Friam

FW: Meat

Classic

List

Threaded

45 messages Options

123

Nick Thompson

FW: Meat

Dear Friam members,

As those of you in the mother church are already aware, I have been trying
to foment a conversation about what rationality consists of and how does it
relate to a purported scientific consensus. I assume that you are all, more
or less, rational people. How exactly, then, did each of you come to the
conclusion that, say, animal fats do or do not cause heart disease, smoking
does or does not cause cancer, human activity does or does not cause global
warming, that tick bites do (or do not) cause a syndrome called chronic Lyme
disease, that, say, beet powder improves metabolism (?), or that turmeric
does or does not alleviate arthritis. Or, perhaps more important, how did
you decide to act on these beliefs? Or not?

A friend of mine is always trying to change my eating habits and now
assaults me with evidence that red meat, particularly if processed, is
increasing my risk of cancer. She includes in her email several links that
are designed to convince me. I include those below.

The question I would like us to consider is not really the substance of the
matter. I am effing 77 years old, with a dozen things wrong with me that
are likely to kill me long before tomorrow's hotdog will. I am more
interested in the process by which each of you will decide whether or not to
change your habits on the basis of this new evidence, or try to change the
habits of your children or grandchildren. In what sense will that process
be "reasonable?"

Discuss.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: EMAIL
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 8:31 PM
To: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Meat

Here's a thoughtful look at what the WHO had to say about meat and cancer:

http://examine.com/blog/scientists-just-found-that-red-meat-causes-cancer--o
r-did-they/?utm_source=Examine.com+Insiders&utm_campaign=34d0d95b1b-Red_mead
10_27_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e4d662cb1b-34d0d95b1b-70203945&ct=t(R
ed_mead10_27_2015)&goal=0_e4d662cb1b-34d0d95b1b-70203945&mc_cid=34d0d95b1b&m
c_eid=3edf56d922

Apparently the WHO looked at 800 different studies. That's a lot of
studies. Is it a meta study?

R

On Oct 27, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> R
>
> I always wait for the metastudy.
>
> n
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EMAIL
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 3:35 PM
> To: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Meat
>
> Nick,
>
> Are you freaking out about the meat/cancer news? Here's an article
> that puts it in perspective:
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2015/oct/26/me
> at-and
> -tobacco-the-difference-between-risk-and-strength-of-evidence?CMP=fb_a
> -scien ce_b-gdnscience?CMP=fb_a-science_b-gdnscience
>
>

John Kennison

Re: FW: Meat

Hi Nick,

That’s an interesting question. I am not a vegetarian and I have, on occasion, asked myself “Why not?”. Some of my answers are probably rationalizations: “Vegetarians have to be careful about getting enough protein”; “The studies connecting meat to cancer may well be faulty” (for example, it seems that a diet rich in fruits and vegetables helps to prevent cancer and vegetarians are more likely to have such a diet). On the other hand, I have not in any serious way explored any of these thoughts --I have not made it my business to see how hard it is for vegetarians to get adequate protein, and I have not investigated how the studies control for the effects of, say, meat-eaters eating fewer vegetables.

I think my real reasons are that I like meat, and I think that being a vegetarian would be inconvenient. I do respond to cancer studies, so I try to eat salads and broccoli and fruits and other vegetables. Also, I have largely (but not at all completely) given up red meat. The latest studies will make me less likely to go to a Subway for a processed Turkey sandwich. But I have already entertained the thought that the studies are probably flawed because people who lots of processed meats will include a disproportionately high number who do not eat very well--I haven’t, of course, checked to see whether the studies control for this possibility.

--John

________________________________________
From: Friam [[hidden email]] on behalf of Nick Thompson [[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:06 AM
To: Friam
Subject: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

Dear Friam members,

As those of you in the mother church are already aware, I have been trying
to foment a conversation about what rationality consists of and how does it
relate to a purported scientific consensus. I assume that you are all, more
or less, rational people. How exactly, then, did each of you come to the
conclusion that, say, animal fats do or do not cause heart disease, smoking
does or does not cause cancer, human activity does or does not cause global
warming, that tick bites do (or do not) cause a syndrome called chronic Lyme
disease, that, say, beet powder improves metabolism (?), or that turmeric
does or does not alleviate arthritis. Or, perhaps more important, how did
you decide to act on these beliefs? Or not?

A friend of mine is always trying to change my eating habits and now
assaults me with evidence that red meat, particularly if processed, is
increasing my risk of cancer. She includes in her email several links that
are designed to convince me. I include those below.

The question I would like us to consider is not really the substance of the
matter. I am effing 77 years old, with a dozen things wrong with me that
are likely to kill me long before tomorrow's hotdog will. I am more
interested in the process by which each of you will decide whether or not to
change your habits on the basis of this new evidence, or try to change the
habits of your children or grandchildren. In what sense will that process
be "reasonable?"

Discuss.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: EMAIL
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 8:31 PM
To: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Meat

Here's a thoughtful look at what the WHO had to say about meat and cancer:

http://examine.com/blog/scientists-just-found-that-red-meat-causes-cancer--o
r-did-they/?utm_source=Examine.com+Insiders&utm_campaign=34d0d95b1b-Red_mead
10_27_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e4d662cb1b-34d0d95b1b-70203945&ct=t(R
ed_mead10_27_2015)&goal=0_e4d662cb1b-34d0d95b1b-70203945&mc_cid=34d0d95b1b&m
c_eid=3edf56d922

Apparently the WHO looked at 800 different studies. That's a lot of
studies. Is it a meta study?

R

On Oct 27, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

gepr

Re: FW: Meat

Speaking to the larger issues, I only change my behavior under parallax, when I see multiple, seemingly disparate lines of reasoning converging. For the climate, it's my natural dislike of crowds combined with myopic thinking and the "leave only footprints" ethic. For meat, it was a convergence of its cost (in resources) to raise, animal abuse/exploitation, the practices/consequences of industrial meat, and the prevalence of fast food (including the way I feel after eating it and an irrational association of fast food with obesity). The cancer and heart disease studies have no impact on my behavior, at least so far.

Supplements are an interesting case for me. I experiment with all sorts of them, usually for very short periods of time. I'm not very methodical about it. But I've played around with tryptophan, melatonin, probiotics, milk thistle, amino acids, trace minerals, [in]soluble fiber, etc., including, of course various broad vitamins. They all have interesting effects ... well, except the milk thistle... I've never observed any effects of that. But I get the same restful sleep with tryptophan as I do after "smoking" a cigar. (I haven't smoked a cigar in a looong time, though.) Melatonin does seem to reduce the recovery time from jet lag. Etc. Now, what it would take to get me to, say, take a daily vitamin for more than a week or two? I have no idea. Nothing, probably. The vitamins helped during chemo. But otherwise, they're mostly useless to me.

On 10/28/2015 06:15 AM, John Kennison wrote:
> I think my real reasons are that I like meat, and I think that being a vegetarian would be inconvenient. I do respond to cancer studies, so I try to eat salads and broccoli and fruits and other vegetables. Also, I have largely (but not at all completely) given up red meat. The latest studies will make me less likely to go to a Subway for a processed Turkey sandwich. But I have already entertained the thought that the studies are probably flawed because people who lots of processed meats will include a disproportionately high number who do not eat very well--I haven’t, of course, checked to see whether the studies control for this possibility.

On 10/27/2015 10:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:> Dear Friam members,
>
> I am more
> interested in the process by which each of you will decide whether or not to
> change your habits on the basis of this new evidence, or try to change the
> habits of your children or grandchildren. In what sense will that process
> be "reasonable?"

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Nick Thompson

Re: FW: Meat

In reply to this post by John Kennison

Thanks, John,

This account is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. It describes
how a highly trained, reasonable person actually reasons in a complex,
dynamic world. The one source of input you don't mention is "authority."
So, If you went to your doctor tomorrow and he said, "I have read the WHO
study, and I think you should stop eating all red meat, forthwith," what
would you then do. My guess is that you would use some "reasoning" process
to disqualify the Dr to some degree. The logic would be something like: "I
distrust all forms of extreme advice; this is an example of extreme advice;
I will distrust this advice; when I distrust something, I do it
half-heartedly, therefore I will follow this advice halfheartedly." That's
what I would do, anyway.

I feel that one of you is about to write me and say that I am confusing
reasoning with decision making, but as a behaviorist, I am hard pressed to
think what the difference is.

n

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of John Kennison
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 7:16 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

Hi Nick,

That's an interesting question. I am not a vegetarian and I have, on
occasion, asked myself "Why not?". Some of my answers are probably
rationalizations: "Vegetarians have to be careful about getting enough
protein"; "The studies connecting meat to cancer may well be faulty" (for
example, it seems that a diet rich in fruits and vegetables helps to prevent
cancer and vegetarians are more likely to have such a diet). On the other
hand, I have not in any serious way explored any of these thoughts --I have
not made it my business to see how hard it is for vegetarians to get
adequate protein, and I have not investigated how the studies control for
the effects of, say, meat-eaters eating fewer vegetables.

I think my real reasons are that I like meat, and I think that being a
vegetarian would be inconvenient. I do respond to cancer studies, so I try
to eat salads and broccoli and fruits and other vegetables. Also, I have
largely (but not at all completely) given up red meat. The latest studies
will make me less likely to go to a Subway for a processed Turkey sandwich.
But I have already entertained the thought that the studies are probably
flawed because people who lots of processed meats will include a
disproportionately high number who do not eat very well--I haven't, of
course, checked to see whether the studies control for this possibility.

--John

________________________________________
From: Friam [[hidden email]] on behalf of Nick Thompson
[[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:06 AM
To: Friam
Subject: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

Dear Friam members,

As those of you in the mother church are already aware, I have been trying
to foment a conversation about what rationality consists of and how does it
relate to a purported scientific consensus. I assume that you are all, more
or less, rational people. How exactly, then, did each of you come to the
conclusion that, say, animal fats do or do not cause heart disease, smoking
does or does not cause cancer, human activity does or does not cause global
warming, that tick bites do (or do not) cause a syndrome called chronic Lyme
disease, that, say, beet powder improves metabolism (?), or that turmeric
does or does not alleviate arthritis. Or, perhaps more important, how did
you decide to act on these beliefs? Or not?

A friend of mine is always trying to change my eating habits and now
assaults me with evidence that red meat, particularly if processed, is
increasing my risk of cancer. She includes in her email several links that
are designed to convince me. I include those below.

The question I would like us to consider is not really the substance of the
matter. I am effing 77 years old, with a dozen things wrong with me that
are likely to kill me long before tomorrow's hotdog will. I am more
interested in the process by which each of you will decide whether or not to
change your habits on the basis of this new evidence, or try to change the
habits of your children or grandchildren. In what sense will that process
be "reasonable?"

Discuss.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: EMAIL
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 8:31 PM
To: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Meat

Here's a thoughtful look at what the WHO had to say about meat and cancer:

http://examine.com/blog/scientists-just-found-that-red-meat-causes-cancer--o
r-did-they/?utm_source=Examine.com+Insiders&utm_campaign=34d0d95b1b-Red_mead
10_27_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e4d662cb1b-34d0d95b1b-70203945&ct=t(R
ed_mead10_27_2015)&goal=0_e4d662cb1b-34d0d95b1b-70203945&mc_cid=34d0d95b1b&m
c_eid=3edf56d922

Apparently the WHO looked at 800 different studies. That's a lot of
studies. Is it a meta study?

R

On Oct 27, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

.
>
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Nick Thompson

Re: FW: Meat

In reply to this post by gepr

Thanks, Glen,

Another great bit of "idiographic" science.

Now, how similar is your behavior in regard to climate change to the decision-making patterns you describe here.

Also: turn your analytic skills on what you are doing here. Is it REASONABLE. Is it REASONING. Is it EVER reasonable to change your individual behavior on the basis of a population average?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 9:38 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

Speaking to the larger issues, I only change my behavior under parallax, when I see multiple, seemingly disparate lines of reasoning converging. For the climate, it's my natural dislike of crowds combined with myopic thinking and the "leave only footprints" ethic. For meat, it was a convergence of its cost (in resources) to raise, animal abuse/exploitation, the practices/consequences of industrial meat, and the prevalence of fast food (including the way I feel after eating it and an irrational association of fast food with obesity). The cancer and heart disease studies have no impact on my behavior, at least so far.

Supplements are an interesting case for me. I experiment with all sorts of them, usually for very short periods of time. I'm not very methodical about it. But I've played around with tryptophan, melatonin, probiotics, milk thistle, amino acids, trace minerals, [in]soluble fiber, etc., including, of course various broad vitamins. They all have interesting effects ... well, except the milk thistle... I've never observed any effects of that. But I get the same restful sleep with tryptophan as I do after "smoking" a cigar. (I haven't smoked a cigar in a looong time, though.) Melatonin does seem to reduce the recovery time from jet lag. Etc. Now, what it would take to get me to, say, take a daily vitamin for more than a week or two? I have no idea. Nothing, probably. The vitamins helped during chemo. But otherwise, they're mostly useless to me.

On 10/28/2015 06:15 AM, John Kennison wrote:
> I think my real reasons are that I like meat, and I think that being a vegetarian would be inconvenient. I do respond to cancer studies, so I try to eat salads and broccoli and fruits and other vegetables. Also, I have largely (but not at all completely) given up red meat. The latest studies will make me less likely to go to a Subway for a processed Turkey sandwich. But I have already entertained the thought that the studies are probably flawed because people who lots of processed meats will include a disproportionately high number who do not eat very well--I haven’t, of course, checked to see whether the studies control for this possibility.

On 10/27/2015 10:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:> Dear Friam members,
>
> I am more
> interested in the process by which each of you will decide whether or
> not to change your habits on the basis of this new evidence, or try to
> change the habits of your children or grandchildren. In what sense
> will that process be "reasonable?"

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

glen ep ropella

Re: FW: Meat

On 10/28/2015 12:05 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Now, how similar is your behavior in regard to climate change to the decision-making patterns you describe here.

I don't understand the question. How similar is my behavior is to my decision-making? That's so over-loaded with implications I can't think straight. 8^) First, what I tried to describe was my behavior, not my decision-making. Your question not only implies that I failed in that, but that there's a difference between decision-making and behavior. Decision-making and behavior are the same thing.

Second, it's not clear that anything I do can affect climate change at all. Or, let me put it another way. There are things I can control (like voting, calling a representative, arguing in bars, drinking out of reusable containers, etc.). But the connection of any of those things with climate change is tenuous. So, when making my decisions (i.e. behaving) I rely on _lots_ of broad spectrum inputs, parallax, not merely climate change ... not a single input. My decisions (voting, getting to-go beer in a growler, etc) are all multiply and heterogeneously justified. Hence it's misleading to impute a single cause for any given behavior/decision.

> Also: turn your analytic skills on what you are doing here. Is it REASONABLE. Is it REASONING. Is it EVER reasonable to change your individual behavior on the basis of a population average?

Well, like a broken record, there is no "reason" independent of my biological milieu. I think that implies the answer to your question is "of course". If my biology is driven by, say, the trace minerals in my tap water, and most people in my city drink the same tap water, then of course, it's reasonable to assume we'll change our behavior _toward_ a population average ... probably the same reason we all react to "house music" or fruit. You may _say_ you don't like fructose ... but that highlights the ambiguity in "like", not the biology that processs it.

But if your question is intended to invoke the deus ex machina, where _thought_ (esp. a single thought) is the causa prima for action, then absolutely NO. That never happens in me and I deny that it happens in you or anyone else.

--
glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Nick Thompson

Re: FW: Meat

Larding below!

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ep ropella
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

On 10/28/2015 12:05 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Now, how similar is your behavior in regard to climate change to the decision-making patterns you describe here.

I don't understand the question. How similar is my behavior is to my decision-making? That's so over-loaded with implications I can't think straight. 8^) First, what I tried to describe was my behavior, not my decision-making. Your question not only implies that I failed in that, but that there's a difference between decision-making and behavior. Decision-making and behavior are the same thing.

[NST==>Gak! Words fail! Sorry! I agree there is no difference between decision making and behavior. No failure implied. <==nst]

Second, it's not clear that anything I do can affect climate change at all. Or, let me put it another way. There are things I can control (like voting, calling a representative, arguing in bars, drinking out of reusable containers, etc.). But the connection of any of those things with climate change is tenuous. So, when making my decisions (i.e. behaving) I rely on _lots_ of broad spectrum inputs, parallax, not merely climate change ... not a single input. My decisions (voting, getting to-go beer in a growler, etc) are all multiply and heterogeneously justified. Hence it's misleading to impute a single cause for any given behavior/decision.

[NST==>Well, remember Glen. I am a rank Deweyan. I think that people can and ought to discuss and argue, decide, and act concertedly. One thing that stands in the way of that is the notion that I can’t “do anything about climate change.” I mean isn’t politics just the aggregation of individual opinion in the service of concerted group action? <==nst] [NST==>Ok, you are forcing me to own up to my basic question. Why do people who disagree with one another bother to talk? What is the good in that? I assume it’s because we are striving for the non-zero-sum gains of concerted action. Also, there is some evidence, I gather, that involving more than one person in a decision actually improves the quality of the decision. <==nst]

> Also: turn your analytic skills on what you are doing here. Is it REASONABLE. Is it REASONING. Is it EVER reasonable to change your individual behavior on the basis of a population average?

Well, like a broken record, there is no "reason" independent of my biological milieu. I think that implies the answer to your question is "of course". If my biology is driven by, say, the trace minerals in my tap water, and most people in my city drink the same tap water, then of course, it's reasonable to assume we'll change our behavior _toward_ a population average ... probably the same reason we all react to "house music" or fruit. You may _say_ you don't like fructose ... but that highlights the ambiguity in "like", not the biology that processs it.

[NST==>Oh, gosh! I am beginning to see how naïve (and perhaps unbehavioristic) my question is. Does it boil down to, “Are reasons ever causes. Crap! Back to freshman philosophy.” <==nst]

But if your question is intended to invoke the deus ex machina, where _thought_ (esp. a single thought) is the causa prima for action, then absolutely NO. That never happens in me and I deny that it happens in you or anyone else.

[NST==>WE absolutely agree on that, and I should be pistol-whipped for straying from that fundamental notion. <==nst]

glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Merle Lefkoff-2

Re: FW: Meat

In reply to this post by glen ep ropella

Nick,

Yes, you individually can't do anything about climate change, but since animal agriculture--NOT energy use--causes more than 50% of climate change, if there is a mass global movement away from meat--that can make a big difference. If you haven't seen "Cowspiracy", I think you'd like it and by now it may be on YouTube. It's also about both decision making and behavior.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:18 PM, glen ep ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 10/28/2015 12:05 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Now, how similar is your behavior in regard to climate change to the decision-making patterns you describe here.

I don't understand the question. How similar is my behavior is to my decision-making? That's so over-loaded with implications I can't think straight. 8^) First, what I tried to describe was my behavior, not my decision-making. Your question not only implies that I failed in that, but that there's a difference between decision-making and behavior. Decision-making and behavior are the same thing.

Second, it's not clear that anything I do can affect climate change at all. Or, let me put it another way. There are things I can control (like voting, calling a representative, arguing in bars, drinking out of reusable containers, etc.). But the connection of any of those things with climate change is tenuous. So, when making my decisions (i.e. behaving) I rely on _lots_ of broad spectrum inputs, parallax, not merely climate change ... not a single input. My decisions (voting, getting to-go beer in a growler, etc) are all multiply and heterogeneously justified. Hence it's misleading to impute a single cause for any given behavior/decision.

Also: turn your analytic skills on what you are doing here. Is it REASONABLE. Is it REASONING. Is it EVER reasonable to change your individual behavior on the basis of a population average?

Well, like a broken record, there is no "reason" independent of my biological milieu. I think that implies the answer to your question is "of course". If my biology is driven by, say, the trace minerals in my tap water, and most people in my city drink the same tap water, then of course, it's reasonable to assume we'll change our behavior _toward_ a population average ... probably the same reason we all react to "house music" or fruit. You may _say_ you don't like fructose ... but that highlights the ambiguity in "like", not the biology that processs it.

But if your question is intended to invoke the deus ex machina, where _thought_ (esp. a single thought) is the causa prima for action, then absolutely NO. That never happens in me and I deny that it happens in you or anyone else.

--
glen ep ropella -- <a href="tel:971-255-2847" value="+19712552847" target="_blank">971-255-2847

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
[hidden email]
mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merlelefkoff

gepr

Re: FW: Meat

On 10/28/2015 02:31 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> If you haven't seen "Cowspiracy", I think you'd like it and by
> now it may be on YouTube.

Cool! I hadn't heard of this one. I didn't find it on youtube. But I did find it on netflix. I'm sad to see that it's executive producre is Leonardo DiCaprio, though. That guy irritates me. >8^)

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

gepr

Re: FW: Meat

In reply to this post by glen ep ropella

On 10/28/2015 02:24 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> [NST==>Well, remember Glen. I am a rank Deweyan. I think that people can
> and ought to discuss and argue, decide, and act concertedly. One thing that
> stands in the way of that is the notion that I can’t “do anything about
> climate change.” I mean isn’t politics just the aggregation of individual
> opinion in the service of concerted group action? <==nst]

Yes, but while we have some control over how we are integrated, as an individual, we have little/no control over how the whole aggregates ... more importantly, we have little/no knowledge of the implications of the aggregate. Blind action is no better than nefarious nor worse than virtuous action.

>[NST==>Ok, you are
> forcing me to own up to my basic question. Why do people who disagree with
> one another bother to talk? What is the good in that? I assume it’s
> because we are striving for the non-zero-sum gains of concerted action.
> Also, there is some evidence, I gather, that involving more than one person
> in a decision actually improves the quality of the decision. <==nst]

Well, my opinion isn't very useful, here. I tend to think we talk _mostly_ as a replacement for grooming each other. Or perhaps I should phrase it as: most of the talk we engage in is meaningless jabber that replaces grooming. But perhaps each of us, all of us, does engage in some sort of reprogramming, at least sporadically and rarely.

The best I can do is tell you why _I_ talk (including these tl;dr e-mails). It is in the hopes that I will be reprogrammed. Every word I read, every noise I hear, wherever it comes from, whomever it comes from, _might_ reprogram me. There are other ways to be programmed (working in the garden, driving, hiking, etc.). But there is a kind of nuance to talk-talk-based reprogramming that is difficult to get at any other way.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Rich Murray-2

Re: FW: Meat

I choose to evolve forever without limits, asking for and accepting help from within and without -- information, evidence, role models, guidance, feedback, support, direction, intuition, inspiration, revelation, transformation, miracles, union -- allowing healing forgiveness and release of all confusions in my own mind -- serving the highest benefit of each and all...

We are each uniquely evolving facets of all of entire single evolving creative spontaneous open fractal hyperinfinity...

I accept all of your spontaneous power -- I let you all the way in...

John A. McDougall MD drmcdougall.com fresh organic low-fat, low-protein, high complex starches and colored vegetables, low-sugar -- I have no caffeine or cocoa or alcohol -- no medicines at all, 500 mg V-C daily...

also, ForksOverKnives.com

Woodrow C. Monte, PhD WhileScienceSleeps.com avoid all methanol, which in humans only is made by ADH1 enzyme into uncontrolled formaldehyde inside cells of 20 tissues -- wood peat and cigarette smoke, aspartame, dark wines and liquors, fresh tomatoes, unfresh fruits juices vegetables, cut up, heated, preserved wet at room temperature in sealed cans jars plastics...

142 mg methanol weekly is provided by 6.5 cans aspartame diet drink, about 1 can daily, the amount used by 161 moms, whose kids became autistic, over twice the methanol taken by 550 moms who had no autistic kids.

dietary methanol and autism, Ralph G. Walton, Woodrow C. Monte, in press, Medical Hypotheses (now peer reviewed), free full rich text, 38 references: Rich Murray 2015.07.06

http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2015/07/dietary-methanol-and-autism-ralph-g.html

neurobehavioral effects of aspartame, GN Lindseth et al 2014, funded by Army, free full plain text -- 25% of 28 healthy young university students had obvious harm from a dose same as 9 cans daily for just 8 days: Rich Murray 2015.07.05

http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2015/07/neurobehavioral-effects-of-aspartame-gn.html

Table 5.2 is the key chart -- ADH1 enzyme at high levels in 20 tissues in body and fetus makes methanol into formaldehyde right inside cells, initiating over 20 human diseases, with full text references, WC Monte paradigm: Rich Murray 2013.03.21

http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2013/03/table-52-is-key-chart-adh1-enzyme-at.html

"As a matter of course, every soul citizen of Earth has a priority to quickly find and positively share evidence for healthy and safe food, drink, environment, and society."

within the fellowship of service,

Rich Murray,

MA Boston University Graduate School 1967 psychology,

BS MIT 1964 history and physics,

1039 Emory Street, Imperial Beach, CA 91932

[hidden email]

505-819-7388 cell

619-623-3468 home

http://rmforall.blogspot.com

https://www.facebook.com/rmforall

https://www.facebook.com/rmforallmethanol

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/rich-murray/30/835/652

https://about.me/richmurray

rich.murray11 free Skype audio, video chat

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:05 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 10/28/2015 02:24 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

[NST==>Well, remember Glen. I am a rank Deweyan. I think that people can
and ought to discuss and argue, decide, and act concertedly. One thing that
stands in the way of that is the notion that I can’t “do anything about
climate change.” I mean isn’t politics just the aggregation of individual
opinion in the service of concerted group action? <==nst]

Yes, but while we have some control over how we are integrated, as an individual, we have little/no control over how the whole aggregates ... more importantly, we have little/no knowledge of the implications of the aggregate. Blind action is no better than nefarious nor worse than virtuous action.

[NST==>Ok, you are
forcing me to own up to my basic question. Why do people who disagree with
one another bother to talk? What is the good in that? I assume it’s
because we are striving for the non-zero-sum gains of concerted action.
Also, there is some evidence, I gather, that involving more than one person
in a decision actually improves the quality of the decision. <==nst]

Well, my opinion isn't very useful, here. I tend to think we talk _mostly_ as a replacement for grooming each other. Or perhaps I should phrase it as: most of the talk we engage in is meaningless jabber that replaces grooming. But perhaps each of us, all of us, does engage in some sort of reprogramming, at least sporadically and rarely.

The best I can do is tell you why _I_ talk (including these tl;dr e-mails). It is in the hopes that I will be reprogrammed. Every word I read, every noise I hear, wherever it comes from, whomever it comes from, _might_ reprogram me. There are other ways to be programmed (working in the garden, driving, hiking, etc.). But there is a kind of nuance to talk-talk-based reprogramming that is difficult to get at any other way.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

gepr

Re: FW: Meat

In reply to this post by gepr

An appropriately timed interview in The Reasoner! http://www.thereasoner.org/

> Another thing I like about approaching argumentation this way is that it forces us to confront another question, viz., why do we argue? I mean that to be a teleological why with normative force—i.e., what should we want to get out of arguing?— not the why in search of a causal explanation. Epistemological and other cognitive considerations have to be prominent parts of an account of argumentation. Again, virtues approaches to argumentation embed arguing in a larger context: our cognitive lives.

On 10/28/2015 04:05 PM, glen wrote:
> On 10/28/2015 02:24 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>
>> [NST==>Ok, you are forcing me to own up to my basic question. Why do people who disagree with one another bother to talk? What is the good in that? I assume it’s because we are striving for the non-zero-sum gains of concerted action. Also, there is some evidence, I gather, that involving more than one person in a decision actually improves the quality of the decision. <==nst]
>
> Well, my opinion isn't very useful, here. I tend to think we talk _mostly_ as a replacement for grooming each other. Or perhaps I should phrase it as: most of the talk we engage in is meaningless jabber that replaces grooming. But perhaps each of us, all of us, does engage in some sort of reprogramming, at least sporadically and rarely.
>
> The best I can do is tell you why _I_ talk (including these tl;dr e-mails). It is in the hopes that I will be reprogrammed. Every word I read, every noise I hear, wherever it comes from, whomever it comes from, _might_ reprogram me. There are other ways to be programmed (working in the garden, driving, hiking, etc.). But there is a kind of nuance to talk-talk-based reprogramming that is difficult to get at any other way.
>

--
glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Nick Thompson

Re: FW: Meat

Exactly, Glen,

You saw the question I asked and got to the question I really wanted to ask. I was a professor for years and in that role I tried to foster face to face conversation on tricky, intricate, issues. WHY? Face to face education is under a tremendous attack these days. Why not 32 MOOKS followed each by an objective test. Save on dormitories. Save on the whole in loco parentis thing. Who cares if they drink too much, take drugs, and rape each other if it's not on OUR watch? Higher ed could be so much more efficient. Do we really need to spend tens of thousands of dollars to teach kids how to GROOM?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 5:43 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

An appropriately timed interview in The Reasoner! http://www.thereasoner.org/

> Another thing I like about approaching argumentation this way is that it forces us to confront another question, viz., why do we argue? I mean that to be a teleological why with normative force—i.e., what should we want to get out of arguing?— not the why in search of a causal explanation. Epistemological and other cognitive considerations have to be prominent parts of an account of argumentation. Again, virtues approaches to argumentation embed arguing in a larger context: our cognitive lives.

On 10/28/2015 04:05 PM, glen wrote:

> On 10/28/2015 02:24 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

>> [NST==>Ok, you are forcing me to own up to my basic question. Why do

>> people who disagree with one another bother to talk? What is the

>> good in that? I assume it’s because we are striving for the

>> non-zero-sum gains of concerted action. Also, there is some evidence,

>> I gather, that involving more than one person in a decision actually

>> improves the quality of the decision. <==nst]

> Well, my opinion isn't very useful, here. I tend to think we talk _mostly_ as a replacement for grooming each other. Or perhaps I should phrase it as: most of the talk we engage in is meaningless jabber that replaces grooming. But perhaps each of us, all of us, does engage in some sort of reprogramming, at least sporadically and rarely.

> The best I can do is tell you why _I_ talk (including these tl;dr e-mails). It is in the hopes that I will be reprogrammed. Every word I read, every noise I hear, wherever it comes from, whomever it comes from, _might_ reprogram me. There are other ways to be programmed (working in the garden, driving, hiking, etc.). But there is a kind of nuance to talk-talk-based reprogramming that is difficult to get at any other way.

glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847

⇔ glen

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Owen Densmore

Re: FW: Meat

Administrator

In reply to this post by gepr

We went on a vegetarian diet when we joined a Zen center in Rochester.

Some years later, Dede broke her hip falling from a horse. They could not perform the required surgery due to Dede's iron count being so low due to diet. It took almost a week before the surgery could be performed.

We now eat a Mediterranean diet (Italian) which is reasonable w.r.t. meat.

I wonder why my teeth are so well designed to process both meat and veggies.

-- Owen

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:42 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

An appropriately timed interview in The Reasoner! http://www.thereasoner.org/

Another thing I like about approaching argumentation this way is that it forces us to confront another question, viz., why do we argue? I mean that to be a teleological why with normative force—i.e., what should we want to get out of arguing?— not the why in search of a causal explanation. Epistemological and other cognitive considerations have to be prominent parts of an account of argumentation. Again, virtues approaches to argumentation embed arguing in a larger context: our cognitive lives.

On 10/28/2015 04:05 PM, glen wrote:

On 10/28/2015 02:24 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

[NST==>Ok, you are forcing me to own up to my basic question. Why do people who disagree with one another bother to talk? What is the good in that? I assume it’s because we are striving for the non-zero-sum gains of concerted action. Also, there is some evidence, I gather, that involving more than one person in a decision actually improves the quality of the decision. <==nst]

Well, my opinion isn't very useful, here. I tend to think we talk _mostly_ as a replacement for grooming each other. Or perhaps I should phrase it as: most of the talk we engage in is meaningless jabber that replaces grooming. But perhaps each of us, all of us, does engage in some sort of reprogramming, at least sporadically and rarely.

The best I can do is tell you why _I_ talk (including these tl;dr e-mails). It is in the hopes that I will be reprogrammed. Every word I read, every noise I hear, wherever it comes from, whomever it comes from, _might_ reprogram me. There are other ways to be programmed (working in the garden, driving, hiking, etc.). But there is a kind of nuance to talk-talk-based reprogramming that is difficult to get at any other way.

--
glen ep ropella -- <a href="tel:971-255-2847" value="+19712552847" target="_blank">971-255-2847

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Nick Thompson

Re: FW: Meat

Hi, Owen,

I agree with your focus on design. Many years ago somebody wrote a marvelous essay attempting to answer whether babies are “designed” to be crèched or carried. The argument was based largely on a comparative study of mammalian milk. Milk of crèching species is laced with fat (think seals); human milk is leaner. There were many other features of the argument which I now forget, but the basic pattern of argument – abductive – was very convincing.

When on looks at human dentition comparatively, the most striking features of it is that it is vastly reduced and that the teeth are even. The evenness of the dentition seems to be an adaption for speech The reduction seems to be the result of the consumption for a couple of million years of consuming very high quality food … fruits, nuts, meat – which is afforded by central-location foraging. For a long time, we humans have been bringing food to a central location and processing it. .

So in fact, while I applaud the form of your argument, I don’t think it is correct in this case. I don’t think human teeth ARE particularly well designed for processing [raw] meat and veggies. We lack the tearing teeth of a typical meat-eater (eg, cats and dogs) and we lack the heavily built molars of a typical plant eater (eg, gorillas). Our dentition is that of a creature much of whose chewing has been outsourced, and whose teeth have been partially repurposed for communicative function.

Great to see you today!

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 9:51 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

We went on a vegetarian diet when we joined a Zen center in Rochester.

We now eat a Mediterranean diet (Italian) which is reasonable w.r.t. meat.

I wonder why my teeth are so well designed to process both meat and veggies.

-- Owen

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:42 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

An appropriately timed interview in The Reasoner! http://www.thereasoner.org/
Another thing I like about approaching argumentation this way is that it forces us to confront another question, viz., why do we argue? I mean that to be a teleological why with normative force—i.e., what should we want to get out of arguing?— not the why in search of a causal explanation. Epistemological and other cognitive considerations have to be prominent parts of an account of argumentation. Again, virtues approaches to argumentation embed arguing in a larger context: our cognitive lives.

On 10/28/2015 04:05 PM, glen wrote:
On 10/28/2015 02:24 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

[NST==>Ok, you are forcing me to own up to my basic question. Why do people who disagree with one another bother to talk? What is the good in that? I assume it’s because we are striving for the non-zero-sum gains of concerted action. Also, there is some evidence, I gather, that involving more than one person in a decision actually improves the quality of the decision. <==nst]

Well, my opinion isn't very useful, here. I tend to think we talk _mostly_ as a replacement for grooming each other. Or perhaps I should phrase it as: most of the talk we engage in is meaningless jabber that replaces grooming. But perhaps each of us, all of us, does engage in some sort of reprogramming, at least sporadically and rarely.

The best I can do is tell you why _I_ talk (including these tl;dr e-mails). It is in the hopes that I will be reprogrammed. Every word I read, every noise I hear, wherever it comes from, whomever it comes from, _might_ reprogram me. There are other ways to be programmed (working in the garden, driving, hiking, etc.). But there is a kind of nuance to talk-talk-based reprogramming that is difficult to get at any other way.

--
glen ep ropella -- <a href="tel:971-255-2847" target="_blank">971-255-2847

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Gillian Densmore

Re: FW: Meat

Nick are you asking why I might choose my eating habbits or habbits In general?

Diet wise I improved it some from not all that interesting to way more variety. I found I enjoyed cooking and getting away from the computer, Plus the whole ritual of making a meal, a bit of music, chopping vegis, and measuring spices has a nice ritual appeal.

after grumbling about it some I enjoy a leisurly stroll so as to get out of my head and out of the house and frankly being anoyed at being out of shape I decided I want improve it, still very much a work in progress but an improvement.

For what it's worth I thought people were Omnivores meaning can and enjoy a bit of this and that.

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, Owen,

I agree with your focus on design. Many years ago somebody wrote a marvelous essay attempting to answer whether babies are “designed” to be crèched or carried. The argument was based largely on a comparative study of mammalian milk. Milk of crèching species is laced with fat (think seals); human milk is leaner. There were many other features of the argument which I now forget, but the basic pattern of argument – abductive – was very convincing.

When on looks at human dentition comparatively, the most striking features of it is that it is vastly reduced and that the teeth are even. The evenness of the dentition seems to be an adaption for speech The reduction seems to be the result of the consumption for a couple of million years of consuming very high quality food … fruits, nuts, meat – which is afforded by central-location foraging. For a long time, we humans have been bringing food to a central location and processing it. .

So in fact, while I applaud the form of your argument, I don’t think it is correct in this case. I don’t think human teeth ARE particularly well designed for processing [raw] meat and veggies. We lack the tearing teeth of a typical meat-eater (eg, cats and dogs) and we lack the heavily built molars of a typical plant eater (eg, gorillas). Our dentition is that of a creature much of whose chewing has been outsourced, and whose teeth have been partially repurposed for communicative function.

Great to see you today!

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 9:51 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

We went on a vegetarian diet when we joined a Zen center in Rochester.

Some years later, Dede broke her hip falling from a horse. They could not perform the required surgery due to Dede's iron count being so low due to diet. It took almost a week before the surgery could be performed.

We now eat a Mediterranean diet (Italian) which is reasonable w.r.t. meat.

I wonder why my teeth are so well designed to process both meat and veggies.

-- Owen

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:42 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

An appropriately timed interview in The Reasoner! http://www.thereasoner.org/
Another thing I like about approaching argumentation this way is that it forces us to confront another question, viz., why do we argue? I mean that to be a teleological why with normative force—i.e., what should we want to get out of arguing?— not the why in search of a causal explanation. Epistemological and other cognitive considerations have to be prominent parts of an account of argumentation. Again, virtues approaches to argumentation embed arguing in a larger context: our cognitive lives.

On 10/28/2015 04:05 PM, glen wrote:
On 10/28/2015 02:24 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

[NST==>Ok, you are forcing me to own up to my basic question. Why do people who disagree with one another bother to talk? What is the good in that? I assume it’s because we are striving for the non-zero-sum gains of concerted action. Also, there is some evidence, I gather, that involving more than one person in a decision actually improves the quality of the decision. <==nst]

Well, my opinion isn't very useful, here. I tend to think we talk _mostly_ as a replacement for grooming each other. Or perhaps I should phrase it as: most of the talk we engage in is meaningless jabber that replaces grooming. But perhaps each of us, all of us, does engage in some sort of reprogramming, at least sporadically and rarely.

The best I can do is tell you why _I_ talk (including these tl;dr e-mails). It is in the hopes that I will be reprogrammed. Every word I read, every noise I hear, wherever it comes from, whomever it comes from, _might_ reprogram me. There are other ways to be programmed (working in the garden, driving, hiking, etc.). But there is a kind of nuance to talk-talk-based reprogramming that is difficult to get at any other way.

--
glen ep ropella -- <a href="tel:971-255-2847" target="_blank">971-255-2847

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Nick Thompson

Re: FW: Meat

Gil,

No, not really. I don’t care what you eat. But I do care how you THINK. The core of this thread is an attempt to find out the relation between reasoning and action in a group of people who regard themselves as rational. Given that many of the people in Friam have a scientific background, one would expect that “The Science” and “the Scientific Consensus” would play a big role in our day to day decision-making. So, if I turn to a member of the group who, for instance, denies the human origin of climate change, and say truthfully, “The scientific consensus is that humans are the origin of climate change”, the that statement should change the mind of denier, forthwith. But it never works that way. In fact, it rarely works that way in any argument in FRIAM On so many matters (diet and health, in particular) we feel, even though we regard ourselves as being of rational scientific disposition, the right – nay, even the obligation – to make our own decisions with respect to matters that are scientific at their core. It is that paradox I am trying to explore. How should scientists come to their beliefs with respect to scientific matters about which they are not fully qualified to come to a scientific decision, so to speak?

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gillian Densmore
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 11:04 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

Nick are you asking why I might choose my eating habbits or habbits In general?

For what it's worth I thought people were Omnivores meaning can and enjoy a bit of this and that.

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, Owen,

I agree with your focus on design. Many years ago somebody wrote a marvelous essay attempting to answer whether babies are “designed” to be crèched or carried. The argument was based largely on a comparative study of mammalian milk. Milk of crèching species is laced with fat (think seals); human milk is leaner. There were many other features of the argument which I now forget, but the basic pattern of argument – abductive – was very convincing.

When on looks at human dentition comparatively, the most striking features of it is that it is vastly reduced and that the teeth are even. The evenness of the dentition seems to be an adaption for speech The reduction seems to be the result of the consumption for a couple of million years of consuming very high quality food … fruits, nuts, meat – which is afforded by central-location foraging. For a long time, we humans have been bringing food to a central location and processing it. .

So in fact, while I applaud the form of your argument, I don’t think it is correct in this case. I don’t think human teeth ARE particularly well designed for processing [raw] meat and veggies. We lack the tearing teeth of a typical meat-eater (eg, cats and dogs) and we lack the heavily built molars of a typical plant eater (eg, gorillas). Our dentition is that of a creature much of whose chewing has been outsourced, and whose teeth have been partially repurposed for communicative function.

Great to see you today!

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 9:51 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

We went on a vegetarian diet when we joined a Zen center in Rochester.

Some years later, Dede broke her hip falling from a horse. They could not perform the required surgery due to Dede's iron count being so low due to diet. It took almost a week before the surgery could be performed.

We now eat a Mediterranean diet (Italian) which is reasonable w.r.t. meat.

I wonder why my teeth are so well designed to process both meat and veggies.

-- Owen

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:42 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

An appropriately timed interview in The Reasoner! http://www.thereasoner.org/
Another thing I like about approaching argumentation this way is that it forces us to confront another question, viz., why do we argue? I mean that to be a teleological why with normative force—i.e., what should we want to get out of arguing?— not the why in search of a causal explanation. Epistemological and other cognitive considerations have to be prominent parts of an account of argumentation. Again, virtues approaches to argumentation embed arguing in a larger context: our cognitive lives.

On 10/28/2015 04:05 PM, glen wrote:
On 10/28/2015 02:24 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

[NST==>Ok, you are forcing me to own up to my basic question. Why do people who disagree with one another bother to talk? What is the good in that? I assume it’s because we are striving for the non-zero-sum gains of concerted action. Also, there is some evidence, I gather, that involving more than one person in a decision actually improves the quality of the decision. <==nst]

Well, my opinion isn't very useful, here. I tend to think we talk _mostly_ as a replacement for grooming each other. Or perhaps I should phrase it as: most of the talk we engage in is meaningless jabber that replaces grooming. But perhaps each of us, all of us, does engage in some sort of reprogramming, at least sporadically and rarely.

The best I can do is tell you why _I_ talk (including these tl;dr e-mails). It is in the hopes that I will be reprogrammed. Every word I read, every noise I hear, wherever it comes from, whomever it comes from, _might_ reprogram me. There are other ways to be programmed (working in the garden, driving, hiking, etc.). But there is a kind of nuance to talk-talk-based reprogramming that is difficult to get at any other way.

--
glen ep ropella -- <a href="tel:971-255-2847" target="_blank">971-255-2847

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

glen ropella

Re: FW: Meat

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

I really like the idea of virtuous argumentation. It seems to highlight the state vs. behavior duality. But, this seems right in line with my tendencies against (naive) realism. You tend to spend quite a bit of time trashing relativist positions (including the more extreme postmodernism), yet argue in favor of face 2 face teaching, apparently on the grounds that social context is at least somewhat powerful. Do you admit a full spectrum of power: realism <-> constructivism? Or is the rant against MOOCs just a "get off my lawn" and, deep down, you stick with hard-line realism?

RE: Cowspiracy -- Before chemo, I was approaching vegetarian. I ate meat once a week, fish once a month or so, eggs maybe twice/month. I admit I ate quite a bit of cheese, though, perhaps thrice per week. During chemo, I craved meat so much, it seemed crazy to avoid it.... and after eating it, I felt like a god (comparatively, anyway). T rebuild after treatment, I started eating ~4-6 eggs per week. Now that I've mostly recovered from the treatment, though, I've been lazy about returning to my low-animal diet. Cowspiracy is just the rhetorical stimulus I need. But it's not the climate impact that drives me so much as the water footprint. If my math is right, this site: http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/product-gallery/ lists 3-4x higher waterprint rates for beef, cheese, and eggs. The consistency of the difference implies the relative amounts are about the same between the movie and the website.

On 10/30/2015 08:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> You saw the question I asked and got to the question I really wanted to ask. I was a professor for years and in that role I tried to foster face to face conversation on tricky, intricate, issues. WHY? Face to face education is under a tremendous attack these days. Why not 32 MOOKS followed each by an objective test. Save on dormitories. Save on the whole /in loco parentis/ thing. Who cares if they drink too much, take drugs, and rape each other if it's not on OUR watch? Higher ed could be so much more efficient. Do we really need to spend tens of thousands of dollars to teach kids how to GROOM?

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Nick Thompson

Re: FW: Meat

Hi, Glen,

Interesting response. As I get older, I see the asymptote on which I am converging is that by the time I die I will know nothing. Thus, it's quite possible that I am just being inconsistent. But let's look into it. See below.

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 9:45 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

I really like the idea of virtuous argumentation.

[NST==>I think this is my Deweyish upbringing asserting itself. I can’t really defend it. It just seems to me that if we don’t have ways to converge (other than raw power) we are doomed to live by the sword. I am not very good at swordplay. <==nst]

It seems to highlight the state vs. behavior duality.

[NST==>Do I know that duality? I am guessing that I think of them in terms of levels of organization. Can you say more? <==nst]

But, this seems right in line with my tendencies against (naive) realism.

[NST==>Glen, how familiar are with Peirce’s weird form of [idealistic] realism. And how it leads both to tough scientism and blousy postmodernism, in different hands. <==nst]

You tend to spend quite a bit of time trashing relativist positions (including the more extreme postmodernism), yet argue in favor of face 2 face teaching, apparently on the grounds that social context is at least somewhat powerful. Do you admit a full spectrum of power: realism <-> constructivism? Or is the rant against MOOCs just a "get off my lawn" and, deep down, you stick with hard-line realism?

[NST==>I am sure there is a contradiction in here somewhere, but I don’t yet see it. Couldn’t I believe that conversation with other well-informed people is the best way to arrive at the real? Or, at least, one of several methods, all of which make a contribution? Could you say a bit more? <==nst]

RE: Cowspiracy -- Before chemo, I was approaching vegetarian. I ate meat once a week, fish once a month or so, eggs maybe twice/month.

[NST==>Again, I have not very coherent feelings about this domain. I recently read THE BIG FAT SURPRISE and decided to believe it hook line and sinker. I think there is an awful lot “food witness” going on, where people express their individuality by not eating this and that. More of the narcissism of the IMac and the You-tube generation. As the family cook, I find it’s just a pain in the ass. But just about the time I get on my high horse about “people like that”, I encounter somebody with Crohn’s Syndrome, and such like, and am completely humiliated. Not much of philosophical interest in all of that. <==nst]

I admit I ate quite a bit of cheese, though, perhaps thrice per week. During chemo, I craved meat so much, it seemed crazy to avoid it.... and after eating it, I felt like a god (comparatively, anyway). T rebuild after treatment, I started eating ~4-6 eggs per week. Now that I've mostly recovered from the treatment, though, I've been lazy about returning to my low-animal diet. Cowspiracy is just the rhetorical stimulus I need. But it's not the climate impact that drives me so much as the water footprint. If my math is right, this site: http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/product-gallery/ lists 3-4x higher waterprint rates for beef, cheese, and eggs. The consistency of the difference implies the relative amounts are about the same between the movie and the website.

On 10/30/2015 08:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> You saw the question I asked and got to the question I really wanted to ask. I was a professor for years and in that role I tried to foster face to face conversation on tricky, intricate, issues. WHY? Face to face education is under a tremendous attack these days. Why not 32 MOOKS followed each by an objective test. Save on dormitories. Save on the whole /in loco parentis/ thing. Who cares if they drink too much, take drugs, and rape each other if it's not on OUR watch? Higher ed could be so much more efficient. Do we really need to spend tens of thousands of dollars to teach kids how to GROOM?

⇔ glen

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Steve Smith

Re: FW: Meat

Nick/Glen -

I haven't tracked the details of this thread, but the bits I've skimmed have been interesting.

My own experience has more to do with "entrainment" than "deference to authority".

Even though I was trained as a Scientist (especially though?) I find it impossible to do enough research on any "popular" topic to even pretend to understand the issue and data well enough to make a "scientific decision". I think those who "pretend" to do so are rarely being honest.   As those here who have actually *done* science, know, it is far from trivial to really track down all the data and reproduce all of the experiments, etc. to begin to "prove anything" to oneself.

More to the point, I think, is using "scientific thinking" to follow the popular material provided on a given topic and *discount* some of the wilder claims (pro or con) on any given topic. But I don't think any of us can discount "entrainment" in the memetic flow.   If we hear enough people we respect (or not) rattle on (with psuedo-scientific psuedo-evidence) long enough, we tend to believe (or reject) it.   I think it is very deep in the human psyche to join our "tribe" in it's belief and/or take on an anti-position with "the other tribe"... thus our hugely bifurcated politics, etc. today.

To try to answer Nick's question ("how do *I* make decisions on these topics?").   I listen to the "buzz" in the popular literature/media and do some quick "triage" on the outliers... the ideas which are fairly clearly driven by paranoia or wishful thinking, in particular.   The conspiracy theories (positive and negative), as it were.   A "new" idea, rarely piques my interest beyond mild curiosity... I know to give the new idea a few months or even years to shake out. Let other people get wound up over them for a while before I take them very seriously. And of course things that are "too good (or bad) to be true" don't really get me wound up very easily.   But watching others get wound up *does* entertain me.

Beyond that, I try to operate on as "fundamental" of principles as possible. Since you used the topic of diet and the eating of meat as an example, I will admit to having chosen to be a vegetarian from age 15-32 when I was essentially "boycotting" the meat *industry* which I saw as an exploitative and abusive industry.   I currently follow the general guidelines of "paleo" living... entrusting my genetic heritage to define "what is best for me".   With that in mind, I suspect that not only is meat important to my diet, it is probably also important for it to come to me infrequently and in somewhat binging quantities... a good eating strategy *might* be a big juicy steak or three once every couple of weeks and a LOT of green and tuberous vegetables.   I *do* respond to the more complex and well researched ideas that are based in the indigenous diets of various cultures (some eat a LOT Of animal protein/fat while others eat almost none).

I also acknowledge that there is very little survival of the species value to living much past childbearing/childraising age (30-50?), and that short of extreme malnutrition or starvation, my diet as a young person probably wasn't very counter-survival... Sure enough, a diet too rich in red meat/fat/etc. might well lead to colon cancer or heart disease, etc in my 50's++   but what does evolution care? Sure wise/capable/skilled "grandparents" carry *some* survival value for the group, but generally not as much as healthy young parents and early middle age folks carrying the heavy end of the groups burdens (literally and figuratively).

There are *myriad* studies indicating a wild array of dietary extremes from pure vegan to nearly pure fat diets... most sound like "wishful thinking" to me, though (despite my own well-fed physique) I do believe that ultra-lean diets (as long as they aren't missing important nutrients) are probably the best thing for longevity...

Outside of diet, I think the topic of climate change and pollution to be another good example. I thought the alarm raised before about 1990 on climate change was alarmist whackadoodle talk, but by the early 2000 I had come to hear the right-wing, "drill baby drill" message and "climate denier" talk as yet more evidence that there probably *IS* a real problem.   My current belief in anthropocentric climate change arises partly from the "entrainment" (I hear enough people I want to believe claiming it is true and I too start to act as if it is true) and partly from my general cynicism about human behaviour. While I once thought it unlikely that humans could actually tilt the earth's climatological axis (metaphor, not literal), I now recognize that if there were to be any significant consequence of our outrageous (post?)industrial behaviour, it would be to bury ourselves in something of biblical proportions (think Great Flood, Plague and Pestilence, Tower of Babel, etc.)   So instead of resisting the not-so-humble idea that we could trash the planet's climate with our "petty" industrial behaviour, I now like believing that we are fouling our own watering hole.   To balance this, however, I believe that even if/as we crash and burn in our own greenhouse gas-heating, we will almost surely survive the consequences, albeit after a huge period of adjustment.   It probably won't be clean nor easy, but it probably *will* be exciting for our children and grandchildren, one way or the other.

I figure I have another 20-30 years to watch all this unfold and will see some very significant events/changes in that time, but probably not a total wipeout, at least not of the industrialized world... I might see the island nation of Tuvalu be too drowned to be habitable, and maybe our coastal cities battered by high seas and hurricanes... and our produce and/or grain belts maybe go "dust bowl" and our rich fishing waters become too polluted by mercury or radioactive isotopes to be healthy to eat from... maybe wipe out all the large mammals we want to identify with (elephants, whales, gorillas, etc.)   but as a very resilient species, we will probably find a way to continue to increase our population and energy/pollution footprint.

<ramble off>

- Steve

Hi, Glen,

Interesting response. As I get older, I see the asymptote on which I am converging is that by the time I die I will know nothing. Thus, it's quite possible that I am just being inconsistent. But let's look into it. See below.

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 9:45 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

I really like the idea of virtuous argumentation.

[NST==>I think this is my Deweyish upbringing asserting itself. I can’t really defend it. It just seems to me that if we don’t have ways to converge (other than raw power) we are doomed to live by the sword. I am not very good at swordplay.   <==nst]

  It seems to highlight the state vs. behavior duality.

[NST==>Do I know that duality? I am guessing that I think of them in terms of levels of organization. Can you say more? <==nst]

But, this seems right in line with my tendencies against (naive) realism.

[NST==>Glen, how familiar are with Peirce’s weird form of [idealistic] realism. And how it leads both to tough scientism and blousy postmodernism, in different hands. <==nst]

You tend to spend quite a bit of time trashing relativist positions (including the more extreme postmodernism), yet argue in favor of face 2 face teaching, apparently on the grounds that social context is at least somewhat powerful. Do you admit a full spectrum of power: realism <-> constructivism? Or is the rant against MOOCs just a "get off my lawn" and, deep down, you stick with hard-line realism?

[NST==>I am sure there is a contradiction in here somewhere, but I don’t yet see it. Couldn’t I believe that conversation with other well-informed people is the best way to arrive at the real? Or, at least, one of several methods, all of which make a contribution? Could you say a bit more? <==nst]

RE: Cowspiracy -- Before chemo, I was approaching vegetarian. I ate meat once a week, fish once a month or so, eggs maybe twice/month.

[NST==>Again, I have not very coherent feelings about this domain. I recently read THE BIG FAT SURPRISE and decided to believe it hook line and sinker. I think there is an awful lot “food witness” going on, where people express their individuality by not eating this and that. More of the narcissism of the IMac and the You-tube generation. As the family cook, I find it’s just a pain in the ass. But just about the time I get on my high horse about “people like that”, I encounter somebody with Crohn’s Syndrome, and such like, and am completely humiliated. Not much of philosophical interest in all of that. <==nst]

  I admit I ate quite a bit of cheese, though, perhaps thrice per week. During chemo, I craved meat so much, it seemed crazy to avoid it.... and after eating it, I felt like a god (comparatively, anyway). T rebuild after treatment, I started eating ~4-6 eggs per week. Now that I've mostly recovered from the treatment, though, I've been lazy about returning to my low-animal diet. Cowspiracy is just the rhetorical stimulus I need. But it's not the climate impact that drives me so much as the water footprint. If my math is right, this site: http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/product-gallery/ lists 3-4x higher waterprint rates for beef, cheese, and eggs. The consistency of the difference implies the relative amounts are about the same between the movie and the website.

On 10/30/2015 08:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> You saw the question I asked and got to the question I really wanted to ask. I was a professor for years and in that role I tried to foster face to face conversation on tricky, intricate, issues. WHY? Face to face education is under a tremendous attack these days. Why not 32 MOOKS followed each by an objective test. Save on dormitories. Save on the whole /in loco parentis/ thing. Who cares if they drink too much, take drugs, and rape each other if it's not on OUR watch? Higher ed could be so much more efficient. Do we really need to spend tens of thousands of dollars to teach kids how to GROOM?

--

⇔ glen

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

123