There is lament about a lack of Critical Thinkers. There’s also a lack of recognizing influencing vectors
Firstly, there is a lack of willingness toward recognition of diversity in who & what a Critical Thinker (CT) can be. There is a denying of what their unique, less obvious sets of merits are. There is inconsideration when they might be coming from places less sanctioned in CT-World
While societies & individuals might self-proclaim their openness, & supportive practices, at an interpersonal or at individual-to-institution levels toward CTs, quickly these too have been observed to show otherwise. Note, here, an individual in an assigned hierarchical position is an institution. If one is fixed to think within an unquestionable framework, one is not necessarily thinking critically, nor allowing critical thought
These unseen CTs could be outside the realm of the attributes of merit as defined by the other. E.g., humor, play, surrealism, to name but a few mechanisms, are not often accepted in realms of official, formal, “serious,” or “strong” CTs. The latter set might seem more macho, while the former, on its surface, might seem more swirly. Yet, both can be equally (un)critical or be (lacking) serious(ness). Either can radiate a narrative of hero-sized strength, while actually packaging insecurities & superficial yes-person frivolities. A yes-woman or yes-man can be highly weaponized as well. These are not strong, nor are they CTs. They can be devastating & (proverbially) deadly. Though acts of violence or power-exertion aren’t equatable to CT
Then there is an acceptance of certain types of a CT’s thinking while (silently) denying other types. Some will assign CT’s thinking only within quantitative realms & attributes of Computational Thinking or formal logic. This while excluding socio-cultural CTs (which might be more qualitative & interpretive). This is also an issue in reverse
Herein too lies an insidiousness of the veiled “expert” (aka they from an in-group) & the unwillingness to assign some of its attributes to others (aka they from an out-group)
If one were to allow oneself to identify these & other veiled features, & that beyond the veneer of the formalities, of Public Relations, the egos, the rhetoric of one-liners, beyond the 280-character long evaporating statements, one might unwittingly become increasingly critical
Hence, CTs might seem lacking since they’re not recognized, acknowledged or allowed to enter into dialog. This brings us to silenced features in CTs: dialog & relation. These are critical. While they might be asynchronous across spacetime, these are crucial to the diversity of CTs. The CT is not a state nor a constant. CTs are the relationships, the dialogs, the debates, the in-betweens & liminalities
CTs might be lacking while this can be softened if CTs were as such recognized operating outside my sanctioned cognitive, formal or institutional models
Any version of a perceived apocalypse lies behind us. We are mesmerized by its reflection ahead of us, while procrastinating our individual and collective urgencies.
“The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that.” Ainsworth, C. Sex redefined. Nature518, 288–291 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/518288a
I discovered this enlightening post via @jehannamama on Twitter. I adapted it a bit and started adding references to support the call toward scientific rational views on pluralistic attributes in nature.
Update (11 March 2023): @jehannamama followed up with what is claimed by John Bonazzo and his online Observer article of March 2017 as the original author: Facebook user Grace Ann (formal name Grace Pokela), a “biology teacher at Arlington High School in Lagrangeville, New York.” Bonazzo’s article offers references. Some are included here below as well.
——
“define woman”:
Person A:
“In a sexual species, females have two X chromosomes and males have an X and a Y, I’m not a bigot it’s just science.”
Person B:
“First of all, in a sexual species, you can have females be XX and males be X (insects), [1] you can have females be ZW and males be ZZ (birds), [2] you can have females be females because they developed in a warm environment and males be males because they developed in a cool environment (reptiles),[3] you can have females be females because they lost a penis sword fighting contest (some flatworms),[4] you can have males be males because they were born female, but changed sexes because the only male in their group died (parrotfish and clownfish), [5] you can have males look and act like females because they are trying to get close enough to actual females to mate with them (cuttlefish, bluegills, others), [6] or you can be one of thousands of sexes (slime mold, some mushrooms.) [7]
Oh, did you mean humans? Oh ok then.
You can be male because you were born female, but you have 5-alphareductase deficiency and so you grew a penis at age 12. [8] You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but you are insensitive to androgens, and so you have a female body. [9] You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but your Y is missing the SRY gene, and so you have a female body. [10] You can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but one of your X’s HAS an SRY gene, and so you have a male body. [11] You can be male because you have two X chromosomes- but also a Y. [12] You can be female because you have only one X chromosome at all. [13] And you can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but your heart and brain are male. And vice versa. [14]
Don’t use science to justify bigotry. The world is way too weird for that biased stuff.”
and then some:
A host of factors figure into whether someone is biological (and cultural) female, male or somewhere in between
Dumic, M., Karen Lin-Su, et al. (2007, 2008). Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development. IN: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Jan; 93(1): 182–189. Published online 2007 Nov 13. doi: 10.1210/jc.2007-2155
Kesslen, B. (2022). A rapid-onset gender theory. MIT Technology Review, 125(5), 84–87. : The article discusses a study by Lisa Littman about a trans contagion called rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD). Topics include the claim of the theory about young people with ROGD, a comment that questioned Littman’s method issued by “PLOS,” a peer-reviewed open-access journal after its publication in August 2018, and one reason for the success of Littman’s paper.
[1.3] Kaiser, V. B., & Bachtrog, D. (2010). Evolution of sex chromosomes in insects. Annual review of genetics, 44, 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-102209-163600
[2]
Stevens L. (1997). Sex chromosomes and sex determining mechanisms in birds. Science progress, 80 ( Pt 3), 197–216.
[4.1] Ramm, S.A. (2017), Exploring the sexual diversity of flatworms: Ecology, evolution, and the molecular biology of reproduction. Mol. Reprod. Dev., 84: 120-131. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrd.22669
[5.1] Cardwell, J. R., & Liley, N. R. (1991). Hormonal control of sex and color change in the stoplight parrotfish, Sparisoma viride. General and comparative endocrinology, 81(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-6480(91)90120-u
[5.3] Casas, L., Saborido-Rey, F., Ryu, T. et al. Sex Change in Clownfish: Molecular Insights from Transcriptome Analysis. Sci Rep6, 35461 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep35461
[6]
[6.1] Norman, M. D., Finn, J., & Tregenza, T. (1999). Female impersonation as an alternative reproductive strategy in giant cuttlefish. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 266(1426), 1347. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1999.0786
[6.2] Garner, S. R., & Neff, B. D. (2013). Alternative male reproductive tactics drive asymmetrical hybridization between sunfishes (Lepomis spp.). Biology letters, 9(6), 20130658. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2013.0658
[10.3] Margarit, E., Coll, M. D., Oliva, R., Gómez, D., Soler, A., & Ballesta, F. (2000). SRY gene transferred to the long arm of the X chromosome in a Y-positive XX true hermaphrodite. American journal of medical genetics, 90(1), 25–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1096-8628(20000103)90:1<25::aid-ajmg5>3.0.co;2-5
[14.2] Sawalha, A. H., Harley, J. B., & Scofield, R. H. (2009). Autoimmunity and Klinefelter’s syndrome: when men have two X chromosomes. Journal of autoimmunity, 33(1), 31–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaut.2009.03.006
ScienceVet writing a tweet thread with references about the spectrum of biological sex (and not cultural gender) @ScienceVet2 :
the thread:
So. Hi new people! Apparently, we’re gonna talk about sex. Like physical sex! Because… there’s some confusion.
First, sex defined: We’re talking physical sex here, not gender. Body parts, hormones, and genetics (and more).
Biological sex is a spectrum
/1
Ok, everyone’s super familiar with the XX/XY dichotomy, right? Yeah, what we all learned in like… 4th grade? And that’s great, it gives you a starting point. But it’s… well it’s only the very starting point.
The IDEA is, XX is girl, XY is boy, right?
/2
Welllll… that’s not totally right. There are XY people, who have ovaries! And give birth! AH! And XX people who have male bodies and functional sperm! Double AH!
/3
These are usually written off as “abnormalities” and indeed, some cases have medical issues. But many don’t (like the XY woman giving birth). And this is really only the very very tip of the iceberg of “wait, that doesn’t fit into our M or F box unless we make it bigger”
/4
There’s a WHOLE HOST of things that can cause all sorts of “weird” things to happen, ranging from genetic (XXY, XYY, Y, X, XX with translocation, XY with deletion) to hormonal (Androgen Insensitivity, Estradiol failure), and disruptors like dioxins
/5
So, you’re a scientist, and you want to research stuff, right? Which means you have to categorize stuff. Without categories, data is hard! So you take allll these people, including the “weird” ones and you plot them on a graph. Logical!
/6
You use all the differences there are, different genetics, different responses to hormones, different effectiveness in signalling pathways, different sizes in Aanteroventral periventricular nucleus (AVPV) (yeah that’s a thing) and give everything numbers, add them up.
/7
You get what’s called a bimodal distribution (mostly, we’ll get to that later) Which looks like this. Those two big peaks are what we call “male” and “female” (even conveniently colored pink for boys and blue for girls – we are using victorian gender colors right?)
/8
Now, when you’re trying to look at data, we often group stuff. When we do that with a plot like this, it’s called a “histogram.” Basically we’re breaking down a curved line into discrete “bins.” Like this (image stolen from the web).
/9
Traditionally, we’ve used REALLY BIG bins for this when talking about sex. Basically you either group everything vaguely near a peak into the peak, or you just pretend there’s nothing else but the biggest peaks. This makes it super easy, because 2 is simple to do data with.
/10
However, as we’ve gotten to know more and more about signaling and brains and hormones and started to pay more attention to the outliers where standard stuff just didn’t seem to work, we discovered that this isn’t a great model to use.
/11
Now I’m not talking feelings here. I’m talking about data. As you start to look at anything interesting, like say the effects of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin on animals, you start to realize that a 2 bin model doesn’t predict your results well.
/12
At first you say, “Well it was just weird.” So you redo it, and it still doesn’t work. So you look at your model and you say, “Well ok, what if the model’s wrong?”
But the model sort of… almost predicts a lot of things, and it worked for years, so…
/13
Some enterprising soul says, “Hey, remember that histogram where we said we’ll just model using the peaks?” And everyone goes, “Uh, yeah?” And they say, “What if we… USED that data?” And everyone groans, because complicated data is hard.
/14
But someone sits down and does the work, and lo, wow the model starts to work again. Where TCDD was “randomly” turning some boys into girls but then some girls into boys, now you can see there’s a subgroup of what you’d called “female” that responds like the “male”
/15
What’s important here is that you haven’t MISLABELED males as females. These are functional “females” who can do all the usual “female” things like gestate babies. But they respond to this one endocrine disruptor in a “male” way.
/16
So you add another two categories, call them “Male2” and “Female2” and go on, happy that your model works! You’ve got 4 sexes now, but you don’t really have to tell anyone that, right?
/17
Exceeeept then you remember you’ve got those XY people that gestate babies. So you add “Intersex1” And then the XX people with penes… and ovaries? Ok, “Intersex2” because all these groups respond differently with signalling and brains when you get into the weeds
/18
And the more you look, the more we LEARN, the more we’re able to separate out those fine differences. Depending on what we’re doing, we may not care. If a doc is giving you aspirin, it probably isn’t a big deal.
/19
But if they’re using a steroid on you? Or treating dioxin poisoning? THAT SHIT COULD BE IMPORTANT. It’s like saying, “the light’s off so the power must not be flowing.” It really matters if the light’s off because the bulb blew.
/20
If we go back to that histogram plot, we can keep breaking down your biological sex into smaller and smaller differences in brain areas, hormone levels, signalling differences, genetic variances. There’s nothing stopping us from binning EVERY INDIVIDUAL into their own bin.
/21
Technically, this wouldn’t be “infinite sexes” but 7.4 billion sexes is functionally close for our brains. Now, our medicine isn’t advanced enough for THAT level of detail to make any difference. BUT IT MIGHT BE in the future. Individualized medicine!
/22
The thing to remember is that this isn’t “new.” We’re not ‘inventing sexes’ here. Sex has ALWAYS been this curve. We were just using REALLY BIG bins. And now we’re realizing that that’s not representative of biology, it’s inhibiting understanding of medicine and biology
/23
In case anyone’s curious, this isn’t ideology. This is because I had to figure out why my data didn’t match the prediction. Those rats I mentioned? Yeah, my lab. And lab rats are a really pure genetic monoculture, and they STILL don’t fit the two peak model well.
/24
So, since it’s come up, an addendum!
Yes, we looked at other things we could do to make our data fit the existing model, that’s how science works! The ONLY way the data fit was if we let “sex” be more than just those two narrow peaks.
/25
Models purpose in science is to predict. If they don’t predict correctly, first we check if we’ve measured the data correctly, and repeat the experiment a couple more times. If it still doesn’t fit, we have to look at the model.
/26-1
Intersex! Because I didn’t specifically mention this.
“Intersex” is a grouping bin used for a lot of the “middle ground” of the spectrum between the “male” and “female” peaks. Any situation where easily assigning the person to one of those two peaks is challenging.
/26-2
Intersex! Because I didn’t specifically mention this above.
“Intersex” is a term used to collectively speak of the “middle ground” of biology where people can’t easily be binned into those two big “male” and “female” peaks. It can include a large range of biology
/27
It is worth noting that I never talk about transgender in this thread. Intersex is not the same as transgender. You can be one without the other, or be both.
/28
For people who think this is just “outliers”
Current estimates are that the intersex population is at least 2%. We know that’s low because there are a lot of “invisibly intersex” people. That means AT LEAST 150 million people in the world.
/29I apologize for the failure to use the word “intersex” higher up in the discussion. Many people in the middle ground (including the XY person who can carry a child, for example) use this term. I cannot go back and edit the thread, and apologize for my overly clinical description.Part of the purpose of the thread, which may have failed, was to point out that “intersex” is not a condition, it is not a disease. It’s natural with a bimodal distribution. Science not only supports this, it suggests that ignoring intersex people makes your conclusions wrongFor those curious to learn more about the less clinical “these things exist” side of intersex people, I recommend:
A human result of the scientific conclusion that sex is a spectrum and intersex people are a perfectly normal result of nature, is that there is no scientific rationale for medically (or culturally) forcing people into those two peaks.
A note here that I am muting the thread, not because I don’t want to respond but because I did not expect it to blow up so much, and I have family and work to take care of. I’ll try to wander back, but can’t guarantee how much it will be.
Another addition, because a couple people have asked about it.
It’s important to note that there are other people who traditionally haven’t fallen into the “intersex” category, but also don’t fall into the clearly defined peaks either.
For example: XX people with female secondary sex characteristics, and ovaries who won’t menstruate and can’t carry a child without adding external (exogenous) estrogen. People like this often have difficulties finding good endocrinology care.
One more note here: This was meant to be an informational thread, based on my own data/experience as a scientist. I am not the be-all end-all of science and don’t claim to be. There are rational scientists who disagree with me.
Neither, though, do I have time for a full-on scientific debate on Twitter. Maybe we can talk at an Endocrine Society meeting or something. Unfortunately, I do have a life and stuff to do. And Twitter pays no bills.
Many people have asked for reading and papers. This is an opinion piece, which I largely agree with, that references some of the more common human-based scientific papers people use to discuss this issue. Others interpret these same studies differently nature.com/news/sex-redef…
And one more note that “spectrum” does not mean that there aren’t clusters of people. Just like the spectrum of human voice range has more baritones than super-bases.Several people have asked about the physical structures of brains that differ between sex. This work ties in neatly with what I was saying above. There’s many systems and pieces of physiology that each vary, along with the sum-brain/behavior that results.
As this is twitter, and I’m not speaking as a representative of an institution or as part of my job, I have not shared proof of my credentials. I don’t want to risk labs/schools I’ve worked with (or family) getting harassed when they didn’t volunteer that information.I know that makes things more difficult for those trying to do their research, but it’s the reality of the platform.
But I can provide some more sources for those actually interested. They include some fairly heavy duty science, but some are open access/free for allSources: These deal with the fact that the sexually dimorphic brain, similar to most sex differences, does not fall into a hard binary readout – but rather is on a continuum or spectrum with each cell and each brain region comprised of varying degrees of ‘male’ and ‘female’Hines M (2005). Brain Gender. Oxford University Press: Oxford
Joel D, McCarthy MM (2016). Incorporating sex as a biological variable in neuropsychiatric research: where are we now and where should we be?
This paper deals with the complications of epigenetics that can divert the genetic sex and gonadal hormone pathways in subtle ways to produce large trajectory changes. Epigenetics plays a large role in estrogenic apoptosis via DNA methylation.Gregg C, Zhang J, Weissbourd B, Luo S, Schroth GP, Haig D et al (2010). High-resolution analysis of parent-of-origin allelic expression in the mouse brain. Science 329: 643–648
This one with the interactions between social experience and biology
Springer KW, Mager Stellman J, Jordan-Young RM (2012). Beyond a catalogue of differences: a theoretical frame and good practice guidelines for researching sex/gender in human health. Soc Sci Med 74: 1817–1824
Joel & Sterling 2016. Beyond sex differences: new approaches for thinking about variation in brain structure and function. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016 Feb 19; 371(1688)
Some of us (I included) request transparency while various attributes & processes are narrated in our lives in a manner to allow comfort in a lack of transparency
As humans some of us are open, & to some extent enabled, to allow both simultaneously. Some can accept adaptation & change, depending on various influencing vectors
Collectively we built entire institutions around lack of transparency. We created these because they allow us a substitute for difficult to understand or difficult to accept results of the process of transparency. Or to control that what “must” be understood by others
Over the hundreds of thousands of years, our species created work-arounds & “pervertedly” took note of (understandably) avoided transparency via narration. Here “pervertedly” means “having altered the direction away from its initial course, meaning or state;” one can think of change, fluidity, dynamics, innovation, transformation or myth
This previous (ie the human, shared & individual histories), & the suggested “perversions,” quickly (in astronomical scales) started to be convoluted with control, & this via any narration which has been collectively embraced. Some of our transparency-hiding narratives are not falsifiable. This creates tensions & harmonies. Request or imposition for corroboration is, at times, systemically opposed, unless the imposer is relentless
We delegate transparency into a blackbox by a different name, while shining bright & sparkling lights upon it, & while collectively dancing around the bonfire lit in its name
Santa is real; the proverbial one & the one living on the North Pole. Arthur C. Clark said it eloquently. I will remain opaque as to which of his 3 laws I am alluding. & yet, Arthur, Santa & I have one thing in common: the joy for aesthetics, poetics & compassion toward the other; at least to bring them moments of uplifting escapism or support
The human choreography is one where we consider the balancing act of when to stimulate transparency & when to obfuscate. If all needs to be simple, clear & straight, we are equally doomed as when we tell blissful stories irrespective of the potentially disastrous or undesirable outcomes to oneself & the relations of oneself with any other; human & non-human
#Transparency & #understandability are interlinked. With these, so are #auditability & #explainability. Eg: by allowing us physical, emotional, intellectual, imaginative, relational & spiritual access to augmenting our senses with a highly powerful microscope or telescope of any engineered types; be these scientific &/or poetic. These nuanced balancing processes can be found in relations with technologies, spouse, students, citizens, communities, markets, policies & larger ecologies. Alternatively these relations can be shattered, brushed under the carpet, crudely abused or unwarranted guarded for the sake of guarding & no longer for the sake of #compassion for life as evolving in complex, paradoxical, diverse relations
Basil Bernstein was succinctly paraphrased by Atkinson when the latter wrote that “ritualized language use is highly predictable. In the most extreme case, the language may be entirely predictable. Or at least, such predictability is culturally required: deviations from the prescribed forms will be negatively sanctioned and the social occasion regarded as spoiled. There is no room here, socially speaking, for significant innovation. The innovator in such a context is deviant—perhaps heretical” (2002, 62)
A heretic, a disruptor, a rebel, a whistle-blower, an “enfant terrible”, a critic, a trickster, an anarchist, a maverick or a “dwarsligger” is someone who offers deviations during our collective unwillingness to relationally learn. The latter, “dwarsligger” is crudely translatable from Dutch as a hinderer, or an obstructionist. Yet, possibly it is better trans-coded as that strong crossbeam, supporting the rails carrying us collectively. Or, it is a book printed parallel to its spine
By observers these roles are too often assumed as having a plethora of “fun” to kick the quiet, & internally-perceived as well-functioning, hornets’ nest. Sure, to the hornet, the hornet is peaceful & abiding. To the hornet these external characters had best remain a mere aesthetic yet quiet, “sois belle et tais-toi”
The perceived proverbial kick these beauties can administer is not necessarily provided in “fun” nor is it indented to destroy universality of peace, nor create chaos. Many of these actors are non-violent & find civility in high-dimensional order
Hear this folks, self-reflection & reflection can lead to uncomfortable observations that require a movement out of a status quo, or in other words, out of a comfort zone into a liminal space of je ne sais pas quoi. It can happen on one’s sofa yet, it will jolt the spine
Of course, by the hornets these uncomfortable characters are too easily equated with chaos or violence; wrongfully so. In effect, the equation is a violent act of denial & character assassination; perhaps heretically so (Ibid). It is especially odd to see these words (chaos, anarchist & violence) equated in European or North-American setting while these same societies call for innovation & human transformation
After-all, how would this collection of diverse agents fit within the networked social fabric & its relational learning processes? How is relational learning stacked if not transformational & somewhat unsettling? That’s for humans: you, me, us
Now, how do some of the digital social network algorithms compare? Could it be, just as by some of their makers, that algorithms too equate human proverbial “crossbeams,” not with a solid ride but rather, with undesired disruption? Please your reader (ie use their language) or be technologically regarded as spoiling the social event
Any transformation had best come as conscious nuanced co-interrupting contextualizing humane acts forward
Reference:
Basil Bernstein via Atkinson, P.(2002). “Language, Structure, Reproduction: an Introduction to the Sociology of Basil Bernstein.” New York: Methuen & Co via Taylor & Francis e-Library. (p.62).
Continuing on that same page the author and the referenced author continue with interesting insights on “tradition” which I believe to find among proverbial hornets or their upsetting characters alike. Yes, I intuit that the innovator too will expose those who are deviating the “innovation”, as heretic. Ah, our species has so many human relational areas to transform.
An extra, rather tautological, quote from page 62:
“There is no such thing as a perfectly frozen, unchanging ‘tradition’ which is perfectly transmitted from generation to generation in unmodified forms” (Ibid).
Thinking of what I label as “boutique ethic”, such as AI Ethics, must indeed come with thinking about ethics (Cf. here ). I think this is not only an assignment for the experts. It is also one for me: the layperson-learner.
Or is it?
Indeed, if seen through more-than a techno-centric lens alone, some voices do claim that one should not be bothered with ethics if one does not understand the technology which is confining ethics into a boutique ethic; e.g. “AI”. (See 2022 UNESCO report on AI curriculum in K-12). I am learning to disagree .
I am not a bystander, passively looking on, and onto my belly button alone. Opening acceptance to Noddings’ thought on care (1995, 187) : “a carer returns to the cared-for,” when in the most difficult situations principles fail us (Rossman & Rallis 2010). How are we caring for those affected by the throwing around of the label “AI” (as a hype or as a scarecrow)?
Simultaneously, how are we caring for those affected by the siphoning off of their data, for application, unknown to the affected, of data derived from them and processed in opaque and ambiguous processes? (One could, as one of the many anecdotes, summon up the polemics surrounding DuckduckGo and Microsoft, or Target and baby product coupons, and so on)
And yet, let us expand back to ethics surrounding the boutiqueness of it: the moment I label myself (or another such as the humans behind DuckDuckGo) as “stupid”, “monster”, “trash”, “inferior”, ”weird”, “abnormal;” “you go to hell” or other more colorful itemizations, is the moment my (self-)care evaporates and my ethical compass moves away from the “...unconditional worth of all human beings and the equal respect to which they are entitled” (Rossman & Rallis 2010). Can then a mantra come to the aid: ”carer, return to the cared-for”? I want to say: “yes”.
Though, what is the impact of the mantra if the other does not apply this mantra (i.e., DuckDuckGo and Microsoft)? And yet, I do not want to get into a yoyo “spiel” of: Speaker 1:“you first”, Speaker 2: “no, you first”, Speaker 1: “no, really, you first”. Here a mantra of: “lead by example, and do not throw the first or n-ed stone” might be applicable? Is this then implying self-censorship and laissez-faire? No.
I can point at DuckDuckGo and Microsoft as an anecdote, and I think I can learn via ethics, into boutique ethics, what this could mean through various (ethical and other) lenses (to me, to others, to them, to it) while respecting the act of the carer. Through that lens I might wonder what drove these businesses to this condition and use that as a next steppingstone in a learning process. This thinking would take me out of the boutique and into the larger market, and even the larger human community.
The latter is what I base on what some refer to as the “ethic of individual rights and responsibilities” (Ibid). It is my responsibility to learn and ask and wonder. Then I assume that, the action by an individual who has following been debased by a label I were to throw at them (including myself), as those offered in the preceding sentence, is then judged by the “respect to which they are entitled” (Ibid). This is then a principle assuming that “universal standards exist” (Ibid). And yet, on a daily basis, especially on communal days, and that throughout history: I hurdle. After all we can then play with words “what is respect and what type of respect are they indeed entitled to?”
I want to aim for a starting point of an “unconditional” respect, however naive that might seem and however meta-Jesus-esque or Ghandi-esque, Dr. King-esque, or Mandela-esque that would require me to become. Might this perhaps be a left libertarian stance? Can I “respectfully” throw the first stone? Or lies the eruption in the metaphorical of “throwing a stone” rather than the physical?
Perhaps there are non-violent responses that are proportional to the infraction. This might come in handy. I can decide no longer to use DuckDuckGo. However, can I decouple from Microsoft without decoupling from my colleagues, family, community? Herein the learning as activism might then be found in looking and promoting alternatives toward a technological ecosystem of diversity with transparency, robustness and explainability and fair interoperability.
“Am I a means to their end?” I might ask then “or am I an end in myself?” This then brings me back to the roles of carer. Are, in this one anecdotal reference, DuckDuckGo and Microsoft truly caring about its users or rather about other stakeholders? Through a capitalist lens one might be inclined to answer and be done with it. However, I prefer to keep an openness for the future, to keep on learning and considering additional diversifying scenarios and acts that could lead to equity to more than the happy few.
Through a lens of thinking about consequences of my actions (which is said to be an opposing ethical stance compared to the above), I sense the outcome of my hurdling is not desirable. However, the introduction of alternatives or methods toward understanding of potentials (without imposing) might be. I do not desire to dismiss others (e.g., cast them out, see them punished, blatantly ignore them with the veil of silenced monologue). At times, I too believe that the act of using a label is not inherently right or wrong. So I hurdle, ignorant of the consequence to the other, their contexts, their constraints, their conditions and ignorant of the cultural vibe or relationships I am then creating. Yes, decomposing a relationship is creating a fragmented composition as much as non-dialog is dialog by absence. What would be my purpose? It’s a rhetorical question, I can guess.
I am able to consider some of the consequence to others (including myself), though not all. Hence, I want to become (more) caring. The ethical dichotomy between thinking about universals or consequence is decisive in the forming of the boutique ethic. Then again, perhaps these seemingly opposing ethics are falsely positioned in an artificial dichotomy. I tend to intuit so. The holding of opposing thought and dissonance is a harmony that simply asks a bit more effort that, to me, is embalmed ever so slightly by the processes of rhizomatic multidimensional learning.
This is why I want to consider boutique ethics while still struggling with being ignorant, yet learning, about types and wicket conundrums in ethics , at larger, conflicting and more convoluted scales. So too when considering a technology I am affected by yet ignorant of.
References
Gretchen B. R., Sharon F. R. (2010). Everyday ethics: reflections on practice, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23:4, 379-391
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rossman, G.B., S.F. Rallis. (1998). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rossman, G.B., S.F. Rallis. (2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
UNESCO. (2022). K-12 AI curricula-Mapping of government-endorsed AI curriculum.
In exploring this statement, I wish to take the opportunity to focus on, extrapolate and perhaps contextualize the word “worry” a bit here.
I sense “worry” touches on an important human process of urgency.
What if… we were to consider who might/could be “worried”, and, when “worry” is confused or used as a distracting label. Could this give any interesting insight into our human mental models and processes (not of those who do the worrying but rather of those using the label)?
The term might be unwittingly resulting as if a tool for confusion or distraction (or hype). I think to notice that “worry,” “opposition,” “reflection,” “anxiety” and “critical thought-exercises,” or “marketing rhetorics toward product promotion,” are too easily confused. [Some examples of convoluted confusions might be (indirectly) hinted at in this article: here —OR— here ]
To me, at least, these above listed “x”-terms, are not experienced as equatable, just yet.
As a species, within which a set of humans claims to be attracted to innovation, we might want to innovate (on) not only externals, or symptoms, but also causes, or inherent attributes to the human interpretational processes and the ability to apply nuances therewith, eg, is something “worrying” or is it not (only) “worrying” and perhaps something else / additional that takes higher urgency and/or importance?
I imagine that in learning these distinctions, we might actually “innovate”.
Engaging in a thought-exercise is an exercise toward an increase of considering altered, alternative or nuanced potential human pathways, towards future action and outcomes, as if exploring locational potentials: “there-1” rather then “there-2” or “there-n;” and that rather than an invitation for another to utter: “don’t worry.”
If so, critical thought might not need to be a subscription to “worry” nor the “dismissal” of 1 scenario, 1 technology, 1 process, 1 ideology, etc, over the other [*1]
Then again, from a user’s point of view, I dare venture that the use of the word “worry” (as in “I worry that…”) might not necessarily be a measurable representation of any “actual” state of one’s psychology. That is, an observable behavior or interpreted (existence of an) emotion has been said to be no guaranteed representation of the mental models or processes of they who are observed (as worrying). [a hint is offered here —OR— here ]
Hence, “worry” could be / is at times seemingly used as a rhetorical tool from either the toolboxes of ethos, pathos or logos, and not as an externalization of one’s actual emotional state of that ephemeral moment.
footnote —-• [*1]
Herein, in these distinctions, just perhaps, might lie a practical excercise of “democracy”.
If critical thought, rhetoric, anxiety, opposition are piled and ambiguously mixed together, then one might be inclined to self-censor due to the mere sense of overwhelming confusion of not being sure to be perceived as dealing with one over, or instead of, the other.
Doing the task well, is no longer sufficient in this world. In this world one must incessantly proof that one can do the task well, in a jargon and within time- and space-sensitive confinements that are defined and logged elsewhere; external to oneself. Either such processes toward proof are humanly observed (i.e., by other homunculi), or they are automated.
In effect, in this imagined world, the latter seems to be increasingly the case, spreading as if an ink blot across the ages and the social areas within which that world’s human individual (perhaps a homunculus) moves into, and out of, during their lifetime.
In this imaginary scenario, the task, as well, is no longer simply the act of making a living for oneself, one’s family, one’s community, one’s national context or one’s in-group’s nascent generations. The task is any data-generating act; preferably acts that can be aggregated and capitalized on by involving, at times unknown and obscured, third-parties.
The latter actor then is enabled to create, via its tasks, those tools toward improving tasks, to be fed back to those who have provided the data sets in the first place (e.g., that same homunculus), and to yet other parties interested in visualizing tasks outside of these tasks’ initially intended settings or (meta)physical aims.
In this imagined story, and in your imagination, where or how do you see yourself (if at all; and / or if you were that homunculus)?
—animasuri’22
——-
Header visual: digitally photo edited digital photo of paper and pencil folded against wood . “Mediated Existence” . —animasuri’22
——-
References and perverted note-taking intertwining “#task”, “#assessment” and “#data” from:
William, D. (2006) Assessment for #Learning. Cambridge AfL Keynote. Online Retrievable from here.
data tasked from bodies (as shedded data and free labor) from here
data tasked across species (as alienating datasets from those who do or don’t count) from here
data tasked across borders (as disembodied data teleportation) from here
data tasked from mobiles (as extended-cognition extenders) from here
…and further, as a cherry on this cake, one might quickly conjure up Cambridge Analytica , or singularly, Facebook with its clandestine 50000+ or so datapoints per milked data-cow (aka what I also lovingly refer to as humans as datacyborgs) which the company’s systems are said to distill through data collection . Yes, arguably the singularity is already here.
Then, more recently, one can enjoy the application by a facial recognition service, Clearview AI, that uses its data mining to identify (or read: “spy on”) dead individuals; a service which might seem very commendable (even for individuals with no personal social media accounts, one simply has to appear in someone else’s visual material); and yet the tech has been applied for more.
The contextualization might aid one to have the narrative amount to:
“Alienation” and that, if one were to wish, could be extended with the idea of the “uncanny” hinted at with my datacyborg poetics. “Alienation” here is somewhat as meant as it is in the social sciences: the act of lifting the intended use of one’s data, outside of that intended use, by a third party. The questionable act of “alienation” is very much ignored or quietly accepted (since some confuse “public posting” with a “free for all”).
What personally disturbs me is that the above manner of writing makes me feel like a neurotic conspiratorial excuse of a person… one might then self-censor a bit more, just to not upset the balance with any demonizing push-back (after all, what is one’s sound, educated and rational “demos” anyway?). This one might do while others, in the shadows of our silently-extracted data, throw any censorship, in support of the hidden self (of the other), out of the proverbial window.
This contextualised further; related to memory, one might also wish to consider the right to be forgotten besides the right to privacy. These above-mentioned actors among a dozen others, rip this autonomous decision-making out of our hands. If then one were to consider ethics mapped with the lack of autonomy one could be shiveringly delighted not to have to buy a ticket to a horror-spy movie since we can all enjoy such narratives for “free” and in “real” life.
“Traditionally, technology development has typically revolved around the functionality, usability, efficiency and reliability of technologies. However, AI technology needs a broader discussion on its societal acceptability. It impacts on moral (and political) considerations. It shapes individuals, societies and their environments in a way that has ethical implications.”
…is ethics perhaps becoming / still as soothing bread for the demos in the games by the gazing all-seeing not-too-proverbial eye?
In extension to my above post (for those who enjoy interpretative poetics):
One might consider that the confusion of a “public posting” being equated with “free for all” (and hence falsely being perceived as forfeiting autonomy, integrity, and the likes), is somewhat analogous with abuses of any “public” commons.
Expanding this critically, and to some perhaps provokingly further, one might also see this confusion with thinking that someone else’s body is touch- or grope-for-all simply because it is “available”.
Now let’s be truly “meta” about it all: One might consider that the human body is digital now. (Ie my datacyborg as the uber-avatar. Moving this then into the extreme: if I were a datacyborg then someone else’s extraction beyond my public flaneuring here, in my chosen setting, could poetically be labeled as “datarape”)
As one might question the ethics of alienatingly ripping the biological cells from Henrietta Lacks beyond the extraction of her cancer into labs around the world, one might wonder about the ethics of data being ripped and alienated into labs for market experimentation and the infinite panopticon of data-prying someone’s (unwanted) data immortality
Qīngmíng jié (清明节 or “Tomb Sweeping Festival”) is upon us. The characters for “Qīngmíng” could literally be translated as “Pure Brightness,” while “jié” can be understood as”festival”.
Of this festival, that has been observed for about 2500 years, I learned that it is held on the fifteenth day of the Spring Equinox, while it is officially celebrated this coming Sunday, Monday and Tuesday (3,4,5 April, 2022).
These are the moments in a Lunar year to remember one’s ancestors.
There is so much to be explored; to be taken note of; to be made into meanings.
.
<< Qīngmíng jié >>
Why not, here and there,
take a moment,
these coming days
engage in
your own locality
offer thought to your mothers, brothers, sisters, fathers, aunts and cousins, nephews and uncles of more and less great-great-grandness
From the leaf, which you represent
on your tree,
to the root and the mycelium,
they relate
to us all
For a split second
don’t translate.
For an instance,
make it your profession
to touch the soil,
under you feet,
with your bare toes
with you finger tips.
Feel the diverse
textures, smoothness, wetness:
the dynamic geometries within
we can universally acknowledge
There, life is one,
there, we all, are
there we are
open-ended
—animasuri’22
.
“Qīngmíng Shànghé Tú”
attached a small crop from the 12th century (960-1279), Sòng Dynasty’s artist 张择端 / Zhāng Zéduān’s Qīngmíng scroll: “Qīngmíng Shànghé Tú” ( 清明上河图 or “Along the River During the Qīngmíng Festival” or “A Picture up the River at Qīngmíng”. The scroll can be studied at the Palace Museum in Beijing).
Thank you Dr. Walter Sepp Aigner . for enabling me to muse on this rich topic of walking with one’s common, simple, down-to-earth and personal ancestries. One would easily be convinced that you and I are ancestorally “not related”; and yet…
