Google Completion Polling

The united nations entity for gender equality and the empowerment of women (phew), or UN Women, has released an ad campaign showing the search-engine completion results for phrases like “Women shouldn’t” and “Women need to”:

Search engines guess what your search should be, based on previous searches by others, and so they give an insight into what people are searching for.

To check, I did some of the same searches on Google UK, with the same search for men to compare:

Women shouldn’t work Men shouldn’t marry
Women shouldn’t vote Men shouldn’t wear flip flops
Women shouldn’t preach Men shouldn’t wear shorts
Women shouldn’t have equal rights Men shouldn’t cry

which is every bit as outrageous as the ad campaign, and

Women need to be wanted Men need to feel needed
Women need to shut up Men need to ejaculate
Women need to grow up Men need to grow up
Women need to feel safe Men need to cheat

which is a little more mixed.

A similar idea has been applied to religion

Christians have… Mormons have… Atheists have…
lower IQs horns higher IQ
killed more people my child no morals
more abortions multiple wives no songs
no morals a lot of kids faith

Which I’m not sure tells us very much at all.

Using big data from search engines is interesting. I’ve used it before on the New Testament. I’ve used it professionally too, it is a good way to check which of a set of computer generated combinations is more ‘human’. But I wonder whether it quite tells us what we think it is telling us. I have no doubt misogyny is widespread enough to be reflected in search results, but I wonder whether the majority of people who search for ‘Mormons have horns’ are doing so because they are tempted to believe that, or whether they are trying to find out what the source of the ridiculous joke is.

Have a play with categories you think you fall into. E.g. “Nurses should” (be paid more!), or “Engineers are always” (right!), and let me know any particularly interesting results that come up.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Republican Party is in Terminal Decline!

It seems that every day, on the sites I read, increasingly bizarre stories are coming to light about Republicans: politicians and voters. I can’t help but conclude that the whole edifice is crumbling and the party is splitting apart at the seams. On the basis of what I’m seeing, I’m pretty sure the Republican party is collapsing, and in five years, it will be a footnote in history. And not before time!

From a blog comment thread:

you conveniently left out the fact that there are now many secular scientist who are saying the same thing concerning the demise of [modern evolutionary science]. I hope this thread stays posted for another 5 years. I know this sounds petty, but I would love to come back 5 years from now and say “I told you so”

Why The Collapse?

Reports of the imminent collapse of our intellectual opponents are everywhere.

I suspect it is a form of confirmation bias. If you spend your time at heavily left-leaning websites, you get a view of Republicanism that panders to your desire to see it defeated. I’m sure you get the same from the other side if you frequent Wingnut sites.

It is very easy to deceive ourself.

The Demise of Scientology

I don’t believe that either the Republican party, or evolutionary biology is in any danger of imminent collapse.

This post was actually motivated by my increasing involvement in the community of people concerned about abuses in the Church of Scientology. For this group (e.g. the folks commenting at Tony Ortega’s Blog and the Ex Scientologist Message Board) Scientology is on the verge of collapse.

I do (tentatively) believe those who say the church is in trouble. I can list a dozen reasons to think the ex-scientology community is right. There are leadership woes, court cases being lost, PR disasters. It feels like the end.

Still, it is very easy to deceive ourself. Perhaps I should be skeptical.

But, in this case, I’m going to choose not to be.


The ex-scientology community is full of people who’ve suffered real harm from the church. If you’ve never gone down the rabbit hole of how Scientology works, I’d encourage you to read Jon Atack’s Piece of Blue Sky. It is worse than you think!

There are good folks I’ve met there, who have lost their children, who’ve lost their houses and income, who’ve lost decades of their life. Folks who’ve been forced to have abortions, divorces, who’ve been prevented from receiving healthcare, folks who’ve spent years in scientology prisons, whose parents signed over their guardianship to the church when they were children, and who were routinely physically abused.

I hope corporate Scientology is collapsing, but whether it is, isn’t the point. Celebrating its defeats gives a lifeline to a mother who hasn’t seen her kids for five years, and empowers someone who’s childhood was an blur of abuse. To them it is important to know that, this too shall pass.

There are times to speak up for critical thinking, and times to shut up and be a social animal.

So perhaps I should allow myself some Schadenfreude at the Republican humiliation in Washington too.


Filed under Uncategorized

Arguing Online

Things are quite busy here at the moment, so I’m not posting as often as usual. In lieu of a more substantive post, I thought I’d share a new site and podcast I came across today.

The site is You Are Not So Smart.

The current episode is about arguments, and contains a lot of interesting anecdote and speculation. The preview of the episode on the site links this image from Wikimedia:

It is a diagram of Paul Graham’s hierarchy of online disagreement (I assume the Paul Graham, Silicon Valley luminary, since he is referred to as a programmer). It nicely summarises some of the issues we all face trying to have constructive conversations about religion online. I’ve shared before my frustration at facing conversations that drop down the pyramid, and my frustration at my own tendency to do the same. I think the diagram summarises my experiences pretty well.

If you do listen, let me know what you think.


Filed under Uncategorized

Frankfurt on Bullshit

Reading a book I received for my birthday, I found this:

The contemporary proliferation of bullshit also has deeper sources, in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable access to an objective reality, and which therefore reject the possibility of knowing how things truly are.


One response to this loss of confidence has been a retreat from the discipline required by dedication to the ideal of correctness to a quite different sort of discipline, which is imposed by pursuit of an alternative ideal of sincerity.


It is as though he decides that since it makes no sense to try to be true to the facts, he must therefore try instead to be true to himself.

— Harry Frankfurt. On Bullshit Princeton University Press. 2005

The book is a short essay, the second half of which is excellent. Bullshit is a greater threat to truth that just lies, because a lie must at least acknowledge the existence of truth, bullshit doesn’t care at all.


Filed under Uncategorized

Evolution and the Problem of Entropy

Evolution has a problem with entropy.

Any creationist will tell you that. It is part of the standard issue talking points. I agree, it does, but not in the way that creationists think.

I try to avoid getting drawn into arguments about evolution. Partly because I’ve been wasting my time that way for 20 years, partly because I’ve never seen anyone change their mind, and mostly because I turn into a self-important jerk, more often than not.

But, I never stay away for long. And when I return I usually learn something about people. For example…

It always strikes me how denialists have the easy half of the conversation. Their job is not to construct anything, but to demolish it. If the topic is a block of marble, the scientist needs to carefully chip away, delicately and specifically to reveal the statue inside. The denialist’s aim is to reduce it to an unattractive mess. There are many more ways to do the latter than the former, and it takes much less skill.

Why are there so many more video games about destroying things than about making them? Because the former is easier, you need less sophisticated interaction, a big gun is enough. The latter requires you to manipulate, slowly and with care.

Entropy is easy. Destruction is cheap. Destruction is easy to understand. Construction is slow and expensive.

Denialists of all stripes rarely offer any testable claims. Creationists are full of derision, quote-mining, drive-by-arguments and quantity of arguments favoured over their quality. There are some specific exceptions, and they are the ones that are generally dissected by scholars, but resources aimed at a popular audience are purely wrecking balls.

Its also why, I think, a lot of people with some allegiance to a ‘tribe’ can find the denialism of that tribe attractive. The message is “look, its easy to see how rubbish it all is, it doesn’t stand up to this wrecking ball, and trust us, because we’re like you, and they are the enemy”.


Something else occurred to me this weekend. When those of us who support the academic consensus on a topic oppose those who disagree, we often fall into ‘wrecking ball’ territory too. Derision is very easy to reach for, it is very easy to follow Duncan’s Law, find the most absurd claims and carp on at them. It is hard, generally, to engage with something you disagree with on its own terms. A couple of comments I wrote this weekend were totally in ‘jerk’ territory: I swung my self-righteous wrecking ball with glib abandon.

Entropy is seductive. Destruction is fun.

And so, we get arguments which go nowhere, and eventually both sides accuse the other of not taking them seriously, not listening, refusing to answer questions, arguing in bad faith, or being closed minded and ideologically motivated.

And, you know, I think that is probably true.


Filed under Uncategorized

Teaching and Holocaust Denial

At Exploring our Matrix the issue of teaching evolution was raised. In particular, the issue of whether students should be allowed to voice their criticism of evolution in a science class.

The accusation was made that evolution is the only topic you are ‘not allowed’ to criticise in class. Which I suspect is incorrect on both fronts. I suspect you are allowed to criticise it, you’re just not allowed to take over the curriculum pouring out talking points you’ve been fed from outside. And I suspect it isn’t unique in that.

One other area that, while much smaller, is both educationally important, and has a very detailed denial movement, is holocaust denial.

I assume that the holocaust is a major part of the history curriculum in state schools. I assume that, from time to time, a student will appear who has been fed the talking points on why it never happened, and why the whole thing is a big conspiracy. And I assume they are dealt with in much the same way that a creationist is dealt with in science class.


That’s a lot of assumptions. A bit of googling and I couldn’t find much actual information to confirm or deny my assumptions. I know the readership here is small, but I wonder if you can flesh out the question, if you have heard of any incidents, or if you know a student or teacher who’s faced this in reality.

It could be just a false analogy, of course, something I’m inventing to puff up my anti-creationist bias. But I would like to know. What do you think?


Filed under Uncategorized

10 Forms of Christian Privilege

This is a US-centric view. Not all of these privileges apply in other western nations.

As a Christian:

  • your religious observances, both special holidays, and Sundays throughout the year, are likely to be available as work holidays with no special arrangement or employment difficulties;
  • you don’t need to fear that your children will be prevented from playing with their friends because of your religion;
  • you can identify your faith online, using your own name, without fear of repercussions to your job or business;
  • you can list your church involvement on your resume and expect it to be a positive indicator of your community spirit and moral integrity;
  • you can stand for public office without fear that a majority of the electorate will not vote for you on the basis of your Christianity;
  • you can fail, or do bad things, without those around you seeing this as caused by, or an indictment of your religion;
  • you can move to a new city and expect to find a broad range of Christian churches, open for you to attend and join;
  • you can form a new Church with others and expect have it granted tax exempt status without having to engage in complex litigation;
  • you can access local Christian schools and universities that will see your children through their entire schooling in a context that promotes your faith;
  • you can expect to see media reports discuss Christian prayer and the actions of God in response to unrelated incidents.

Of course there are many more. These are simply the ones I’ve encountered, or my non-Christian US friends have.

And, of course, to head off the criticisms of those who want to minimise privilege: these privileges vary in severity in different areas; there may be examples where the opposite happens (remember non semper ergo numquam); and in some cases some minority forms of Christianity may find themselves on the wrong end of these privileges too. It is important to remember that privilege is large scale, systemic and complex. That these privileges can be nuanced is not evidence they do not exist.


Filed under Uncategorized