Cultural Cognition

We only believe what we want to believe. This statement makes sense and it's easy to think it applies to others but not to ourselves. I recently discovered that sociologists and others have begun investigating and quantifying the effects of what is known as the cultural cognition of risk. Some of these researchers are affiliated with the Cultural Cognition Project at the Yale Law School. Here is an excerpt from their home page (http://www.culturalcognition.net/):

The Cultural Cognition Project is a group of scholars interested in studying how cultural values shape public risk perceptions and related policy beliefs. Cultural cognition refers to the tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact (e.g., whether global warming is a serious threat; whether the death penalty deters murder; whether gun control makes society more safe or less) to values that define their cultural identities. Project members are using the methods of various disciplines -- including social psychology, anthropology, communications, and political science -- to chart the impact of this phenomenon and to identify the mechanisms through which it operates. The Project also has an explicit normative objective: to identify processes of democratic decisionmaking by which society can resolve culturally grounded differences in belief in a manner that is both congenial to persons of diverse cultural outlooks and consistent with sound public policymaking.

One of their findings suggests that when given information regarding a risk or decision, we tend to side with the presenter most like ourselves. This makes sense and we should have always expected as much. I suspect that no one is immune to the tendency of siding with whomever appears to share our beliefs or with whatever information already fits our accepted paradigm. The moral of this story is we should learn to better question our own motives when assimilating information and assessing risk.

Update: After reading my post again I realize it doesn't quite say what I wanted. Researchers at CCP have found that when different presenters provide identical information, we are more or less likely to accept the information based on how well we identify with the presenter. Ethos trumps logos. That's a bit disturbing to think about. Appealing to ethos is a rhetorical technique that dates back to ancient Greece, so the importance of ethos in argument has been understood, in part, for many centuries.

Tactical Pistol: closing words from Gabe

Here we have another slice of wisdom from Tactical Pistol by Gabriel Suarez:

The past few years have seen great strides in the fields of weapons development and training. Never before in modern history have so many people been interested and involved in owning, carrying, and learning to use weapons.

One reason for this fascination is, of course, a concern over the prevalence of criminals in our society. The other reason is the concern that an increasingly paternalistic government will continue to restrict, and eventually try to prevent, the ownership of arms by private citizens. This is a very valid concern because historically, without weapons, the rights of the people exist only at the whim of the governing body. Without the routine ownership of weapons by private citizens, the Bill of Rights is only a worthless scrap of paper. The issue is not the freedom to own guns but the existence of freedom itself!

There is a sick notion in our country to sacrifice our personal liberty in order to promote a "safe and stable" society. The idiocy of this idea is easily seen when you realize that no law can ever prevent an individual from committing a crime--it can only punish him after the act. Crime is a matter of will that cannot be controlled by legislation. This same legislation can, however, affect and incrementally strip away the rights of law-abiding citizens.

This man speaks the truth.

Got Glock?

G26 Baby Glock; a new addition to the family.

Is that Bin Laden on that box? Take a closer look.

Midwifery

The Business of Being Born. Ever heard of it? I highly recommend this movie. It brings together stories, interviews, and statistics of home-birth versus hospital births. I have had a lot of conversations with friends and acquaintances on this subject, and I have seen that most couples are afraid of having their babies at home because "it's dangerous". Did you know that among other developed countries, the USA has the lowest percentage of home-births but has a higher mother and infant mortality rate than most?

This movie touches on aspects of the history of anti-midwifery, showing it's resemblances to the US anti-cannabis campaigns in it's use of lies, fear tactics and most of all in the motivations that backed them.

You can thank the hippies for saving midwifery in the USA. Keep up the good work, all you midwives and mothers out there!

Gabriel Suarez

I found some new books to read by a very interesting author. Gabriel Suarez is a veteran of the Southern California police force and an instructor of small arms tactics. He now operates his own training school called Suarez International.

Here are a few words from the first chapter in his book, Tactical Pistol:

The only way to curb the violent crime infesting our nation, without sacrificing our free society, is the swift and terrible punishment of the criminal. It is unlikely that our kinder and gentler (really meaning softer and weaker) judicial system will take such a direction, in my lifetime at least.

Until we decide to deal harshly with criminals, there will be no deterrent, and as long as there is no deterrent, criminals will continue with their activities. The next victim selected might be you!

What can we do about this? I have an idea. Armed, law-abiding citizens can make it very dangerous for the criminal to prey on society. You, the reader, must be the deterrent!

I believe we have the right--actually the moral duty--to resist the criminal oppressor. Quite simply, he who robs (insert your favorite heinous act here) and runs away, lives to rob another day.

There are those who advocate nonresistance. They would rather give up their car or wallet to "avoid trouble." I would ask them where they draw the line. What will they say when the thugs ask for their wife or kids, or their house, or their bank account, or even their nation? It is not an issue of losing material property. There is much more to it than that. We resist because free men and women resist. Free men are not slaves to oppressors or aggressors of any sort. So we fight not for our wallets (though they be empty) nor for our cars (though they be insured) but rather for our freedom. The author Robert Heinlein wrote, "The price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle anywhere, anytime, and with utter recklessness." That about says it all.

To resist you need the tools of resistance, which in our modern age are usually firearms. Foremost you need the will and the ability to use those tools at the required "moments of truth." Lack of will has caused more innocent deaths that lack of ability.

One notably poignant incident springs to mind. A man was set upon in his own home by three hoodlums intent on robbing him. The goons were not armed with firearms and were substantially smaller (physically) than their intended victim. The man, however, offered no resistance as they forced him to the floor and tied him up. He told them where the money and all the valuables were. Then they killed him in a
particularly ugly way. The three were later captured and stood trial, but even the longest prison sentence will not reverse their deed.

The message is clear: this man could have easily trashed the three goons and lived to tell about it. But he lacked the will to do so and died without resistance.

I could tell this man was a student of Heinlein even before he mentioned the name. Heinlein was a strong believer in the rule of law, harsh judiciary punishment, and resisting injustice.

Statistics show, by the way, that an armed populace is a very strong--possibly the best--deterrent against violent crime. Fear is the greatest motivator.

FS2000

My new toy. Semi-automatic, bullpup carbine chambered in 5.56mm with a 17.4" barrel, adjustable gas valve, integrated 1.6x optics, 1913 top rail, forward case ejection, slanted muzzle brake, modular forward grip, and forward and rear sling attachments. This puppy is fully ambidextrous. I'm in love.