Matt Hutson has a B.S. in cognitive neuroscience from Brown University and an M.S. in science writing from MIT. He has written for Wired, The Atlantic, The New York Times Magazine, Discover, Scientific American Mind, Popular Mechanics, Technology Review, Slate, NewYorker.com, NYMag.com, ScienceMag.org, Aeon, Nautilus, Al Jazeera America, The Boston Globe,The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and Psychology Today, where he was the News Editor for four years.
MIN 1:30
Matt’s religious and spiritual background and context for writing about magic and how we think.
A Brief History of Time
Stephen Hawking
MIN 2:30
Cognitive Neuroscience studies
Meaning is filtered through the mind.
MIN 3:30
What is magical thinking and how does it happen all the time in our lives?
MIN 9:00
Humans are very social creatures and we apply our perspective (like thoughts and desires) onto other things that are not human.
MIN 11:30
Some atheists claim they don’t commit mistakes of magical thinking, but Matthew says, “Not so fast, we all do and it’s not so bad!”
Involuntary Cognitive bias
The experiments the tease out the behavioral repercussion of these basis.
MIN 14:30
Instinct and staying safe
MIN 16:30
How does Matt deal with his own magical thinking?
Realizing the difference between correlation and causation.
MIN 18
Learning Critical Thinking
Is there another explanation?
MIN 20
Transcendent experiences and loss of awareness of ego or a sense of awe.
Astronauts often return from space with a new belief in God or spirituality or ecologically-minded or with a renewed sense of awe.
MIN 23
Matt’s transcendent moment in Alaska.
MIN 25
Matt talks about the “The Soul Lives On” and “Everything Happens for a Reason” chapters of his book.
MIN 29
Up loading our brains to live on after us and artificial intelligence.
MIN 31
symbols: such as, people feel less lonely when they watch tv.
MIN 34
Consciousness as discreet states
MIN 35
Verbs most activate our motor system
MIN 38
The movie HER and brain simulation
MIN 40
The psychology of social status. power, prestige, and class how we achieve it. Why we care about getting it and what’s good about it and how it shows our values.
MIN 42
How upbringing can program us for life.
Thank you so much for your interest in this episode. Dig around and listen to other episode and come back each Wednesday and Friday for new ones, or subscribe and never miss a thing.
If you’ve listened to the show…
Please click our audience survey button so we can better understand who’s listening.
(It takes about 1 minute to complete and it’s 100% anonymous.)
Thank you!
Shownotes for Episode 13 Wine lovers have God to thank + guest Doug Jackson
First, I want to feature the book Doug and I wrote …
entitled Dog in the Gapbecause of a C.S. Lewis quote “Man and his dog close a gap in the universe”.
And there’s a BONUS EDITION with lots of goodies!
Read a sample here!
Will you fan the spark?
Inspired by how musician Amanda Palmer put it, “Don’t make people pay [for art]. Let them,” I am altering how Spark My Muse stays alive…from bottom to top (literally).
How does it work?
It’s up to you. I need at least $75 per episode to keep it solvent. Every little bit helps! So, I invite you to just listen, read, and give as you can.
Thank you! Enjoy the show!
With love,
~Lisa
WINE SEGMENT:
Who do we have to thank for wine?
God and the Church, actually.
Wine lovers in Western civilization have the Church in Europe (and the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire–which was neither holy nor Roman ) to thank for the large-scale production, the prevalence and the excellence of wine!
Why?
Because liturgy involving wine for communion was central to Christian religious practice. Wine was ingested as the saving holy blood of Christ (and bread as the holy body of Christ), usually each and every day. The sacraments of Communion served as saving grace afforded to the Church.
As Roman Empire became officially a Christian Empire (circa 313 CE) many vineyards had to be planted, properly cultivated, and harvested. Grapes had to be made into a lot of to support the daily practice of communion throughout the Empire.
Communion served as wine was the norm among Christians world-wide until recently–in the era of pasteurization. To keep juice from grapes in a state were they would not ferment meant it had to be sufficiently boiled so the natural yeast would die.
Vehemently opposed to alcohol, Thomas Bramwell Welch, a physician, dentist, and Methodist pastor from Vineyard, New Jersey, figured out the process in 1869 with Concord grapes. Most churches did not accept the switch as proper and stayed with wine.
The juice later became more popular during Victorian era because of prominent values of abstinence. A shift then began in the U.S. that made grape juice the main communion beverage (at least among certain Protestants sects).
Several hundred vineyards operating in Europe today can trace their history to monastic origins.
In the 9th-15th centuries almost 1,000 monasteries dotted Europe. They were centers of education, stability, and technical innovation. Monks and nuns could read and write–this was quite uncommon then.
Monasteries cared for the sick, helped the poor, created places of education, and invented Universities. They could not fund all this through donations. Surplus wine was sold to finance ministry work (and also beer, fruit brandies, and cheese, among many other things..even prayers and Salvation ..which–in hindsight–appears to have been a mistake ) .
So, basically, thank God (and many monks) for wine!
Sparking your muse
Enjoy the fantastic chat with Doug Jackson!
Douglas Jackson, D.Min. Director of the Logsdon Seminary Graduate Program
Doug Jackson came to SCS in 2006, after serving as pastor of Second Baptist Church, Corpus Christi, since 1993. In addition to teaching courses, Dr. Jackson functions as a liaison between Logsdon Seminary and local churches in Corpus Christi. His areas of specialization include spiritual formation and pastoral ministry. Dr. Jackson has published and presented several articles and essays in religious and literary venues, including articles and lectures on the life and writings of C.S. Lewis. • D.Min. – Truett Seminary (2006) • M.Div. – Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (1985) • B.A. – English Literature, Grand Canyon College (1982)
A resource he is using by NT Wright – “The new perspective on Paul”
The covenant people God has saved.
8:50
Reformers and the necessary correction in contemporary times.
9:00
Confronting individualism
and thoughts on human flourishing.
9:50
on the idea of being “spiritual but not religious”
10:30
on his work about CS Lewis
Mere Christianity
11:00
The importance of imagination for understanding that isn’t covered by rationalism.
12:30
on his Oxford lecture Owen Barfield an influential life-long friend of CS Lewis
Another lecture on Walter Miller – A Canticle for Leibowitz
Apologetic self-proclaimed validity on the rational scheme of knowing.
“Scholarship is about knowing more and more about less and less so that eventually you know everything about nothing.”
14:30
James Sire
15:70 Malcolm Guite https://www.facebook.com/malcolm.guite
Chaplain of Gerton college and Cambridge
“Faith Hope and Poetry”
He covers the imagination as a way of knowing (an epistemology).
Holly Ordway
Houston Baptist University
“Not God’s Type”
Her 2-track movement toward conversion
18:00 Brainpickings.com Maria Popova (an admitted secular atheist on a continual spiritual search)
19:00
on Spiritual atheism
….if we come up with a system that covers everything (Christians and Atheists alike)…
“Humans are sensitive and emotionally vulnerable to a wasteful degree evolutionarily speaking…highly valuing the arts.” (Lisa)
Christ in the Desert Benedictine Monk and Abbot Philip Lawrence, New Mexico
…slipping in and out of atheism….
21:30 HG Wells, and the fundamentalist reaction to him and others of his ilk.
on how science and religious circles have had an absolute unwillingness to be in one another presence and (have not wanted) to admit any weaknesses and (instead) just shout louder.
22:20
“The best apologetics can do is make Christianity credible and I don’t think it can make it inevitable.”
22:30 “Any belief in any ideal is still a leap of faith for anyone… like Justice, Love, Hope…” (Lisa)
23:30
on How people appeal to a standard outside themselves. (CS Lewis)
24:00
Theories of “survival behavior value” for Morality and Justice kicks the can. or it lands on simple absurdity and meaninglessness where suicide becomes a valid option.
25:00
Doug answering the question….”Is fundamentalism evolving”?
26:00
Richard Foster’s classic over 50 years old “Celebration of Discipline”
27:20
A story of a crucial pivot point for Doug.
28:20
How the psalmists had to cry out to God when the answers didn’t suffice any longer. For us, this is a return more than a departure.”
“I have gained the gift of being able to respect other traditions and admire things they bring us, but I talk to people across that spectrum that have that experience.”
29:30
“We go from trusting our denominational address or theology address to trusting Christ but it doesn’t mean an abandonment of it. Choosing a room in the same house to live in.”
30:10
Spiritual disciplines most meaningful to him:
On solitude and privacy (the difference). Henri Nouwen explains the difference. Henri Nouwen explains in “Out of Solitude”
Doug: Solitude is for battle. Privacy is to be alone.
31:00
Demons come in our solitude (Desert Fathers). The outcome is awareness and purification.
32:00
Wanting “the listening heart” (what Solomon really asked God for).
on the importance of listening to God…
33:30
My Stockholm syndrome at parties. (Lisa)
34:00
“(My) Inability to be with people was driven by a failure to have a real self.”
34:30
“you are nearer to me than my own self.” Augustine
Doug realized:
“My real Self can’t be with people because it’s threatened by them, because they’re going to colonize my Self and going to make me into something I’m not. As opposed to having a real Self that can listen because God is protecting that Self.”
Father Francis Kelly Nemeck wrote
The way of Spiritual Direction (his director)
…Doug and I discuss Detachment and Holy Indifference…
39:00 St John of the Cross (Exploring the spiritually obscured times and darker emotions.)
“the nada” (God is “no thing” the silence before God
40:00
…on staying in the problems and not panicking.
41:00
…on the crucial lesson from his mom that revealed his theology
44:30
(unknowing) Apophetic theology
“John of the Cross didn’t want that we should abandon the metaphors but move through them.”
45:00
“We cannot encapsulate God in our Theology.”
(which is terrifying but life-giving)
46:00
[GOOD NEWS]
Further exploration in a future episode of John of the Cross with Doug coming soon!
If you enjoyed the show please give it a stellar review on iTunes here!
Determining Threats: Sarcasm and the Secret Service
This post is rich in irony. Reader beware.
Sarcasm is a normal part of our human communications. It helps us blow off steam, indicate preferences, or feel superior. But, it tends to be misunderstood in written form.
This includes, letters, emails, texts, and even sky writing, theoretically.
The internet is replete with sarcasm misunderstood and the government unsatisfied surveilling our every move online, on our mobile devices, game consoles, and God-knows-how-else, wants to know if we really mean what we say.
This summer, the Washington Post reported the U.S. government’s request for software to detect sarcasm out of the vast stream of questionable internet postings. And they want it to be compatible with Internet Explorer 8. (Let that last bit sink in for a minute…that bit of software was released in 2006.)
Thwarting dangerous threats is the aim! Not dangerous like cutting off their supply of prostitutes–mind you–but something more terrorist-like or destructive.
It’s seems like a reasonable idea on paper, perhaps. (If you don’t have to worry about competence or merit to keep your job.)
“It’s difficult not to be sarcastic about the idea of the Secret Service automatically, algorithmically, examining all of your social-media posts to determine, among other things, that you’re being sarcastic,”
says Peter Eckersley who is technology projects director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation–a group that defends online civil rights.
The fact is that sarcasm used outside of voice-to-voice or face-to-face interactions proves to be indistinguishable from threats. Only another human person, with a sense of linguists, could figure that out, and even then misjudgments are apt to happen.
The study of humor and its uses gets into a lot of grey territory and even idiocy. It turns out our sense of humor is like a sense of balance. It can deteriorate or suffer from maladies.
As we use sarcasm online and in any written form, it makes sense to be aware not only of misunderstandings that are par for the course, but also that big brother is watching…and that’s no joke.
I’m getting to the last half of the humor series I started a few weeks back! (see the bottom of the page for the other entires)!
Today I am exploring sarcasm.
(part 1)
This took a lot of research because I had so little understanding of sarcasm and I’ve heard it so infrequently.
That was like stretching before a jog.
You limber and ready? Let’s do this!
We take humorous sarcasm for granted because it’s so plentiful in the modern culture milieu. This is, in fact, a recent cultural development, and one the entertainment industry has much to be thankful for.
Sarcasm is actually a rather complex use of a language:
In using sarcasm we must convey the opposite of what we are saying.
This happens best by using enough vocal intonations, body language, and other hints to communicate true intent. (The less exaggeration done, the more of a butt hole you seem.)
Sidenote:
For those with language or cognitive impairments, like autism, sarcasm may be routinely misunderstood. My son’s–who has autism and learning disabilities–now has a budding understanding of sarcasm at age 14. My daughter caught on at age 3. By using more exaggeration to convey the real meaning in my use of sarcasm, I introduced him to a common use of communication. I know you’re thinking… “PARENT OF THE YEAR!”…but, yes, this was not without its problems.
His accomplishment was a milestone of development that will start to serve him well if he expects to be treated as a mainstreamed person. Nevertheless, the use of sarcastic comments in our home tends to be unnoticed by him and taken in lateral, face-value terms. We try to keep a reign on it in our home to avoid needless problems of miscommunication.
This was, at first, a bitter disappointment to me, having come from a caustic childhood environment where sarcastic mockery was more plentiful than supper leftovers. Alas, it was a call to greater maturity as well as development of alternative modes of mirth-making. For me, baby steps.
6 Things to note about the use of sarcasm:
1. Unlike many other expressions of humor, sarcasm always has a point and means to activate or thwart something. It also proves useless (or frustrating) if the hearer fails to understand the actual pointed meaning. Tip: That’s how to foil it. Just act oblivious. Easy-peasy.
2. Invariably, It is used to point out the supposed superiority of one person (or group) over another. That’s, right…..Busted!
3. It is considered genuinely humorous only when one can duly side with the practitioner of it, and not be the object of the sarcasm/ridicule. The rare exception being when the practitioner has the master skills to appear convincingly benign to everyone involved–which few do convincingly. Groans, eye rolling, harbored resentment, passive aggression, or revenge plots indicate failure on this part.
4. The word sarcasm comes to us from the mid 16th century in the French word sarcasme. Isn’t it hard to believe that of all people and language groups on the planet that it would be the French at the source of the word?
I wonder what the source of the the word “snooty” is….
(Find out and let me know!)
Right now, I feel I should point out that “DeLay” is my married name.
The French word sarcasme was originally from late Latin, from late Greek sarkasmos. In Greek, it is sarkazein and means to ‘tear flesh,’ (lovely!). In late Greek it meant ‘gnash the teeth, speak bitterly’ (think: sneer). And like the languages from whence it came, sarcasm is often noted to be too little, too late and, of course, carnivorous.
5. The frequent use of sarcasm creates a negative, cynical, and often toxic atmosphere and state of mind. And it’s just plain old douchey (pardon my French).
6. In the classical (Greek) world, “humor” was primarily conducted as sarcasm and practiced by the upper class (who were few) to degrade and condescend the lower, poorer classes (who were many). I’m assuming that in contrast, the poorer classes, as is typical, found burping, farts, and shit jokes funny (pardon my French).
This class issue is why the use of humor was denounced by Plato and other early philosophers (who were–mind you–literate, educated, and upper class. They saw it as counter-productive and without virtue. The noble, high class aim is to be good. And of course, farting was not at all funny to Plato, ever. Not once.)
In the Republic (388e), Plato says that the guardians of the state should avoid laughter, “for ordinarily when one abandons himself to violent laughter, his condition provokes a violent reaction.”
I’m not sure if he meant riots or just getting punched in the eye.
And now, I will leave you with this story…
A linguists professor instructs his class saying,
“Sarcasm is a poor use of language, crass and unsophisticated, and serves absolutely no sensible point.”
To which a student in the back replies, “Yeah, right!”
Sarcasm is, most often, poison humor meant to somehow injure or to thwart.
It works like a kind of tool and inflicts a kind of violence. As with all weapons, prudence and moderation will be the best course…in case all of this is getting past you. ;)
It goes without saying that, sometimes, violence is the point, so then it boils down to determining what kind of person you want to be most of the time.
Your assignment is to write something sarcastic in the comments section to prove you understood this post, or instead… if your conscious is lashing you, count and report the number of times sarcasm was used in the post.
Sarcasm tends to be misunderstood in written form. This includes, letters, emails, texts, and sky writing. The internet is replete with sarcasm misunderstood….so in
PART 2 I’ll go over how the Secret Service is considering using software to detect sarcasm online. Crazy but true.
Three Humor Science researchers walk into a bar. ….um. Wait. That won’t work. Let me start over.
Get a scientist to talk about humor studies and you get a quick reminder of how science can squeeze the life out of anything.
Dissection is destructive. But no more!
It’s time to find out in a better way:
1. What do people find funny and why?
2. How can YOU become more humorously winsome?
3. How can science and an understanding of human nature and spirituality help us find out?
That’s what this series will be about, and I promise that it won’t be as dull as it’s been when scientists have the mic.
If it’s successful, a long form project will go a lot further and get a lot funnier. That’s up to you.
Here’s the story of how it all started:
A friend of mine asked me to speak at a senior residential home on the topic of community. No problem. I speak at plenty of places on plenty of topics. I wrote my bullet points and picked out an outfit…and then things went bad.
The problem?
I didn’t know she was billing me as “hilarious”.
I found that part out only a few days beforehand. I went into a quiet panic. The kind where your hands get clammy and your sweat smells like bad coffee. You run out of TUMS at times like this.
I’d planned on being friendly and informative, not uproarious. I was going to present material and involve them in cute bonding activities, not split their sides in gales of laughter. My friend had been walking around assuring residents that I was the funniest thing going.
Now what?
Maybe, I could stick a joke in there somewhere:
“Have you ever peed your pants laughing? What a silly question–you’re old people. You peed your pants getting out of bed today. Is bladder incontinence a laughing matter? …Depends.”
Depends is right. This wasn’t going to work.
What if they hated me? Some of them are in chronic pain. Some are grouchy. Some have little patience for sassy youngsters. These people carry canes and some smell like pee.
I could get the beating of my life! And I would deserve it.
The terror of bombing at the place drove me to research the topic of humor scientifically.
My purpose was to help these folks have a good time, not offend them.
What resulted was a quest and many discoveries. I had to find out if funniness can be learned, if public speaking can be improved with a formula, if laughter can be predicted, and if old people laugh at jokes about physical deterioration and, if so, under what conditions.
Well, it turns out the last bit is sort of tricky. More on that in future material.
On getting funnier
My research dug up a very good find and it might help you too:
One of the ways almost anyone can get funnier to more people is to appear harmless more broadly.
Does that seem counter-intuitive?
Yes, there are foul-mouthed, raunchy comics aplenty and seem to get lots of laughs, but they are not typically funny to the greatest numbers of people compared to plenty of other things (pies in the face, mistaken identity antics, prat falls, kittens jumping in surprise), and there is a scientific reason why.
What more people (on average) actually find funny hinges on giving them something that is funny at a further comedic distance. This explains why Jay Leno, Jerry Seinfeld, and Bill Cosby (before all that drugging women stuff was found out) have huge followings and continued success, and Roseanne Barr gets more annoying as time goes by.
What is Comedic Distance?
Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die.
-Mel Brooks
In this quote, Mel Brooks underscores what humor researchers are finding empirically true. Distance matters a lot.
If your child falls off the playground slide and bangs himself up, it’s scary. If some man in a cowboy hat suddenly gets kicked in the crotch by an aggressive llama, it’s laughable.
The Kitten vs. Stern Proof
This is why videos of kittens doing silly things trump in spades the popularity of Howard Stern and his radio show antics. The hoards of memes, shares, and overall fans of funny kitten videos means that invariably, kittens kick Howard’s butt. Big time. Kittens won’t squash your dearly held values. Kittens won’t say something gross about bodily fluids. (Kittens are not funny to everyone, but they are funnier on the whole than a raunchy DJ or vulgar comedian. No contest.)
The difference between kittens and Howard Stern is this: Something “dangerous” isn’t personally threatening when kittens are involved.
Comedic distance (whether physical, chronological, or emotional) creates an amusing incident. The surprise pays off and people are thusly amused. If not, that you can get booed.
For me, I played off that my normal Thursday afternoons are spend with prison inmates and that I was REALLY happy for the upgrade.
I was then heckled by a woman who said,
“Don’t be so sure.” (She has it in for a few of her neighbors. It’s been ugly.)
To which I replied, “Well, you are all much better dressed.”
Resounding laughter. A win!
So, see if you can figure out why the photo above is funny (to most people)?
Answer:
The woman has made it to 100 years old and she’s done it her way.
Sure, smoking is dangerous, but apparently not much, in her case.
Having fun?
I hope you are enjoying this series.
Do you have questions about humor theory or getting funnier?
Let me know.
Determining Threats: Sarcasm and the Secret Service
