The settings are all wrong

By Mike Lundy

Senior research officer Edo checked the dials again. The settings were all wrong.

With mounting panic, he started through the checklist of the Sentient Life Research Protocol for planet Sol972P3 for the third time.

The vast array of dials and flickering lights on the control panel didn't change. All the settings were way out. The planet was in deep trouble. And so was he.

Walking along the well-worn corridors of the Academy to see his supervisor, Edo tried to think back to his last review. He couldn't even remember the last time he checked P3. Had he made a mistake with the adjustments back then? Did his hand slip on the dials? Did someone else touch the settings?

Edo scrolled back through the research review screens, looking for the reason for the mess. The pages of data outputs showed P3 gradually had become more and more unstable under the extreme settings. Dangerous settings. Settings that had probably voided the whole research program, more than likely contravening all sorts of research ethics.

But, it didn't matter really why. It only mattered that it had happened. It was Edo's responsibility to keep on top of the adjustments. Zolic, the program coordinator, would be furious.

The implications were clear - obvious to any student of Sentient Life Adjustment 101. The settings on P3 had created conditions that were sending the dominant sentient life form to self-destruction.

Whose adjective is it anyway?

By Fred Shivvin

In these days of social media, online dating and 'tell us how good you are' job interviews we frequently need to describe ourselves.

To do this, we use adjectives like friendly, fun, down-to-earth, positive, thoughtful, creative, caring, trustworthy, dedicated, motivated, effective. You can even find helpful lists online if you need more impressive adjectives for your profile.

When I was young, we were schooled to be modest: to assume effort, character and ability would speak for themselves. Self promotion was frowned upon. So, the contemporary need to self-describe and self-promote has been an uncomfortable transition.

But I'm used to it now. I no longer panic in interviews when asked to describe myself in three words, and I follow the job seeker's guideline: 'Don't be too modest'. 

But sometimes the way people talk about themselves, well, it just doesn't feel right to me.

Here are a few examples that feel off beam:

• We're soooo crazy! - group of performers in an interview after a concert
• We're wild; we're out of control; look out world! - group of 30-something football fans
• My parties are always great because I'm so zany! - woman at public function she organised
• We're all really cool; you'll like working here - new work colleague.

When a person says these sorts of things, it's not that I disagree with them. What feels strange and a bit off is that they use these adjectives to describe themselves.

I find myself wondering, is it actually their adjective to use?

Would you take nutrition advice from an octopus? Part 2

By Mae Wright

Part 1 of this article explored how food industry bodies influence the advice and information we get about nutrition and healthy eating.

I used the metaphor of a wily octopus bent on its own survival (i.e. profit) with the many arms of the food industry bodies infiltrating research, policy, non-government agencies and more to ensure their own interests (again, profit). Misinformation is better for the bottom line of those companies, but an epidemic of diet-related disease is forcing us to sit up and pay attention.

In Part 2, I want to take this metaphor further.

But before I do, here is yet another book debunking yet another nutrition factoid behind a multi-million-dollar industry. Yet again.

In a book about omega-3 fish oil supplements, Paul Greenberg describes an industry based on faulty and untested assumptions about human health. No actual evidence supports the health claims for omega-3 pills from fish oil. Independent research has found no benefits for heart, brain or mental health. The industry's own research reported 'a non-statistically significant reduction in coronary heart disease risk', which means 'did not find a link.' But nothing has stopped the health claims. Marketing alone fuels the US$15 billion industry, despite no benefit to human health and vast destruction of the ocean life systems from which it is extracted.

The octopus will do whatever is necessary to survive, even wreck the ocean which sustains it. We need some way to understand this behaviour.

In this second part, I look at the broader context and what else is in the metaphorical fish tank with the food industry octopuses.

Would you take nutrition advice from an octopus? Part 1

Mae Wright

Where do you get good advice and information about healthy eating, about nutritious food?

Good advice on healthy eating and nutrition??

Very few of us are still cooking and eating like our grandparents. Very few of us learn about nutrition within the food culture of our family, the way it used to be. We seem hungry for credible information about nutrition: there is no lack of advice about what to eat from media articles, advertising, government guidelines, online health gurus and more. Makes me think there must be a fair profit in it...

What if I tell you that you are probably getting your information about healthy eating and nutrition from the food industry bodies… yes, from corporations set up specifically to maximise profit. 

Large, well-resourced corporations represent primary production and food manufacturing industries including fruit, sugar, dairy, meat, wheat, alcohol, etc. Others are not so large. It seems a good idea… producers need a voice on matters that affect them. I'd like one to promote me too!

Their purpose is to represent their own industry's needs and ensure profitability. And therein lies the problem: the food that science tells us is healthy is not necessarily that which generates those industries the most profit.

Each food industry body works to ensure we keep consuming their products. So, much like a crafty octopus, they slip their many arms and their considerable influence into every nook and cranny to shape research and policy, and release numerous media articles providing nutritional information in favour of their product. Or more accurately, nutrition misinformation.

The problem is that nutrition advice should not be their role.

In fact, misinformation about nutrition is better for profit.

The food industry octopuses have spread confusing and clouding ink all over what we know about nutrition. As a result, confusion about healthy eating abounds. And it's having a bad effect on our health.

TATKOP 111

There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who bandage over their emotional wounds and those they hurt to avoid taking the bandage off.

(See all the TATKOP posts by Fred Shivvin here.)

Better circular logic

By Fred Shivvin

Mike's series about the adjective Equal made me think about circular logic. Mike referred to the argument used by those who set out to oppress others that they are somehow ‘better’ than them, and this justifies both their oppressive actions and their continued status as oppressors.

 

Circular logic (or circular reasoning) is used by people in ‘arguments’ about something they already believe or want to justify. 

The argument starts with something (the premise) that the person assumes is true: in this case 'I am better than you'. It assumes you already agree with the premise and then no real information is provided to support that premise.

Some circular logic can even sound convincing, but it only convinces people who already agree with the assumed premise. For the rest of us who don’t accept the premise to start with, the argument gives us no reason to change our thinking. I don't happen to agree with people who assume they are better than me!

It's not logic at all. It’s a self-reinforcing circle of belief. (This is why circular 'logic' features so often in 'arguments' about religion) 

But they are extremely common. Spotting a circular argument gives me a sense of accomplishment. They are also sometimes quite alarming.