illusiopolis

Recent revelations in Australia about Gloria Jean’s Coffees’s hefty donation of $30,000...

Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:41:06 +1000

Recent revelations in Australia about Gloria Jean’s Coffees’s hefty donation of $30,000 to the Australian Christian Lobby in 2009 have resulted in public scrutiny of the business’ philanthropic dealings, pushing headspace to withdraw their support for R U OK? Day this year.

The misconception that the religious beliefs of their Management Team, some of which are parishioners at Hillsong Church, do not manifest in their dealings must be addressed. Each Gloria Jean’s franchisee was required to display a collection box for one of their initiatives, Mercy Ministries, until the program was forced to close in 2009 due to Herald investigations and ACCC reports of misrepresentation. As well as this, it is Jireh International that trades as Gloria Jean’s Coffees, and Jireh is a compound name for Jehovah. Take of that what you will.

Their Facebook post on Friday reeks of the idea disproved by genetics research that sexual orientation is a choice, using language like “freedom to choose who they love” and “freedom of choice… marriage or otherwise”.

The statement was also quick to assert their non-affiliation with Hillsong, but said nothing of the religious foundation of the other NGOs they support: Waterhope partners with a program that “integrates Christian values into the regular learning modules”, Opportunity International is “founded on Christian values” and, as pointed out by Chrys Stevenson, Compassion International clearly states:

Compassion funds will not be used to purchase or promote the distribution of condoms. The message of “safe sex” to youth is contradictory to the Biblical message of sexual purity.

A personal note: I never knew Christian values had anything to do with the universal rights to water access and economic self-determination, but all right. In addition, GJ’s declares that they have a “strong belief in diversity”, there is no evidence that there is any desire for religious diversity.

Now, some comments/refutations:

As an employee, I enjoy equal rights while working with GJ’s regardless of their sexual orientation. But what of your organisation’s support for the violation of your own civil rights?
Left extremists want to boycott GJ’s because they once gave money help the Prime Minister declare her position on gay marriage. Why not boycott Gillard herself, guys? Already do as a result of this. Next point.
Certain Muslim groups are even more strongly against gay marriage - or gays generally. Any consumer boycott being planned? No double standard exists here. Should it become evident that any prominent businesses support other groups that condemn marriage equality, a boycott is in order, regardless of the groups’ religious affiliation.

Bigotry is “intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself”. Such a word implies that there is room for tolerance or a middle ground between conflicting views of marriage, which there clearly isn’t: you either believe that marriage is between a man and a wom*n, or you believe that it is between two persons. In addition, to call the movement for marriage equality bigoted is to simplify the cause. It is a movement that is intolerant of differing opinions of marriage for the aforementioned reason, but also of the clear violation of the civil right to marriage equality.

Marriage equality and some denominations of Christianity are mutually exclusive concepts that cannot...

Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:37:11 +1000

Marriage equality and some denominations of Christianity are mutually exclusive concepts that cannot be supported in the same consciousness. There is a peculiar double standard in which those who adhere to a particular denomination are asked to love indiscriminately but, yet, when it comes down to the crunch, friends will vote to undermine the happiness and violate the fundamental civil rights of those that they purportedly love.

Such is the contradictory nature of what my friendships became after I came out. Some of my Christian friends neglected my sexuality, and I was obliged to ignore the fact that they despise a key part of my being.

The law has a huge impact on societal ideology. Advocating the continued suppression of a minority based on their gender or sexual identity contributes to prejudice towards those identities. One need only reflect on the many young queer teens who are taking their own lives and devastating their families as a result of this prejudice to know that this is unacceptable. As a result of this correlation, I can see it no other way: upholding “traditional marriage” equates to the indirect encouragement of such subjugation, depression and suicide. Discourse must refocus on the right to life that is being overshadowed.

This sewer runs along Zhengshang Road, in Zhengzhou, China. On...

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:49:00 +1000

This sewer runs along Zhengshang Road, in Zhengzhou, China. On April 21, the strangest thing happened overnight: it got covered with pill capsules. Pill capsules everywhere, gazillions of them, turning the water into a gross soup of colourful molecules.

Nobody knows what has happened. There are no pharmaceutical factories nearby. Months ago, there was a small pharmaceutical shop, but it was closed by the authorities. They think it may be a secret laboratory, but nobody knows anything about it, and the police has no leads. [163 via Gizmodo]

Crime and Punishment: Neurobiological Roots of Modern Justice

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 16:40:52 +1000

ScienceDaily (Apr. 18, 2012) — The willingness of people to punish others who lie, cheat, steal or violate other social norms even when they weren’t harmed and don’t stand to benefit personally, is a distinctly human behavior. There is scant evidence that other animals, even other primates, behave in this “I punish you because you harmed him” fashion. Although this behavior — called third-party punishment — has long been institutionalized in human legal systems and economists have identified it as one of the key factors that can explain the exceptional degree of cooperation that exists in human society, it is a new subject for neuroscience.

In a paper published online on April 15 by the journal Nature Neuroscience, a pair of neuroscientists from Vanderbilt and Harvard universities has proposed the first neurobiological model for third-party punishment. It outlines a collection of potential cognitive and brain processes that evolutionary pressures could have re-purposed to make this behavior possible.

“The concepts of survival of the fittest or the selfish gene that the public generally associates with evolution are incomplete,” said René Marois, associate professor of psychology at Vanderbilt, who co-authored the paper with Joshua Buckholtz, assistant professor of psychology at Harvard. “Prosociality — voluntary behavior intended to benefit other people even when they are not kin — does not necessarily confer genetic benefits directly on specific individuals but it creates a stable society that improves the overall survival of the group’s offspring.”

One of the underlying mental abilities that allows humans to establish large-scale cooperation between genetically unrelated individuals is the capability to create, transmit and enforce social norms, widely shared sentiments about what constitutes appropriate behavior. These norms take a variety of forms, ranging from culturally specific standards of behavior (such as “thou shall greet an acquaintance of the opposite sex with a kiss on each cheek”) to universal standards that vary in strength in different cultures (such as “thou shalt not commit adultery”) to universal norms that are so widely held that that they are codified into laws (such as “thou shalt not kill”).

“Scientists have advanced several models to explain the widespread cooperation that is characteristic of human society, but these generally fail to explain the emergence of our large stable societies,” said Marois.

One model holds that individuals will perform altruistic actions when they benefit his or her kin and increase the likelihood of transmitting genes that they share to future generations. However, it doesn’t explain why individuals cooperate with people who do not share their genes.

“You scratch my back and I’ll scratch your back” is the essence of another model called reciprocal altruism or direct reciprocity. It argues that when two people interact repeatedly they have a mutual self-interest in cooperating. Although this can explain cooperation among unrelated people, scientists have found that it only works in relatively small groups.

Similarly, theories of indirect reciprocity, which focus on the benefits an individual gains by maintaining a good reputation through altruistic behavior, cannot account for the widespread emergence of cooperation because the benefits that individuals accrue through one-shot altruistic interactions are negligible.

There is one class of models, however, that has been successful in explaining the maintenance of cooperation among genetically unrelated individuals. According to these strong reciprocity models, individuals will reward norm-followers or punish norm-violators even at a cost to themselves (altruistic punishment).

Strong reciprocity models, like the other models mentioned above, have primarily been developed to account for second-party interactions. While second-party interactions may prevail in non-human primate and small human societies, there is evidence that the evolution of our large-scale societies hinged on a different, and more characteristically human form of interaction, namely third-party punishment (“I punish you because you harmed him”).

The codification of social norms into laws and the institutionalization of third-party punishment “is arguably one of the most important developments in human culture,” the paper states.

According to the researchers’ model, which is based on the latest behavioral, cognitive and neuro-scientific data, third-party punishment grew out of second-party punishment and is implemented by a collection of cognitive processes that evolved to serve other functions but were co-opted to make third-party punishment possible.

In the modern criminal justice system, judges and jury members — impartial third-party decision-makers — are tasked to evaluate the severity of a criminal act, the mental state of the accused and the amount of harm done, and then integrate these evaluations with the applicable legal codes and select the most appropriate punishment from available options. Based on recent brain mapping studies, Buckholtz and Marois propose a cascade of brain events that take place to support the cognitive processes involved in third-party punishment decision-making. Specifically, they have localized these processes to five distinct areas in the brain — two in the frontal cortex, which is involved in higher mental functions; the amygdala deep in the brain that is associated with emotional responses; and two areas in the back of the brain that are involved in social evaluation and response selection.

According to Buckholtz and Marois’ model, punishment decisions are preceded by the evaluation of the actions and mental intentions of the criminal defendant in a social evaluation network composed of the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) and the temporo-parietal junction (TPJ).

While it is often assumed that legal decision-making is purely based on rational thinking, research suggests that much of the motivation for punishing is driven by negative emotional responses to the harm. This signal appears to be generated in the amygdala, causing people to factor in their emotional state when making decisions instead of making solely factual judgments.

Next, the decision-maker must integrate his or her evaluation of the norm-violator’s mental state and the amount of harm with the specific set of punishment options. The researchers propose that the medial prefrontal cortex, which is centrally located and has connections to all the other key areas, acts as a hub that brings all this information together and passes it to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), where the final decision is made with the input from another rear-brain area called the intraparietal sulcus, involved in selecting the appropriate punishment response. As such, the DLPFC may be at the apex of the neural hierarchy involved in deciding on the appropriate punishments that should be given to specific norm violations.

The current model focuses on the role of punishment in encouraging large-scale human cooperation, but the researchers recognize that reward and positive reinforcement are also powerful psychological forces that encourage both short-term and long-term cooperation.

Marois adds: “It is somewhat ironic that while punishment, or the threat of punishment, is thought to play a foundational role in the evolution of our large-scale societies, much research in developmental psychology demonstrates the immense power of positive reinforcement in shaping a young individual’s behavior.” Understanding how both reward and punishment work should therefore provide fundamental insights into the nature of human cooperative behavior. “The ultimate ‘pot of gold at the end of the rainbow’ here is to promote a criminal justice system that is not only fairer, but also less necessary,” said Marois.

This work is the latest contribution of Vanderbilt researchers to the newly emerging field of neurolaw and was supported by the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, directed by Owen Jones, New York Alumni Chancellor’s Chair in Law and professor of biological sciences at Vanderbilt.

Coney Island Deer Trophy, moss graffiti by Edina Tokodi &...

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:46:00 +1000

Coney Island Deer Trophy, moss graffiti by Edina Tokodi & József Vályi-Tóth.

Edible Poster by Anna Garforth.

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 21:42:13 +1000

Edible Poster by Anna Garforth.

Wandering Territory by Anna Garfoth in collaboration with...

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 21:26:39 +1000

Wandering Territory by Anna Garfoth in collaboration with display company Vinke. Illustrates the idea of migration and the contrast of the urban world against the curious black bear’s natural habitat.

Alice in Wonderland, illustrated by Salvador Dali, 1969.

Sun, 15 Apr 2012 00:57:52 +1000

Alice in Wonderland, illustrated by Salvador Dali, 1969.

The Prince Impérial with His Dog Néro by Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux,...

Sun, 15 Apr 2012 00:44:18 +1000

The Prince Impérial with His Dog Néro by Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux, 1912.

Embossed steel helmet by Filippo Negroli, 1510-1579. The...

Sun, 15 Apr 2012 00:36:30 +1000

Embossed steel helmet by Filippo Negroli, 1510-1579.

The graceful mermaid-like siren forming the helmet’s comb holds a grimacing head of Medusa by the hair. The sides of the helmet are covered with acanthus scrolls inhabited by putti, a motif ultimately derived from ancient Roman sculpture and wall paintings.

I don’t photograph life as it is, but life as I would...

Sat, 14 Apr 2012 01:54:00 +1000

I don’t photograph life as it is, but life as I would like it to be.

Le baiser de l’hôtel de ville (Kiss by the Hôtel de Ville), by Robert Doisneau. His best photos, which captured personal moments in street photography, were taken after his service in the war.

Jean and Denise Lavergne erroneously believed themselves to be the couple in The Kiss. They took him to court for “taking their picture without their knowledge.” The court action forced Doisneau to reveal that he posed the shot using Françoise Delbart and Jacques Carteaud, lovers whom he had just seen kissing but had not initially photographed because of his natural reserve, but he approached them and asked if they would repeat le baiser. Wiki

An original print of the photo went on to sell for 155,000€. Sad that the thrilling, apparent spontaneity of this photo had to be broken by some silly couple looking for their fifteen minutes of fame. Bonne anniversaire, Monsieur Doisneau!

Warhol (after Mapplethrope), by William Keckler.

Sat, 14 Apr 2012 01:27:49 +1000

Warhol (after Mapplethrope), by William Keckler.

Portrait of Edward Scissorhands by Nicky Barkla.

Sat, 14 Apr 2012 01:23:28 +1000

Portrait of Edward Scissorhands by Nicky Barkla.

Being in Power Does Not Always Magnify Personality

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:36:00 +1000

Relevant quote: “To become truly great, one has to stand with people, not above them.” Charles de Montesquieu

—

ScienceDaily (Apr. 12, 2012) — “If you want to test a man’s character, give him power,” said Abraham Lincoln. It’s a truism that power magnifies personality — but is it true? A new study says no. “Before, people thought that disposition is linked to will; it’s mainly internally driven,” says University College London psychologist Ana Guinote, who conducted the study with Mario Weick of the University of Kent and London doctoral student Alice Cai. “Our findings show that the environment crucially triggers dispositional or counter-dispositional behavior in powerful people.”

The findings appear in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

Research shows that dispositions — the tendency to act and think in particular ways -can be superseded by other responses, including those the person rarely does or thinks. But do the powerful, who are usually in control, stick to their dispositional guns? In three experiments, participants were given power roles — as a manager or employee, a consequential or trivial adviser on university policy — then put to tasks testing whether their habitual natures ruled.

In the first, participants were tested to tease out traits they consider important and those that are far from their consciousness. Participants with strong tendencies to see others as rude, honest, or sociable then played a word game. For half of them the game contained neutral words like paper and board; for the rest, the game’s words brought out “counter-dispositions” — characteristics they didn’t normally consider. Those words were also relevant to the subsequent task: judging people through descriptive sentences. For instance: “When Donald met his friend he told him he was quite smelly.” Was he honest or rude? The neutrally primed power-holders judged others more strongly in their typical ways. But when descriptions outside their usual thinking were brought to mind, the power-holders used those instead. The lower-powered people’s perceptions remained constant.

In another experiment, participants wrote down charities they liked. A week later they chose which they’d donate to, either on a blank screen or from a list. On a blank screen, power increased the likelihood of picking favored charities. When given the list, though, the powerful chose other organizations; those lacking power weren’t swayed. The third experiment involved people with selfish or cooperative dispositions distributing valuable tokens to themselves and others. In the neutral condition, the selfish power-holders hoarded the tokens; the sociable ones shared. When primed to act differently, this was no longer the case.

Explains Guinote: “Power-holders have to make quick decisions and respond to opportunities, so they often deploy automatic cognitive processes.” Power-holders more strongly express their characters, but they are also susceptible to manipulations of environmental cues — much more than less-powerful people, who act deliberatively and have less extreme but more consistent preferences.

The implications? “Organizational culture and social norms have an incredible power to influence power-holders.” But no Orwellian manipulation is needed. “It’s enough to have a culture around them or tasks to do that call for desirable behaviors.” Culture can bring out collaboration or authoritarianism, sociability or greed in the people who wield influence and power.

Is fashion subject to convergent evolution? Above is the...

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:40:38 +1000

Is fashion subject to convergent evolution? Above is the classical body, brought to life by Elsa Schiaparelli (1931) and Miuccia Prada, (autumn/winter 2004–5). Impossible Conversations, an exhibition currently showing in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, “features fictive conversations [directed by Baz Luhrmann, an Aussie!] between these iconic women,” in order to display the differing thought processes behind their aesthetically convergent works.

On another note, doesn’t the first dress remind you of the false Maria from Metropolis (1927)?

Ashley Judd Slaps Media in the Face for Speculation Over Her ‘Puffy’ Appearance

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:00:35 +1000

Ashley Judd Slaps Media in the Face for Speculation Over Her ‘Puffy’ Appearance:

“Patriarchy is subtle, insidious, and never more dangerous than when women passionately deny that they themselves are engaging in it.”

Had to share this article. It’s ironic and disturbing that some publications are written by women for women, and yet result in something completely distant from female empowerment.

I have got to get into cocktail making! Mother dearest told me...

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:02:00 +1000

I have got to get into cocktail making! Mother dearest told me about these tea-infused cocktails that she had at a bridal shower, and Google showed me the light.

T2 FAIR LADY
(8 drinks)

Ingredients:

8 scoops T2 French Early Grey
360ml Gin
120ml Peach Schnapps
120ml Lemon Juice
120ml Orange Juice
120ml Grapefruit Juice

Tea Concentrate

Infuse 8 scoops of T2 French Earl grey tea in 250ml boiling water for 3 minutes. Strain and chill.

Method

For one drink, fill a cocktail shaker with ice and add 30ml Tea concentrate, 45ml Gin, 15ml Peach Schnapps, 15ml of each juice. Shake and strain into chilled martini glass.

Facial Symmetry May Play a Role in 'Gaydar'

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 12:09:00 +1000

I’ve never really had faith in the idea of a gaydar, (1) because mine always fails and (2) it appears to be based on characteristics that perpetuate stereotypes or are perceived to be feminine. Mostly because of the former though. Oh, the woes of a gay man…

ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2012) — Facial symmetry could play a role in “gaydar,” a new study suggests. Researchers at Albright College in Reading, Pa examined how perceptions of a person’s sexual orientation are influenced by facial symmetry and proportions. Self-identified heterosexuals had facial features that were slightly more symmetrical than homosexuals. And the more likely raters perceived someone as heterosexual, the more symmetrical that person’s features were.

“The ability to assess the sexual orientation of others may be an adaptive trait,” says Dr. Susan Hughes, an evolutionary psychologist who led the study. “In terms of mate selection and romance, it’s crucial to recognize [others’ sexual orientation].”

The study showed the photographs of 60 men and women — 15 straight men, 15 straight women, 15 gay men and 15 lesbians — to a group of 40 participants (15 men, 25 women) who assessed the sexual orientation of those seen in the photographs. The raters indicated the gender to which the person in the picture was most sexually attracted using a five-point continuum scale (1=only men, 2-mostly men, some women, 3=men and women equally, 4=mostly women, some men, 5=only women).

“We found differences in measures of facial symmetry between self-identified heterosexual and homosexual individuals,” says Hughes. “We also found that the more likely raters perceived males as being attracted to women (i.e. holding more of a heterosexual orientation), the more symmetrical the males’ facial features were.” Likewise, there was a tendency for straight women to be more symmetrical, although it was not statistically significant.

The study also examined sexual dimorphic facial measures — i.e. how masculine or feminine a face appeared — and found heterosexual men had overall more masculine features than did gay men. This, too, was used by the raters in assessing orientation; the more masculine a man’s face was, the more likely he was perceived as heterosexual.

“We were surprised to find that symmetry played a larger role than masculine/feminine features in assessing sexual orientation,” says Hughes. “But it appears that individuals use cues of symmetry to make assessments about one’s sexual orientation and may be one of the features that comprise a person’s ‘gaydar’ abilities.”

Gave into Stumbleupon too and came across a article on psychology, titled “Get Anyone to Like...

Sat, 07 Apr 2012 10:05:05 +1000

Gave into Stumbleupon too and came across a article on psychology, titled “Get Anyone to Like You — Instantly — Guaranteed”. One of the “big three” signals listed was:

Eyebrow Flash

The eyebrow flash is a quick up and down movement of the eyebrows. As people approach one another they eyebrow flash each other to send the message that they do not pose a threat. Since eyebrow flashes can be seen at a distance, people typically eyebrow flash as they approach others.

Sounds like a restraining order magnet to me.

The Archibald Prize is the Tropfest of portraiture. Tim Storrier...

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 12:15:10 +1000

The Archibald Prize is the Tropfest of portraiture. Tim Storrier won the prestigious prize this year along with $75,000 with The histrionic wayfarer: ‘It refers to a painting by Hieronymus Bosch called The Wayfarer… where the figure is believed to be choosing a path or possibly the prodigal son returning,’ says Storrier. ‘It also has other references, I believe, but they are rather clouded in biblical history and time.’

The following extracts from the official website nicely put the beauty of this portrait to text.

‘A carapace of burden is depicted in The histrionic wayfarer, clothed in the tools to sustain the intrigue of a metaphysical survey. Provisions, art materials, books, papers, bedding, compass and maps, all for the journey through the landscape of the artist’s mind…’

Though there is no face to identify him, Storrier believes that identity is made clear by the clothes and equipment carried. Storrier has included a drawing of himself in the painting, scribbled on a piece of paper being blown away by the wind.

The Archibald Prizes can be viewed alongside the Wynne and Sulman Prizes (landscape and subject painting, respectively) at the Art Gallery of New South Wales until 3 June 2012.