The Null Hypothesis and Pattern Illusions.

Meredith L. Patterson

I build things with language. Some of them are even in words.

https://medium.com/life-tips/the-null-hypothesis-loves-you-and-wants-you-to-be-happy-3189413d8cd0

The null hypothesis is science’s first and last line of defense against one of the most terrifying properties of the human mind: the capacity to find patterns. Our pattern-matching ability is innate. We are the species whose niche is anything we can adapt to ourselves, and that facility for adaptation is built in part on our capacity to recognize patterns such as “when food sits in fire, its texture changes and it becomes easier to eat, until it burns.”

Like Philip K. Dick said, “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”

 Jonathan Korman:

Of course, as a modern Hermeticist I am cultivating specific pattern illusions which I find help me live the life that suits me

Warning: JK is a synthesist so that anything you read about modern Hermeticism probably does not apply.  As usual for most mentioned on this blog johnbigbootie's One person Religion is about the best you can do. 

Creating beliefs is a necessary activity of a sapient, and probably any rational brain to stay alive.  As Shermer notes in The Believing Brain believing that the dark stripes in the waving tall grass calls for evasive action is a survival tactic.  The cost/benefit equation says don’t think just do.  Create a safe space from the grass, and then you can apply the null hypothesis that it is waving grass and not a tiger.  Otherwise the null hypothesis is likely to kill you.  

At almost any level of living beliefs allow us to function in common situations without having to really think about how we will react.  If a young woman sees a man leering at her her belief that he is a rapist is quite functional and she can take appropriate actions to eliminate the danger to her person.  Once she is safe it might be useful to examine her belief that the particular instance might have some prejudicial component and the null hypothesis that not all X are rapists could be useful in managing her prejudice.  But at some point the law of diminishing returns becomes important and the belief that all strange men are rapists may be functional.  

When I was learning to drive my instructor taught me to believe that all other drivers on the road were either drunk or crazy and my job as a driver was to make sure none of them could get close enough to my car to cause damage.  The null hypothesis that not all drivers on the road are drunk or crazy is a waste of time as keeping a safe space is reasonable in any case.  

Where beliefs become dysfunctional and should be tested against a null hypothesis are the "Everyone knows" or "It is just common sense" to believe Y.   Even then if "Everyone" in "Everyone knows" is the tribe, sect, or gang one is a member of, challenging Y against the null hypothesis may be hazardous to ones mental health at least.  But for those with an intelligent support group like a university or STEM community the null hypothesis is the path to intellectual growth and learning.  

  

Just Wanting to Be.

From Facebook
https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/12345578_1121956801169971_8159322570596712902_n.png?oh=83e9a880d9fe2630005d68f0b768b7e5&oe=571ABC61

I want to live simply.  I want to sit by the window
when it rains and read books I'll never be tested on.
I want to paint because I want to, not because I've got
something to prove.  I want to listen to my body, fall
asleep when the moon is high and wake up slowly,
with no place to rush off to.  I want not to be governed
by money or clocks or any artificial restraints
that humanity imposes on itself.
I just want to be, boundless
and infinite.
Unknown Author

The comment 

A guaranteed personal stipend would make this possible. If your infinite boundlessness includes contributing to your society you can climb out of your narcissism and do so.

was taken as an insult by the poster who saw the image as an enjoyable reading and posted it apparently without further thought. 

The quote from the image seems to be new age and stolen by the OP, but no worries, it is a common new age failing.  They just want to be, sourcing quotes, and other intellectualizing is to be avoided.  
Possibly the new ager stole it from a Zen writing, the thinking is Zen, the word tracks are new age. 

But to our muttons.  The stipend, assuming it is sufficient for the basics of living, universal medical care as part of the package would be a fascinating gumption (Pirsig sense) filter.  Some of a new age bent would read by the window, smear paint on canvas, with no thought other than personal ego enrichment. Perhaps staring at their own reflection in a pool should be added to the list.  

Others would simply vegetate in front of whatever is popular on the big screen at the time, tweet or snapchat, and otherwise remove themselves from the gene-meme pool.  No judgmentalism, removing oneself from the gene-meme pool is a popular and possibly reasonable choice given the human condition today.  And not bothering your neighbor humans while doing so is laudable.  

A few may decide that Homo Sap. is salvagable and try to do what they can to improve the lives of others if only by giving away that painting to a friend to show that you are at least trying to bring a bit of joy to someone else.  It might end up on the refrigerator door with the kids but at least you cared enough to share.  Then again it might end up on someone's wall, probably virtual these days, for others to enjoy.   Or perhaps think about that book that you read by the rainy window.  Maybe it was good enough to share and discuss with others who can read.  They are the only ones who matter in any event, and maybe you all can teach others to read.  It may seem futile, as reading and thinking about it are discouraged by all media these days as reading and thinking about it are fatal to belief, bigotry and hatred.  But there are a few out there that do so and they are the last hope for this media saturated world bent on the destruction of all for the profit of the few.  Too bad the few won't survive in the gene-meme pool either except, if we are lucky, as warnings along with all the others that put personal ideology or gain against the rest of the world.  

It is fortunate that some of the countries in the far north are realizing that those who must spend every waking moment staying alive have no time to read books or paint even with nothing to prove. They are already providing free meds and education for as long as one can get admitted, and some sort of universal basic income is being implemented.   If I were much younger I would probably move to one of the smaller countries north of the 50th parallel which are likely to survive the destruction of the temperate zones which seems irreversable at this point.  My choice would be Iceland if only because the Universal Basic Income is already in place and the Jolabokaflod, or the "ChristmasBook Flood." is a delightful tradition where people actually spend Christmas Eve reading.      

Religious Politics in the US

 It is not a left vs. right issue; it is a fundamentalist vs. liberal religious issue. Fundamentalists of any Abrahamic faith are generally hate filled bigots intent on treating non-fundamentalists of their religion as less than human and therefore worthless as anything but dead and can barely be defended as humans let alone as Jews or Christians or Muslims or whatever. Another facet of these fundamentalists is Paternalism to be polite but generally sexism or misogyny is the better term.   By the way, this is my argument against the "New Atheists." They treat all religious people as fundamentalists treat others and sexism is part of the package.

 Many "liberals" in those religions are so wedded to "Traditional Values" that I find it hard to defend them as Jews or Christians or Muslims. I will defend them as humans with misguided values, as I will defend most decent humans with misguided values. But if they are hate filled bigots I will call them out on their bigotry not on their religion as I cannot distinguish one religious bigot from one of a different religion.

The Axes of American Politics

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/the-axes-of-american-politics-e04713b28f40

In this context, we can finally come back to where we started, and understand the roots of Sanders supporters’ opposition to Harris. Some of it, certainly, is based in sexism; but to reduce it to that is to ignore the fact that Sanders and Harris represent two completely different political movements in America, ones which are frequently at odds with one another. Harris, in particular, has actively allied with various policies in her earlier career (such as support for private prisons) which are actively at odds with core interests of the Social and Economic Justice wings, and so it should not be surprising that the same people who disliked Hillary Clinton would also dislike her.

Literacy Is a Political Disability

From  http://literacyprojectfoundation.org/community/statistics/
The Nation

• In a study of literacy among 20 ‘high income’ countries; US ranked 12th

• Illiteracy has become such a serious problem in our country that 44 million adults are now unable to read a simple story to their children

• 50% of adults cannot read a book written at an eighth grade level

• 45 million are functionally illiterate and read below a 5th grade level

• 44% of the American adults do not read a book in a year

• 6 out of 10 households do not buy a single book in a year

 Tweets and memes scrolling under the news are current political currency.  They are all that the voters can understand.

 Trying to articulate spell out a policy idea in words small enough for the votors is a lost cause.  Likewise trying to prove a meme or tweet is a lie in one meme or tweet.  Lies gather no moss.  The truth accretes moss of literacy until it is invisible to even mainstream media these days.  

Users as People.

https://medium.com/the-year-of-the-looking-glass/the-death-of-users-and-product-design-a857f1ad2f3b

one thing that Mark [Zukerberg] said, a small note in the grand scheme of things, that still sits fresh in my mind every single week. “We need to stop calling peopleusers,” he said. “They’re not just there to use our products; we’re here to build things for them.”

People, not users.

User:

I just drove off in my new car and I am parked in the pouring rain on the side of the freeway.  Where is the fucking defroster? 

Forgetting users were people almost cost Toyota their entry into the US Market. They designed an advanced, reliable, competitively priced car so different in all ways from Detroit that people couldn't use it intuitively. Similarly the BMW I-Drive. User satisfaction dropped to near zero. They had to solve the problem with a mandatory UX (human) trainer. 

In 1981 a salesperson (let’s call him Joe) in a big Toyota dealership at 57th St. and 11th Ave. in Manhattan tried to look busy at his desk as the suits from Toyota of N.  America came into the dealership and disappeared into the General Manager’s office to no avail as Joe was quickly called to come to the office.  Once there he was confronted by one of the Toyota execs with the question “What are you doing differently from all of the other salespeople here?”  The only thing he could think of was that he spent time at the next day delivery with the “User” to show them how everything on the car worked.  He knew this was different because he was criticized by the Sales Manager for being “Off the floor” at one point after spending more than an hour with a difficult customer.  The Corporate types had an “Aha moment” and dismissed Joe with a thank you. 

Shortly after they left the mystery was solved as Joe was called back to the GM office, and was asked if he could “explain how the car worked” to all the new car buyers.  The GM explained that the problem was the dealership’s location on one of the busiest intersections in the world was adversely affecting the Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) which Toyota had recently implemented for all dealerships.  “Users” had no quiet streets to use to practice with their new car on and blamed the car for being unfriendly to people. 

The genesis of the “Delivery Experience” for new car “Users” seems to be at that time.  The volume at the dealership was too high for one person and Joe was given an assistant for overflow (“Ben”) who was “Too nice” to his clients to be a good salesperson.   A manual was written to guide his presentation but Joe’s follow-up showed that Ben’s too nice attitude was much more important than his inability to follow the manual he was given and Joe became the overflow delivery guy. Ben went on to make a nice career in the delivery position at several Toyota dealerships. 

Joe went on to different things but remained in new car sales as a moonlight position.  “Selling cars is like eating M&Ms for a sales and marketing professional.  Not much nourishment per close but you get a lot of them.”   Much later Joe applied as a salesperson at a Lexus dealership across the country and was told he was overqualified and besides salespeople had to deliver their own cars at Lexus according to “The Delivery Manual.” Joe asked what that was, and the SM sneered and said do you think you can follow this?  Joe skimmed through it and recognized it as essentially a copy of the manual written for his assistant.  I suppose I could since I wrote it, he replied. 

Saving Atheists from the New Atheism

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/30/we-can-save-atheism-from-the-new-atheists?

Why are the New Atheists such jerks? Case in point: Richard Dawkins’ continuing pursuit of Ahmed Mohamed, the Texas 14-year-old humiliated in school after authorities mistook his homemade clock for a bomb.

Jeff Sparrow

The new atheists are jerks because being a jerk sells better than rational argument. P.Z. Meyers had a good science blog that was lost in blog space until he started bashing Creationism and atheist women.  At that point views and ad revenues went up to the point that he left science blogging entirely to create "Freethought Blogs" which was anything but free thinking space.  Not that bashing Creationism and Ken Ham is a bad idea, but being a jerk about it accomplishes nothing except creating an us vs them religious point of view that should be anathema to atheism, or at least humanism which should be the basis for atheism.  

As most here know J'Carlin under various usernames on beliefnet© was a host of the Atheism Debate board and moderator of several Science and Religion boards including "Origins of Life" the forum for discussions of Creationism.  Origins was my first experience having to deal with belief based thinking directly.  It was with great dismay that I found that the culture of belief based thinking and misogyny had permeated Western culture to the extent that even atheists were falling into the cultural miasma.  One would have hoped for better thinking from the freethinkers.

There always was a rift in the atheist community between the Skeptics (note Cap) and the atheists.  But the New Atheists created a new rift between dogmatic atheists (There is no God. Period.) and more flexible atheists who could discuss God beliefs without rancor although the satire was frequently confused with rancor by the believers.  An amusing example of the rift can be found in the following 200+ post thread.  I have quoted my OP as a hook.   

 http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43851/19072101/Dawkins_Trashy_Tract?post_id=492793193#492793193

I did indeed READ Dawkins' trashy tract

in its entirety ...teilhard

I too have read Dawkins’ trashy tract.  Although not yet in its entirety.  It is sitting beside the loo where I can try to get through the last few pages while I am in an appropriate place not to notice the stink.    

Dawkins makes the same mistake of all fundies in seeing the world in black and white.  He for instance insists that indoctrinating children in anything that he doesn’t believe in is child abuse.  He has a whole chapter (9) in which he suggests that some of the worst cases of abuse, the lead one dating from 1858 stand for all indoctrination of children in religious doctrine.  Dawkins seems to believe that indoctrinating children in the beliefs of the child’s parents, and the society in which hesh will live is somehow abuse if they are not beliefs that Dawkins shares.    

I think Dawkins like PZ Meyers has completely discredited a lot of valuable evolutionary education material with their virulent anti-God tracts.  I greatly enjoyed and used Dawkins early books, particularly the Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable to help people understand how evolution “gets there” although of course there is no there there for evolution.  I can no longer do so, since Dawkins with his self-immolation as fundie has been thoroughly discredited as a reasonable scientist.  

(12.26.15)Until very recently there were no atheists. Or at least those who lived through admitting it. Deists, those "Endowed by their Creator." and those who "believed" in a personal God which may or may not have had any resemblance to any existing supreme being including the freemasons' one. An out atheist is probably a later development than an out homosexual. If you liked having friends and associates in fraternal organizations you went along with the rituals whatever they might have been.