26 Oct
The UK has ‘socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor’
– Ha-Joon Chang

Comparing household finance to national finance generally produces horseshit, however the following analogy clearly makes the point that austerity is an insane way to try to fix an economy in depression.

So I have a mortgage – I got into debt to enable me to make a long-term investment in my future.

Say my recalcitrant teenage child steals my credit card and racks up loads of debt. Rather than punish them, I foolishly say that it’s not a problem and take on the debt, for the sake of family harmony, and add the debt to the mortgage.

I blame the family cat for the debt.

But then I get it into my head that to keep up repayments of this increased mortgage I must live a more austere life: I don’t invest in my job training, I start saving money on food and eating less healthily, I stop paying for healthcare and I drop my gym membership to save money.

This of course makes me less able to do my job, less employable, and I don’t receive the pay rise and bonus I usually get. It also means the kids start getting ill, and don’t do so well at school.

It then gets harder to make my mortgage payments.

Further, I’ve had to remortgage at a higher interest rate. This is because the bank has noticed the effect that my austere life has had on my income, so downgraded my rating because I’m not as creditworthy as I was.

I now have two options: further cut backs, making myself and my family suffer even more, or invest in my future, making me more able to pay off my debt.

Austerity or fiscal stimulus? I trust I’ve made it clear enough for you.

If I haven’t:
– I am the current feckless government
– the teenager is the banks with their CDOs, high leverage and the like
– family harmony means not upsetting my rich friends at the banks
– my mortgage is the wholly affordable government debt
– the cat is a combination of the Labour party on the one hand, and the poor, the jobless, the disabled and foreigners on the other.

And if that isn’t clear enough, here are some very simple graphs to spell it out.

And if that still isn’t enough read a bit of economics; look at previous incarnations of austerity, say in Argentina, Mexico and Brazil, and see what people say about it, for example Nobel prize winners Professor Joseph Stiglitz or  Prof Paul Krugman. Or watch this simple 5 minute video from economist Ha-Joon Chang.


Je Suis Charlie – All Is Forgiven

13 Jan
Tout est pardonne

All is forgiven

All is forgiven“.


Powerful words.

We don’t feel any hate to them. We know that the struggle is not with them as people, but the struggle is with an ideology.” So said Zineb El Rhazoui today, a surviving columnist at Charlie Hebdo magazine.

And this is a most important distinction here – the criticism of an idea is very different to the criticism of a person. That line must not be blurred in this debate.

Here is a more mundane version of the same issue – it may seem trivial in comparison, but the principles at stake are why Charlie Hebdo continues to satirise islam.

So in another office in my company, a cyclist comes in wearing lycra each morning, switches his computer on, then goes off to have a shower and change into his business clobber.

Now, a few months back a muslim in the office complained because “as a muslim” she found “such dress offensive“.

Management got this guy into a room to ask him to get changed before he came into the office to avoid such offence in the future.

If I found myself in the same situation, I like to think events would have played out like this:

Me: “So Mrs Muslim, where in the Koran does it say you can impose your idea of appropriate dress on a non-muslim? Chapter and verse please.

She splutters “How dare you?! I’m a muslim. It’s offensive to me as a muslim“.

I retort that “this is not an answer. Offence is in the eye of the beholder. I do not give offence. You take offence. The choice to be offended is yours.

At this point the manager, keen to defuse the situation, and fearful of “causing” further offence, appeals to my ego: “as the rationalist in the room, can you not concede, carry your clothes on your bike, and get changed before you come into the office?

I respond “would you say the same to a jew supporting the state of Israel with a small Israeli flag on his desk, when confronted by a Palestinian who finds the flag an insult to him and his countrymen?” (This happened in an office where I used to work.)

The manager, wanting to stick to acceptable norms says “that’s different. Let’s focus on the case at hand. Won’t you, for the sake of peace, adhere to this request?

I then make my stand: “If that’s your position, then this is mine. I find Mrs Muslim’s head scarf offensive. The word islam means submission, and this head scarf represents the submission of women to men. As an egalitarian, this is offensive to my beliefs. It says she should be ashamed of her beauty. Even worse, it promotes the dangerous idea that men do not have control over their urges. I want her to stop wearing this at the office so my beliefs are not offended.

It would be a wonderfully juicy Mexican standoff.

And more to the point, this is what saying Je Suis Charlie really means. Are you willing to stand up to the religious when they try to impose their ideologies on the rest of society? Are you willing to bust a few taboos for the greater good?

The post Rushdie years have seen a steady decline in free speech. It’s time to turn the tide.

And so, coming back to the more serious situation in France, until muslims stop insisting that they have the right to impose their views on others, Charlie Hebdo will continue to publish cartoons of Mohammed.

Does Learning Maths Change How We Think?

26 Dec

Physicists have come to realize that mathematics, when used with sufficient care, is a proven pathway to truth.
– Brian Greene

As a maths graduate I’ve always thought that, although I’ve forgotten most of what I learnt, my studies gave me a really strong analytical mind, a well structured thought process, and better logical reasoning, which has stood me in good stead ever since.

So it was excellent going to this talk to have my suspicions confirmed.

Dr Matthew Inglis of the Royal Society gave the talk to show his evidence that “studying maths develops your thinking skills, logical reasoning and ability to resolve problems

More specifically he laid out the evidence that the more you study maths, the more you are able to spot flaws in an argument.

The idea that learning anything is good in itself, due to the way it trains intelligence, attitudes and values, is called the Theory of Formal Discipline. Some psychologists dismiss this idea, maintaining that what we learn is specific to the domain to which it applies and is not transferable, however Inglis has confirmed that the theory is true in the case of Maths.

Interestingly, he showed that people who study up to A Level are more able to spot logical flaws, however are subject to false positives, i.e. they are likely to find fault in an argument that is correct.

However, once studying maths to degree level, that excess is moderated, leaving someone able to find fault accurately.

After Inglis finished his talk there was a shockingly small-minded question. A woman said she liked the idea of having her children learn maths, but was worried this would limit their creative capabilities.

She clearly hasn’t studied much maths.

One of the subjects I loved at university was number theory – we often commented on the creativity needed to come up with a proof for a theorem. Mathematicians often talk about the beauty of maths – the ability to express complex concepts simply is brilliant, some even say poetic.

Besides anyone who’s studied Bach will know that his tunes are very mathematical. Often people who study maths are musical and visa versa, for example me!

I suspect part of the issue is that many people hold the belief that says emotion and creativity is distinct from logic and rationality, fed by the old left-brain right-brain myth. This is a bad idea, and quite harmful I feel. The idea that we cannot use knowledge creatively, or apply logic to emotion, is to limit what we are capable of. Simon Baron Cohen has shown that logic and empathy are not mutually exclusive.

What doesn’t help is that people seem to fear maths. I genuinely don’t understand why this is the case. When I told people I was studying maths at university many people would react with awe, saying I must be super intelligent. If I probed they would go on to reveal a real fear of the subject. I must admit, that although I’ve always found maths fun, it was substantially helped by my brilliant maths teacher Mrs Landon who would bounce into lessons, and excitedly tell us that she had “a super mega-equation” to teach us, that was “really powerful and exciting”. Her enthusiasm was infectious. And the principles she taught were simple. A good teacher does make a world of difference.

Bharati Krishna said “It is magic until you understand it, and it is mathematics thereafter“.

So, to get back to the subject, as Plato argued, mathematics should be taught to people to improve their reasoning skills, and as a foundation for the rest of their learning.

Who Is Normal, Anyway? Part V

29 Nov

There is always some reason in madness

– Friedrich Nietzsche

V – What Does Work?

There are no simple fix-all cures, but there are techniques and tricks that can help.

Everything you do rewires your brain, alters your brain chemistry. Even making a cup of tea. What really beds in change is regular practice. For example musicians and taxi drivers significantly change their brains due to their practice. Neuroplasticity shows how we can rewire our brains to great advantage – recent research shows that we create thousands of new neurons each day, even into old age.

And so talk therapies can leverage this to get the root of the problem and literally rewire the brain. For example, many therapies can give you tricks to push your mind out of the negative rumination that is at the core of the destructive cycle of depression.

Study after study backs this up. And the evidence is clear that although drugs may reduce some symptoms in the short term as much as these therapies, the relapse rate with drugs is more than double that of these approaches.

Jonah Lehrer said: “patients who escaped depression with the help of anti-depressants, and then stopped taking the drugs, relapsed about 70 percent of the time. The chemical boost was temporary. However, during the 18 month follow-up period, only 28 percent of patients in mindfulness therapy slipped back into the mental illness. What we often forget is that therapy alters the chemical brain, just like a pill. It’s easy to dismiss words as airy nothings and talk therapy as mere talk. Sitting on a couch can seem like such an antiquated form of treatment. But the right kind of talk can fix our broken mind, helping us escape from the recursive loop of stress and negative emotion that’s making us depressed. Changing our thoughts is never easy and, in severe cases, might seem virtually impossible. We live busy lives and therapy requires hours of work and constant practice; our cortex can be so damn stubborn. But the data is clear: If we are seeking a long-lasting cure for depression, then it’s typically our most effective treatment.

In fact, psychotherapy and mindfulness mediation can even alleviate physical conditions, for example gastritis and tinnitus.

There’s a better way to understand people with psychological problems: psychologists and psychiatrists use formulation: “we don’t ask what is wrong with someone, rather we ask what has happened to them.

There are so many different theraputic approaches:

Psychoanalysis looks at childhood, emotional drives, and the unconscious, usually drawing from Freud, Jung and the like.

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy – rather than delving into the past looks at your perceptions, emotions and behaviour in the present.

Systemic Therapy – looks at a person as defined by their relationships with other people.

Body Psychotherapy is pretty cool – using the body to gain a greater awareness of mind. After all the mind would not exist as it is, without the inputs from the body. I’ve tried Focusing and found it effective.

Mindfulness is an approach I’ve been using for a few years and, while I don’t have issues with depression or the like, it has helped me to sleep better, to relax more, to appreciate the moment, and maintain more healthy relationships. Self awareness is what this practice gives you, which is the first and hardest step towards change, as most therapists will agree.

Point is, there are plenty of approaches, so you can choose the style that best suits you and your problems.

Part IV – Psychiatry in the previous post.

Who Is Normal, Anyway? Part IV

15 Nov

Crazy people are considered mad by the rest of the society only because their intelligence isn’t understood

– Weihui Zhou

IV – Psychiatry and the DSM

For someone working to help people deal with these conditions, it is helpful to look at specific symptoms, to classify, and to find common causes, and hence common solutions for these symptoms, if they are problematic for the person.

Systematising in this way is what we do well, and gives us our understanding of the world we have, so I don’t have a problem with it. In fact I fully support it.

However, with the failed biological model, this means that symptoms are given arbitrary disorder names and drugs applied to ‘fix’ them. The mainstream approach is predicated on an often unproven assumption of biological cause which leads to harmful decisions.

It also often means people give up responsibility for their conditions, and even for their actions. While this avoids blame it unfortunately goes further and avoids responsibility, resulting in people giving up and just living with their ‘condition’.

Tom Stafford sayswe know that self-efficacy is one of the best predictors of recovery, so denying people’s role in their own decisions just undermines one of their most important tools for recovery“.

The approach I’m advocating here is that you can take responsibility, and that you can change. It means empowering the individual to change for the better if they want to.

So much has been written on the problems with the DSM and approach of many psychiatrists that I don’t need to detail it here.

One purported disorder is pee-shyness, then there’s “caffeine intoxication disorder” and another is “intermittent explosive disorder“.

As you can see, “having some psychiatric symptoms is part of the human condition and does not by itself indicate the presence of mental disorder. The boundary between the worried well and the psychiatrically ill is fuzzy; arbitrary, and subjective—there is no biological test.

Tom Stafford saysThe fact that the most senior psychiatric researchers in the US are now openly and persistently highlighting that the DSM is not fit for the purpose of advancing science and psychiatric treatment is a damning condemnation of the manual.

Neuroskeptic says that “many people are now being prescribed antidepressants for emotional and personal issues which wouldn’t have been considered medical illnesses until quite recently“. He adds that they don’t work very well either.

We really do have a lot to learn about the brain. It was only 60 years ago that Freeman and Watts went around sticking a rod up people’s eye sockets and wriggling it about to mess up their frontal cortex. The frontal lobotomy certainly made them tractable, but left them in a terrible state, usually mentally and physically retarded and sometimes dead. These guys had sod-all idea of what they were doing. Some may say, ‘ah but today we have such a clear understanding of these issues, science has come so far‘. But some of these drugs are like a blunderbuss to the brain. I think that in another 60 years time many of these drugs will be considered an abhorrent way of treating people.

It’s not a question of whether or not these behaviours exist. It a question of whether the psychiatric approach and classifications are helpful. The disease model is fundamentally flawed. And many psychiatrists recognise this.

Final part – What Does Work in the next post

Part III – Stigma in the previous post.

Who Is Normal, Anyway? Part III

1 Nov

In a mad world, only the mad are sane

– Akira Kurosawa

III – Stigma

When sometime does something that breaches our moral code we try to explain it away by calling them evil, brainwashed and mentally ill, for example Adolf Hitler or Anders Brevik.

It’s more convenient to dehumanise them, as then we don’t have to think about how someone might think it a good idea to do serious harm to other people.

But it’s just lazy, and says more about the person using this as a rationalisation, than the person with the purported behavioural problem.

This kind of labeling is why mental illness can be so stigmatising. Especially when the word ‘mental’ is used, which has so many unhelpful connotations.

Once someone has such a label it can be difficult for them to be socially accepted or professionally trusted. This is wrong.

Neil deGrasse Tyson said “Labels are a lazy way of presuming you know something about someone that you don’t actually know“.

People like labels. It reduces their responsibility for actually thinking about the results of their actions: “oh, sorry I was a twat, but you see that’s because I’ve got Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder“.

It’s worth noting that people with mental conditions are no more likely to hurt another person. Simply having this false attitude can stop people with problems getting better. In fact, the psychiatric times says that “persons with mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violence than they are to be perpetrators“.

Calling them disorders, or mental illnesses, is technically incorrect, and removes the autonomy of the individual. There’s no evidence that most of the conditions we talk about are illnesses per se, rather they are ways that people react to bad experiences, and fairly predictable ways at that.

We can talk more about these problems these days – there’s more acceptance. Acceptance that depression is something normal, and nothing to be scared of. Things are getting better in this area but there’s still a long way to go.

People can go to a therapist with less stigma, especially in the US. Alain de Botton reckons the day will (or should) come where every high street has a therapist’s office, perhaps in between the chemists and the greengrocer.

Part IV – Psychiatry in the next post

Part II – Drugs in the previous post.

Who Is Normal, Anyway? Part II

18 Oct

It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane

 Philip K. Dick

II – The Drugs

One of my most popular posts discusses this area, but it’s worth clarifying some points.

My motive is simple – to get the best possible care for people suffering from sometimes debilitating problems.

The question is what does the evidence say is the best solution?

Drugs may ameliorate some of the symptoms of these conditions, but they do not address the causes.

Much like a pain killer is most welcome when suffering with appendicitis, so some drugs can be beneficial to deal with the worst of the symptoms for some of these conditions. However, to stretch the appendicitis analogy, if you only took the drugs to dull the pain, then the appendix may rupture and the results of that ain’t pretty. Besides pain – while unpleasant – is key to diagnosing the cause of the problem.

Similarly with mental problems, drugs can often mask issues. For example I’ve seen a number of people I know suffering from such issues be subdued with a cocktail of anti-psychotics and anti-depressants. Yes, it reduced their worst symptoms, but it also removed all their emotions, all their motivations and drives. One said to me “I feel like an automaton“, another “I’m just a zombie“. Max movingly saysI don’t know how else to explain them except mental handcuffs“. I’ve heard similar comments from other people. I very much appreciate that this approach took away the worst of their distress and behaviour, but it did not get to the root of their issues and help them deal with the causes of their distress. In fact in some cases I’ve seen, the ‘abnormal’ behaviour was a way of the person working through their underlying emotional problems, and this approach stopped their progress in its tracks.

The problem is, these treatments tend to be predicated on the assumption of a biological cause.

Psychiatrist Dr Joanna Moncrieff says “psychiatric drugs…”work” by producing drug-induced states which suppress or mask emotional problems, which may suppress the symptoms of psychiatric disorders, along with other intellectual and emotional functionsThat sounds good. If your brain is not functioning properly“, however what if these reactions to environmental and psychological triggers are in fact adapted functions of the mind, evolved methods of coping with negative situations?

Professor Peter Kinderman saysPsychiatric diagnoses are not only scientifically invalid, they are harmful too. The language of illness implies that the roots of such emotional distress lie in “chemical imbalances“. This leads us to be blind to the social and psychological causes of distress. More importantly, we tend to prescribe medical solutions – anti-depressants and anti-psychotic medication – despite significant side-effects and poor evidence of their effectiveness. This is wrong.”

Allen Frances says that “Medication should be a last resort used only for the clearest, most impairing, and most persistent disorders. Instead the meds are often prescribed carelessly-almost like candy“.

It should be added that most of these conditions cannot be considered in the same way as physical diseases – the pathologies just aren’t there. They are arbitrary assignations that enable us to understand and treat certain common behaviours and feelings. (And that’s not to deride or belittle them in anyway.)

It is clear also, that positive effects of mind-altering drugs can be brought about through the power of the mind, say through meditation.

People say ‘But, but, look at all these people that call it an illness, that treat it with drugs’ – Appeal To The Crowd.

But this doctor with a white coat prescribed these drugs’ – Appeal To Authority.

But they have been treated this way for decades’ – Appeal To Tradition.

People talk about chemical imbalances: correlation? Yes. Causation? Not necessarily. In fact, such markers should be thought of as the result of difficult life circumstances. This is how the brain responds to external events. Hunger is a chemical imbalance. You don’t take drugs to make the feeling go away, you look to the cause of the hunger. You eat food.

While there is evidence of genetic markers that mean people are more prone to, say, depression than others, it’s still their environment that triggers those reactions. Epigenetics is still in its infancy, but it’s clear that environment can activate and deactivate genes.

The gene blame game makes popular headlines but is not scientifically accurate. It’s a little more subtle than that.

The biological / genetic model is appealing. Its reductionist and simplistic approach makes it easy to understand and to treat. However that doesn’t mean it’s always correct.

So beware the seductive but pernicious idea that medication heals people in all of these situations. The evidence shows it doesn’t. It only manages symptoms. Or worse, is used to make people manageable.

Part III – Stigma in the next post

Part I in the previous post.

%d bloggers like this: