to one of the other Assistant Principals to tell her what was going on and that they were concerned. She believed them, but did nothing to help. The first assit. principal was not convinced, even after the police found nothing, and actually had the school officers arrests the guys one the morning before classes started! Before they could be taken out of the school, another friend yelled at the officers, telling them they had no right to arrest the guys for no reason other than someone’s paranoia, and the officers let the guys go. Within the next few days, the one friend moved, but the assistant principal still wasn’t satisfied and went through their files to find a way to transfer the remaining 2 to another school. He temporarily succeeded for one because they had the wrong address on record, but that was straightened out by the guys’ parents/grandparents. So the assistant principal declared black a “gang color” and banned it, along with all piercings, even ones that weren’t noticeable, like tongue and belly button piercings (but refused to grandfather in students who already had them).

A number of the students dropped out of school, even one who was a senior, because they felt the school official were either indifferent or out to get them. Which they were. No one ever asked why my friends dressed like that. No one ever looked into who started the rumors.

That year’s prom, the remaining guys and one girl who went were thoroughly searched with a metal detector by the Principal himself. Maybe they should have spent more time searching the rich, honors students who snuck in bottles of alcohol and all got drunk. The valedictorian was still allowed to be valedictorian even though the rules expressly said she could not be after that.

So when I hear people judging other’s behaviors, I don’t like it one bit. It scares me to think so many people, people who I know!, think that someone doing something strange, even if it is stupid, is automatically a sign of guilt, and that people in power can act on this ignorance and do harm. Do I think the woman’s guilty? I have no idea at all. But it gives me some hope that at least a jury can put aside personal feelings about “correct” behavior and look at what evidence they actually have, even in such horrible situations as one where a child dies.

Who needs experts?

Why do people seem to trust pseudoscience, like claims that tumors are really a fungus, yet not believe that scientists and doctors can easily tell the difference between a human cell and a fungal cell? (and that they could too if they simply learned how to use a microscope?) Why do they believe in conspiracies that say mainstream American cancer treatment is part of a eugenics program to breed perfect people from wealthy American bloodlines, yet forget that cancer research is global and people outside the US would have noticed by now if everything known about cancer was a lie? Are we as a country that self-centered? Why do people think they can pick and choose which experts to believe and which to not, or which information FROM THE SAME EXPERTS to accept and which to reject? Climatologists, geologist, earth scientist, etc. are correct when they say the climate changed a lot in the past, but they’re wrong when they say it’s changing now? Or they’re correct about the causes of climate change in the past, but not now? Why do they think they know more than people who’ve spent years studying a topic or field? Why do people think reading a few blogs or popular science books on any topic is all it takes to really understand something? Why do people think ignoring information they don’t like is the best way to deal with it - “I went to a museum and refused to look at the exhibits I disagree with, so I have no idea what information they gave, but I’m sure they’re wrong!” (I have a friend who refused to look at museum exhibits on early humans so she could continue to deny what was there).  Why do the people who claim science “indoctrinates” rather than teaches critical thinking, who have never learned science in the first place, have so much power over how science is used and taught?  Why is being educated associated with “elitism” and educated people so distrusted to know even their own field? Do we have some kind of phobia of education? Why do people distrust authorities (experts, not something like police) in general? Sure people can misuse information for their own gain, but certainly people can misuse ignorance as well (see above examples, esp. the tumor=fungus because they’re a similar color), and what reason is there to believe experts are likely to manipulate others with their knowledge anyway? Do we just fear each other that much? (I think I’ll get into this idea later)

By all means, think for yourself, figure out what makes sense and what doesn’t, be skeptical (not cynical), and figure out what’s useful and what isn’t. Science isn’t about blindly believing everything an expert tells you, but about being able to critically assess things for yourself. But there is an element of trust in your fellow human beings necessary. You can’t know everything, it would be unreasonable to even try, but you should be able to assess whether a person knows what they’re talking about based on more than just if you like what they have to say or not. People different from yourself are not monsters. If the information you accept always conforms to what you already think and never challenges you to change your position or even really think about it, there might be a problem. No one is that perfectly knowledgeable about the world.

I wasn't going to put this entry up yet, but I read this article http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622 and the contrast of this exerpt:

"This time, the scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged 'unequivocal.'"

with the comments left simply denying the information above pushed me to post it now.

The Scientific Method 2

(If you know who I'm talking about, the timing's a strange, unfortunate coincidence...I wrote this weeks ago)

Two years ago, I was told that atheists (read: non-Christians/Jews) can’t be moral because (Christian/Jewish) God gave people morals, so if you don’t believe in (Christian/Jewish) God, you can’t possibly have them. I’m going to use this statement to illustrate how the scientific method is useful in non-science applications and well as support my claim that beliefs are proposed hypotheses (either because they can’t be supported for lack of information*, haven’t yet been supported, or have been found to be unsupported but are accepted anyway). This is not meant to be a value assessment of beliefs—everyone has them and they can serve important purposes, especially in areas that can’t be supported or refuted—just a clarification of what beliefs are, as well as a demonstration of the value of a scientific-minded perspective.

(*”information” as I'm using it here refers to physical world data that can be gathered or discovered by or shown to any and all relevant parties. I may need to come back to this idea about what is information later.)

The Scientific Method:

Initial Observations and Question/Problem

Hypothesis         ß----------------------------------

Experiment                                                      |

Results/Analysis                                             |

Conclusion: Accept or Reject Hypothesis ___|

Share Findings

Observations and Question:

A philosophical/ethical question with real world implications: The Bible says morality comes from God; what does this mean for Christians and non Christians?

(Whether or not is it true that the Bible says this doesn’t really matter. This is the understanding of the person who began the following thought, and I will accept it since this is not intended to be a Theology discussion. As I hope I’ll show, the outcome should be the same whether this information is correct or not because it’s not what is being evaluated.)

Using logic, a good idea, especially in philosophy where things often can’t be tested: If morals came from God, and a person doesn’t believe in God, then can they believe in the things or be influenced by things that come from God?

Hypothesis:

These are what the Scientific Method is evaluating, and all alternatives or testable possibilities should be clear:

H1: No, they cannot (implicit: Only Christians can have morals).  (This is as far as the initiator of this thought got, it is her belief)

H2: Yes they can (implicit: Anyone can have the same morals).

Experiment:

Do research: Read various philosophy/ethics texts from different points of view, go back to see what more the Bible has to say, survey/talk to people about their morality/views, observe how people behave/treat each other.

Results/Analysis:

Ethics has been an important concern in all cultures, not just Christian ones, for as far back as we have texts to read, and many have had similarities in their moral codes, even if they believe in a different god.

Bible talks about the “good Samaritan”

Most people care about being good to each other, but be careful with phasing of questions, and be sure you’ve interacted with a random sample of people (ie: you aren’t focusing on people clearly on the fringe or only belonging to one group)

Most people act reasonably nice to each other (be careful with using news sources for observation, they tend to focus only on the negative)

Conclusion:

Non-Christians show evidence of being ethical (note that this says nothing about why that is): H1 rejected, H2 accepted. We often call this a “belief” for lack of a better word, but an accepted hypothesis is fundamentally different from a proposed hypothesis because it is a conclusion reached using all relevant and available information. It is not set in stone, but it can come close if there is little to no known information refuting it. (“Available” meaning accessible within reason: it is not reasonable for an average person to travel all over the world interviewing people for something like this, but it is reasonable to talk to friends or go to the library)

Share Findings:

Now you may use this information when interacting with people, sharing opinions, philosophizing, or talking about your views.

Where the person who made the initial claim went wrong: She treated her reasoning (Observation) as the Experiment/Results and her Hypothesis (H1) as the Conclusion, and so when she shared her perspective, it came out insulting and ignorant because she was lacking information about non-Jews/Christians’ behaviors and ideas. Reasoning is an important part of the Results/Analysis step, but people need to incorporate all available information and can’t skip over steps or leave out obvious sources of information. Observing people’s behavior and interacting with them is easily done, a part of daily life, really (assuming you’re not antisocial) and requires no special skills, so there is no reason not to use that form of information gathering. Even if her thought process had followed a Scientific Method-style of thinking based solely on her initial understanding and nothing else, further observations should have conflicted with her only hypothesis (H1), prompting her to reject it and go back to the beginning and start over, incorporating any new information from the initial Experiment step. You can’t stop and ignore all new information once you reach a conclusion because you can’t know everything; the Scientific Method is unending. And, fortunately, none of this should threaten her religious views because it does not deny that God gave people morality – It doesn’t address where morality comes from at all. Her exact interpretation of what that means for *other* people may need to change, but she herself does not need to, except to be a little more open minded and nicer to others.

Of course, no one I hope actually goes step by step like this outside of science, where every part of the process must be clearly spelled out for others to follow and hopefully find acceptable as well. It would be entirely too tedious to do this for everyday interactions and understandings; we’re not attempting to contribute to the general knowledge of the world in our daily interpersonal reactions - we don’t need that level of rigor. Instead, my purpose here is to demonstrate the importance of recognizing where your understanding of something falls in relation to available information, when you need and can easily find more information, the limitations of your own knowledge, and present a systematic way to do that. A good understanding of the Scientific Method can allow a person to incorporate it into his/her way of accessing and interacting with the world.

The Scientific Method

Do students learn the Scientific Method in school? I learned it in 2^nd or 3^rd grade, but I had an abnormally good science education in elementary school. I did learn it in public school, though, and not a science-focused private or charter school, so I see no reason for my education to have been anything special. So do others learn it, I mean really learn it and incorporate it as a tool for drawing conclusions about things in the world? It’s the heart of what scientific thinking is and is an important part of critical thinking in general, not just within science. In fields like anthropology or psychology, which are not considered “hard” sciences, the Scientific Method has to be tweaked because rigorous systematic testing of people, their behaviors, cultures, etc. often isn’t ethical, but the essence of following the logical process of observing, reasoning, testing ideas, drawing conclusions, continually incorporating and updating new information, and so forth, is still there, as it should be. Because of its flexibility, I see no reason why it can’t apply in some form to non-academic thinking either.

I suspect it is not taught, at least not well. Most people think of science as a collection of facts and tediousness first, and a process for learning about the world second, if at all. They don’t seem to question how these facts are discovered or concluded--where these facts come from. And when the facts change, as is especially true in medicine, they get upset. But change (evolution, if you will) is a sign that the Scientific Method is being used. Some facts are well-established and don’t change much, but often the details surrounding those facts are constantly being updated as more or new information or ways of looking at it are found. The process is designed to take into account the reality that we don’t know everything, although we don’t know nothing either. People in science know this; they would have nothing to do if they thought everything was known and nowhere to start if they thought nothing was known. And by design, the starting information can even be incorrect (to a point at least)-important since you wouldn’t know if you're correct ahead of time-if you’re constantly learning and incorporating, eventually, you will get better information.

Outside of science, I consider being able to change or refine your own opinions or positions healthy, not flip-flopping, as some would call it. It means you’re incorporating new information and adapting to it, and you don’t think you know everything. Sometimes people say the change is for the “wrong” reasons, like a politician changing his or her position to whatever is popular, rather than what’s “right”, or a teenager trying to fit it with a new group of friends. But what I think people really mean by a “right” or “wrong” reason is whether the person’s values have actually changed with new information and they truly support their new position (generally accepted as “right”), or whether they only value their own power or popularity, not the thing they claim to have an opinion on, or have compromised their true values (generally accepted as “wrong”). One possible way to determine the difference to me seems to be to just ask them what this new information is that caused them to change. If they have been thinking critically too, they probably can explain their thought process.

I’m not claiming that coming to conclusions is as simple as I’m making it out to be or that you always come to the “correct” conclusion (if there is such a thing), and thinking systematically and logically takes practice. But that’s the value of learning science starting early on. Critical thinking is valuable and helps tremendously when you come across something new or different. In leads us to new ideas and information and ways of being and interacting in the world. And knowing what information you’ve incorporated and what information you’ve found unhelpful or irrelevant helps when explaining your positions and views. There are presumably other ways to do this as well, other ways to learn to think critically, analyze, and use new information. But the Scientific Method is tremendously important to the modern world we live in and surprisingly simple. In biology, being able to adapt is considered essential to life. I don’t think human life is an exception.

I'll layout the Scientific Method and give a non-science example next.

I get intimidated

When I write something I know some people may take offense to or disagree with, or sometimes if I have no idea how someone will react, I end up afraid to see what the responses will be and try to avoid finding out for as long as I can. I don’t like confrontations, it can take me a long time to come up with the response I want (often so long, I don’t get to bring it up again), and don’t like to tell any specific person I’m talking to I think they’re wrong. So I try to address as many possible concerns as I can think of initially, before I’m talking to a specific person. Logically, this is what you do in philosophy, but of course, that’s not going to work 100%, nor is it usually possible unless I want to write a book, and eventually I do have to talk directly to whoever I may disagree with. And I hate it. Makes me wonder why I do some of the things I do. I guess I think sometimes it will help me get over the fear.

Making this awkward, on top of everything, is that I’m writing as though I’m speaking to a group. But I only know of one person reading this. So it’s weird to write for a broader audience when I keep thinking “what will Mike think or say to this?” I don’t want to fall into worrying about or only focusing on what one person might say; I want to use this to work out my own thoughts. Which of course means I want feedback and conversation, but I can’t keep thinking “what if I offend him or what if he doesn’t like what I have to say?” I won’t get anywhere with my thoughts if I stop myself from thinking about something because I’m afraid someone won’t like what I have to say. It’s hard to do when I actually value the other person (this sentence being an example of the awkwardness coming from the audience difference). And when you apparently have a social phobia. But that’s a different story.

Extreme Representatives

(I'm going to try to update Tuesdays or Wednesdays for the next 3 or 4 weeks.)

People with the most extreme views are usually in the minority, yet we, people in general, seem to like to focus on them as representing a larger group even when they don't, particularly when we don’t like that larger group. Why? (I highly doubt I’m going to say anything groundbreaking, but here it is.)

Well, for one, they’re loud and often good at presenting their ideas, either because they’re eloquent, or because their ideas are much simplified and ignore the complexities of the issues they have opinions on. So they’re easy to understand, even if they’re wrong or we disagree. They get attention because they’re doing something out of the ordinary. Not just out of the ordinary from the perspective of the people on the outside, but likely from the people within that person’s group as well. From the outside, people aren’t likely to hear from or remember the average “group member” because, well, they’re average. They’re not doing anything shocking or noticeable or memorable. (Ex: Years ago I read that pedophilia among priests is no higher than in the general population. I don’t know if that statistic held up as more cases were uncovered, but even at the time, the perception was that all priests are pedophiles, and I doubt repeating that statistic would have changed the perception. The majority weren’t doing anything to bring attention to their normalness. What *could* they do that would compete for attention with tragedy?)

For another thing, demonizing the “other side” makes it easier to disagree with them. If we can portray whoever we disagree with as irrational, extreme, or just plain wrong, we don’t have to listen to them, and it’s a lot easier to that if you don’t really like the other. So we find ways to not like them. It means we don’t have to challenge our own views or think too hard. We all do it. But it’s still wrong. Skewed perspectives are never healthy. Convince yourself that one group is so opposed to your ideas that they’re dangerous to you and your way of life, well, that’s not leading anywhere good. There are bad people in the world, yes, but thinking the majority of people who disagree with a given person are out to ruin everything is called paranoia. Average people are not that different from each other in terms of what it means to be a decent person, and the kinds of indecent things average people are capable of seems fairly consistent to; there’s no reason to think we’re all that different are anyway. Most people have at least some experience interacting with people who are different from themselves in some way, and for the majority, this goes just fine, even when they meet people who have very different values or outlooks. It seems plausible that this positive experience can be extrapolated to apply to others we haven’t met as well. Or put it another way, it seems statistically unlikely that a given person has only met the “good” types of people in the world, and all or most of the other categories of people are made up of mostly “bad” people.

But what about people from the inside of a given group? Why don’t they do something about the ones misrepresenting them?

There’s always the idea that a really extreme idea makes the others seem less extreme; I know comedy writers use this to get away with jokes that TV and movie censors would otherwise stop. Maybe we all do this sometimes, but that requires more planning and thought than I think your average person is willing to put effort into on a regular basis.

I think letting those people have their say is like punching a wall when you’re angry; ultimately, you only hurt yourself, and you may even regret it later, but in the moment, that release feels good (to some people anyway). And when you’re removed from directly hurting the other person yourself, it’s easier to think there’s no victim.

And I’m sure there’s all sorts of elements of denial about how offensive they are, of not wanting to blame someone “on your side” (even when you disagree), of secretly agreeing (at least somewhat), of thinking others who are better-representing you are getting more attention outside your group, and a million other detailed psychological explanations.

Any other more general ideas?

You're not helping

While I don't generally call myself most of these things, I am essentially an environmentalist, animal-right supporter, feminist, liberal, non-believer, scientist. Yet almost every singe one of those catagories has a person or a group within them that make us look bad, but that somehow other people think represent the rest of us. They don't. I was originally going to write this about just one person/category, the scientist, but I've become frustrated with the misrepresentation of all of the ideologies I associate myself with and decided to list them here.

I'll start with environmentalist. This one's more complicated than the rest I think, and I can't think of one specific group or person for this one, but I can think of some past events that have given the bad reputation. Early in the environmental movement, some environmental accomplishments did result in human tradgedies, such as saving the redwoods in the Pacific NW resulting in people from the area losing their only source on income. This was the result of ignorance on the part of both environmentalist and lawmakers who didn't understand the economics of the area. Was saving that forest valuable? I'd say yes, since the US has a history of completely destroying forests in ways that they can't fully return. But there was probably a way to do it without destroying the livelyhood of the people in the region. Because of events like these, environmentalists have developed a reputation for not caring about people or the economy. But this was never true and things have changed, environmental activism has become more sophisticated and aware of how communities and lives can be affected, in fact, that's the whole point of environmentalism. It's not just about "the planet" as something separate from human life, but "the planet" as something we need and value (and therefore need to take care of)! Yes, there are people who care more about the non-human life, and yes, arguments for protection are often framed around the non-human side of things (because we generally think not everything needs to be about us and we do care about things that have no direct connection to human well-being), but we're humans too. We want to live comfortably and in societies that are functioning too, just as non-environmentalists do. So we're not going to propose something that knowingly would hurt the human side of things either. When I tell people they shouldn't eat bananas unless they're organic fair-trade, it's not because I have some idealistic but unrealistic dreams about a perfect world that only result in people paying more for bananas, it's because almost everyone who works on or lives near banana fields gets cancer from the pesticides, because the pesticides and poor land management result in literally toxic rivers and soil, because the plastic used to protect the bananas from brusing gets into the ocean and kills turtle that confuse it for food, because the risks of working in those fields is so high, only poor illegal immigrants will take the risk, hurting the economy and communities of the countries where the fields are, because the companies aren't owned by people in the countries where they operate, so they have found ways around the local laws that should prevent all this. So yes, I  do ask people to pay 80-90 cent/pound instead of 30-40, or not eat them at all. And for me, the fact that it kills turtles and other aquatic life is enough of a reason to pay a whole 50c more. But I would hope people realize that doesn't mean I don't care about the human side of things; just the opposite, I think I care more that people are dying than those who only selfishly care about get cheap fruit.

Animal rights: PETA, I'm looking at you. Seriously, I want to support you, I really do, but when your "raise awareness" tactic is based on insulting people, how in the world do you expect to change those people's minds about anything? Ex: your "Save the whales, go vegetarian" billboard with an image of an obese woman. Where do I even begin? Taken literally, being vegetarian does nothing for whales, taken as what you really meant, that's just cruel, and it isn't even true! A person who eats junkfood all day can be vegetarian, but certainly, they wouldn't be the pinacle of health. You're just making the rest of us who care about animals look stupid! Not wanting animals to suffer doesn't mean you have to hate people, and there's more than one way to live your life without hurting animals. Lot of people do.

Feminism: Real feminists don't hate men! OK, some do, but they don't represent the ideology. And many feminist care very much about poor representations of men as well as women. You don't raise yourself up by putting others down or doing exactly what you want to stop. This applies to racism as well, obviously. Feminism is a philosophy about changing social structure and ideas, and what exactly that means depends very much on the society in exists in, but generally speaking, it is about accepting that there are many ways of being in the world, and not trying to tell people how to "be". That means not putting down traditional femininty or masculinity (roommate, that means you) as much as it means supporting nontraditional roles. That means actually recognizing when those traditional roles are holding people back and when they're not. Ex: Cartoons for little girls tend to be overly feminized and don't often give good, healthy perceptions of what it can mean to be female. Does this mean all girls' shows are bad and must be criticized? I don't think so. Ms Magazine blogger who wrote put down the new My Little Pony cartoon without watching it, that wasn't right. Yeah, it's girly, but the creators, predominantly women, were actually aware of the issues we care about and actually wanted to make a show for little girls that had a good message and good characters! So don't assume! Unlike people like that blogger, the rest of us actually do care enough to look for and support issues we care about in unexpected places instead of blanket generalize.

Liberal: I actually don't have much to say on this one. Sure there are liberals who I wouldn't want representing the rest of us, but I can't think of any off the top of my head who are generally portrayed that way, and most of the criticism I hear (whether from the news or from relatives) is flat-out untrue and I have no idea where they get it from. I can only really speak from experience with my own family, but I blame their poor skills at logic and reasoning. Ex: Dad's family: I love you, but being an African-American Muslim does not make a person a liberal, socialist, Pakistani terrorist who hates America. I mean, you're daughter married him after all, and she hasn't changed any, so what's the deal? He's a real estate agent from Conneticut!! So yeah, if that's how they treat their own son-in-law, I place any and all blame for misrepresentations and misunderstandings entirely on them.

Non-believer and scientist: These two things don't necessarily go together (I know a number of religious scientists), but I'm grouping them together because of the person I want to talk about here. Richard Dawkins. YOU DO NOT REPRESENT ME OR MANY OTHERS IN SCIENCE! To a certain extent, I suppose I do agree with some of what he has to say, and he does have some interesting and scientifically important ideas. But I disagree with his method for communicating with the public. Everything he has to say is seems to be anti-religion (as opposed to a-religious, as science as a field is), and it's inflamatory! That doesn't help the perception that science and religion are at war (Science can't be anti-religion any more than the study of history is anti-math. That makes no sense.) Science does shape the world view of people in it, though, and people in science can be anti-religious, so Dawkins isn't "wrong" to conclude the religion is an mind-virus; it's his opinion. But it's not everyone's! Like with PETA, insulting something important to people by comparing it to a virus is not going to make you any new friends and looks bad for all of us. When you're writing about issues that people are passionate about, use some tact, OK? As for just the atheism separate from science, not believing in God shouldn't mean it's OK to put down people who do any more than believing in God means looking down on people who don't. Philosophizing about the different views is great; throwing around insults, not so much.

So what do I want? I want others to realize that when you present yourself or are seen as representative of a goup, you have a responsibility to not do or say things that undermine or misrepresent that group. And I want people outside of these of a particular group or ideaology to realize that the loudest or rudest person from that ideology does not necessarily represent the group as a whole. My test for this? 1) Does the person's views sound extreme or really far from "normal" (ie, do their views sound illogical, selfish, biased, or even just insensitive? Do they seem less than human to you?) and 2) Do you know anyone personally who belongs to the same ideology but isn't like that one representative? (statistically, you have a better chance of meeting someone "average" by their group's standards, then someone who's an exception in their group). If yes to both of these, then that "representative" probably doesn't represent anyone but him/herself (or smaller subset of the group), assuming you're not misunderstanding, and you might want to change your views. (If yes to just #1, you may need more information, either about those ideas/person or about others in the catagory before you make a decision). If you don't, you many just be predjudiced or biased.

(I do plan on writing something about how the more extreme views become the voice of not-so extreme views at some point)

I don't understand people's logic

All these major tornado's we've been having in places that shouldn't get tornados...why do some people I know seem more willing to attribute them to someone's interpretation that the end date a calendar of a long-dead civilization corresponds to the end of the world (and not just the end of the calendar - a calendar that experts have said we don't even understand how it correlates to modern dates anyway), than to climate change even though severe storms are exactly what the experts in the field predicted would happen?

Maybe people just prefer the option that doesn't suggest they're responsible. Or maybe people just forgot what "experts" means since they're ignored in both scenarios.

Unnecessary God?

It seems that some people feel our society is making God unnecessary and obsolete and, if they are religious, are understandably bothered by this prospect. But then, should they be?

Hawkings claiming God is unnecessary to explain the universe probably got the most attention, but atheists have felt this way for decades or more; that Hawkings said it...well, famous people, especially authorities in their fields, get attention, even if they have nothing new to say. In fact, I'm surprised he never said this sooner. But there are other examples, such as an opinion piece in the NYTs months ago in which the author expressed his saddness that people don't have to struggle with their beliefs because they have access to all sorts of religious ideas, making religion "easy". Or the Pope saying that evolution isn't enough to explain our origins, that God is necessary for that (even though the Catholic Church does recognize evolution as fact). Or aquaintences I've come across who say science or non-religion based ethics, or any other number of non-religious ideas are making it possible for people to not "need" God.

But I have to wonder, is this really a bad thing for people who do believe? Yes, it opens the possibility (and likelyhood) that less people will believe the same things as those with faith. And I guess that can be a scary prospect. But if someone believe in God because they don't see any other possibilities or because they don't see that they have choices, is that really faith or belief? Should belief be based on ignorance? And if people believe even though they know they have other possibilities, does that mean there's something special about their belief? I don't know. What I do know is that I would rather think and learn and truly believe (or not believe) something and be wrong, than believe the "right" thing because I never thought about it.

Religious Fanart and Uncreative Originality

Reposted from my deviantArt gallery, with additional thoughts

I had a though a few weeks ago: what's so original about "original art"?

I've generally regarded original art as better or "more real" than fanart because fanart involves characters, images, and ideas that aren't yours. Not that I look down on fanart; I do plenty myself, have lots of friends who do too, favorite plenty of fanart here on dA (although I rarely search it out). And I'm not surprised or disappointed that fanart often gets more attention than original art; it uses ideas and images that lots of people are already familiar with - part of the meaning of the art is automatically conveyed without any effort on the part of the artist. Original art is supposed to be "better": more creative, more representative of the artist's own unique ideas and feelings. And I suppose the artist has to work harder to get their message across, assuming there is a message.

A while ago, though, I started to wonder if fanart can be compared to the religious imagery that is such a huge part of art's history. OK, obviously a lot of religious art is meant to teach something about the religion and culture, and fanart isn't exactly known for being informative or nor are fanart's sources usually as broadly meaningful as religion. But a lot of religious art isn't meant to be educational, but is an expression of the artist's devotion and emotions, and the *personal* significance and meaning. The artists didn't create the religious figures or stories, but did present their interpretation of it, focusing on what mattered most to them. So you get art that's peaceful and beautiful, art that's violent, art that's exciting, art that's sexually explicit, art that's morbid or strange, art that's emotionally moving, happy or sad. In a sense, the religious imagery, which doesn't directly belong to the artist, becomes a tool for the artist to simultaneously express something about both himself and his subject. Sound familiar? And like fanart, part of that meaning is already there, inherent in the subject.

Is it wrong to compare cartoons to holy texts? I don't think so; at face value, they're the same: a story about people doing things that the reader may or may not be able to relate to their own lives. The difference obviously is whether you believe the story is true or not. No one believes Sonic the Hedgehog is true (I hope). As many as 2 billion people in the world believe the Bible is true on some level, and of course, believing in the truth of something is going to make it more meaningful to the individual. But believing something is fiction doesn't make it devoid of all meaning either. People can still relate to and become attached to characters they like, find some important message in a work of fiction, be inspired, or just simply enjoy it. Those things are often the *sign* of a good piece of fiction. So if something generally accepted as fiction and something generally accepted as truth both can have meaning, why is an artist expressing themselves through one considered legitimate art and through the other considered unoriginal and immature? Yes, legally, someone else owns the characters in fanart while no one legally owns a religion (though I wouldn't be surprised if there is a religion out there with an owner), but laws and ownership can't prevent a person from finding something personally significant.

So back to my original question, what's so original about "original art"? An artist I was following disappeared a few years ago because he was tired of all his fanart getting attention while his original stuff was ignored. Both were excellent; he was clearly skilled and talented. But his "original" art was very generic-fantasy: dragons, female warriors in impractical, revealing armor, big armored guys with axes and swords. All excellently drawn in his own appealing style, but I'd seen it a million time. His original art was unoriginal! His fanart, however, was, in my opinion, very creative interpretations of the characters and their environments, yet they still retained what made them distinctive. I've not really seen other fanart quite like it, and I'm sorry he felt the need to remove it all from pretty much everywhere.

But still, I personally valued "original art" more than fanart. Two weeks ago, in the middle of a conversation about predicting what people like, I realized it's not just him who's art was "unoriginal". As everyone knows (I hope) no one's pulling ideas out of nowhere; ideas build on previous ideas. Is my Cyborg [link] original? Not really, I knew that from the start. No one's drawn this picture or this character before, but who hasn't seen the mis-proportioned female in skin-tight clothing with robotic parts before? So maybe there's a gradient of originality. Are Kaikaku's root-girls [link] original? Certainly moreso than the cyborg, and a lot of other "original art" I think. Sure, there are plant-themed female sprite-like characters out there, but I would say these are a unique take on that idea. I've not seen anything quite like them.

So can I say that some original art is more creative than your average fanart, and some is less creative? Then perhaps, on average, original art is no more original than fanart? There's a lot of blah fanart out there. Doesn't seem to be THAT much unoriginal original art. But maybe because fanart is "half-way there" to getting people attention because fans already connect to it without effort, maybe it gets elevated in visibility, while original art simply disappears because no one's looking for it. I think it's fair to say there are talented and untalented fan-artist and non-fan-artists, and no real reason to think one subject attracts "good" artists and one attracts "bad" artists. Or, to put it another way, I certainly wouldn't say that people who find x meaningful are mostly good artists and people who find y meaningful are mostly bad artists. I don't see any logical connection in the abstract.

So, my views on fanart and original art are evolving. I'll continue to do both, I'll continue to be a little disappointed when my original art stops getting views after a month or doesn't sell on Etsy, and I'll continue to have my ego unhealthily fed when I see things like one of my pictures as most popular of all time on a dA search for Super Sally, (How exactly is that calculated anyway?). But maybe I'll forgive myself for using my good-quality art supplies on fanart or drawing yet another custom My Little Pony when I could draw something else...no, I can't draw something else. It makes me happy and has some sort of meaning to me, and I see no reason to question it.
Bit of an Update: I recently got back from a trip to Italy, and all the religious art made me wonder when we started valuing "original" art. I saw very little non-religious art, other than portaits or figures of famous people, and I certainly wouldn't call pictures of the Biblical creation story, Venus, Mary, Hercules, etc, "original" after seeing 10, 20, 50 or more of essentially the same thing. Even the famous Rennaissance artists were celebrated for their technique, skill, and somewhat their creative interpretations, rather than their originality. The Vatican has lots of sculptures of animals, which was a nice break from all the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Christian, etc. religious imagery, but those were all collected/commissioned by one Pope, so I would consider that more of a personal interest than a culture expression of artistic value. And there was plenty of original practical pieces everywhere, like oil lamps decorated with animals, people, patterns, etc., but not much original non-purpose art. So, did people start valuing originality as we define it during the Rennaissance? After? Before, but only the religious stuff survived (seems unlikely that even in the ancient ruins, only religious artifacts would be found if other things were there)? Or maybe it's part of a more modern perspective where we can value things that have no real function or value; maybe valuing originality is part of a larger cultural idea or ability that allows us that luxury; that not everything we do or enjoy has a practical side.

Too many thoughts

I've always thought about a lot of things, tried to figure out why something is the way it is, why someone sees something a certain way...  I've now graduated with a Masters in Entomology, but my thoughts and interests go beyond that and I'm not really sure what to do about it. So I'm writing this blog.

I don't know if anyone will read it or care what I have to say, but for me, at this point it time, it seems like the best way to explore and develop my thoughts and maybe even get feedback. Ultimately, I want to focus on science as part of our larger culture, but I expect I'll be writing about whatever feels important to me at the moment.

I guess all there is now is to see how it goes.