Despite the potential inherent in what evolved from the ARPANET, it has become apparent to those of us who think about stuff that we've actually entered the Misinformation Age.
For example, today’s front page story on that flaming stack of ignorance and mendacity calling itself Conservapedia is a fascinating story called “Atheism and obesity,” where they determine that, apparently, if you don’t believe in God, He makes you fat (as you could probably tell from the title, but I thought I’d spell it out for you).
The crux of this theory (so to speak) is a Gallup poll, which reached the conclusion (repeated in the first line of the Conservapedia story):
Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious.Now, I could get all statistical and point out that a poll measures how people answer questions, not how they behave. And religious people are more prone to guilt, so wouldn’t they be more likely to lie when answering questions like “Do you do things you aren’t supposed to?”
But that would be the easy answer. (Plus, some actual atheists, as opposed to one nameless doubting agnostic, are cheerfully ripping this one apart.)
Instead, let me point out that, two weeks after the Gallup poll was released, we hear from New York that 1300 people are now in danger of contracting Hepatitis A, because they all took drinks from the same communion chalice. And remember, very religious Americans practice healthy behaviors. Like sucking down the backwash of other diseased Catholics.
Should I point out that they’re all at risk because they came in contact with the blood of Christ? Has He been shooting up with dirty needles again? Or should I just move on, since it's probably endangering your immortal soul to be taking religious advice from people with the balls to rewrite the "inalterable Word of God"?
Maybe the easiest answer is to show the following two maps? First, this.
See that? That shows how religious Christians claim to be, in various parts of the country. The greener, the Godlier, right? OK, then. Now check this out.
Now, that one shows the distribution of weight, per capita, in these United States. The more red, the more rotund.
See how the dark green and the dark red tend to match up? It’s kind of like Christmas, isn’t it? I guess you can’t spell faith without F - A - T.
Not a new thought to me, by the way. We already knew this; it's one of those pesky "fact" things that the GOP is so desperate to rewrite.
This is interesting and really sort of funny.
ReplyDeleteAhh, the aptly named Nameless Cynic has dazzled me again with his sharp wit and well reasoned analysis.
ReplyDeleteI live in one of the "Bible Belt" states and can tell you just by observation that there are a lot of fat people who also claim to be religious.
This post is both funny and very informative. And I now have another good reason to NOT share my drinks!
Well you have made the mistaken assumption that Conservatives revere "facts"... they do, actually, but only the facts which they make up. It more conducive to holding an indignant stance if you can state your position based on Facts. Beck and Limbaugh state their reputation on it.
ReplyDeleteI was once a fat bastard
ReplyDeletebut then I found God
with the help of prayer
I now have a ripped bod
my stomach's a washboard
my biceps are unreal
oh lord sweet Jesus
I have buns of steel
with muscles a bulging
I flex my Pecs a lot
midnight prayer sessions
they sure hit the spot
my workouts are a blur
sometimes things get scary
but I really shed pounds
when I do the virgin Mary
so all you fat Atheists
it's time you got wise
be like the Catholics
go out and exorcise
You know, I don't want to spend a lot of time analyzing the two charts (statistically ridiculous, anyway - not that it stops some people...), but:
ReplyDelete1. Mississippi tops both charts. By a significant lead, on the Hefty Scale.
2. While Washington State tries real hard to skew the results, their minuscule efforts don't hold a candle to Utah. What the hell, Mormons? Do you guys do crunches before tabernacle or something?
You can't spell Heathen without Eaten, and you can't spell Republican without Pubic, and you can't spell Boehner without...you know, I'm not getting anywhere here. Plus, I'm losing weight. Five more pounds and I'll be a believer, all right.
ReplyDeleteSo all those people pigging out at McDonald's are heathens? I had a suspicion.
ReplyDeleteThere's also a significant correlation between obesity, poverty and low social and educational status.
ReplyDeleteMix that all up in a hat and sprinkle on some Freakonomics and perhaps we can postulate that ignorance and religion go hand in hand? And why not? It makes more sense than relating dead fish to the apocalypse.
Now I'm sure that's won me a lot of love down here in the bullsh -- ah, Bible belt, but I call 'em like I see 'em.
As to obesity and it's causes, the assumption that it's McDonald's and lack of exercise causing it all is running out of steam and out of evidence, since obesity is rapidly increasing in animals. Even laboratory control animals, pets and barnyard critters that associate with heavy humans are getting fatter and the biggest human gains are in infants for whom exercise and cheese fries are not an option. In fact it's behaving more like a communicable disease. People are being born fat. Maybe we can say being born again means you get even fatter the second time?
Couple that with the easy observation that the thinnest people I know eat like horses and exercise less than three toed sloths and it's time to question the standard model presented to us by the folks who own health clubs and sell diet books.
Good post by Nameless. Grazie.
ReplyDeleteCapt. Fogg,
I think it's exercise or lack thereof -- I can only speak for myself, but from that perspective I can say that without my several-times-a-week regimen of workouts on my road bike, I would have no chance of maintaining my weight at a near-constant ideal of 3,000 lbs. dinodupoids. Aside from casting aspersions and hurling imprecations, it's the only exercise I get, but it probably keeps off 20-25lbs (I've translated the REAL figure into human terms) per year and I don't have to worry myself too much about my diet, which is healthy vegetarian anyway.
I suspect that the old thesis is about right: thousands of years ago, people had to fight for every scrap of food they got -- the stuff was scarce, and people probably spent much of their time and energy just trying to come by it. Today, it's ubiquitous, both the good stuff and the junk. So it's harder for moderns to stay healthy.
Someday, perhaps, these correlations will be more clearly understood. Just last week, one of our blogging associates (Shaw) covered this research study from University College London, which found:
ReplyDelete"Scientists have found that people with conservative views have brains with larger amygdalas, almond shaped areas in the centre of the brain often associated with anxiety and emotions. On the other hand, they have a smaller anterior cingulate, an area at the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life."
I am not sure one needs to measure amygdala size when “huge pompous ass” will suffice. Also, I should point out that baboons have more love in their bottoms than Republicans have in their hearts.
Years ago, John Dean discussed attitudinal research in his book, Conservatives Without Conscience; specifically the work of Bob Altemeyer who studied Right Wing Authoritarianism and social controlling behaviors, and Milton Rokeach who developed attitudinal measures of dogmatism and closed mindedness.
Of course, we understand these phenomena intuitively … easily measured in our ‘cringe’ reaction to abject stupidity. Perhaps, someday, there might even be a cure (but I doubt it).
I'm just hanging out here in 21.7 lean, least religious Massachusetts, enjoying my sprouts on whole grain, hold the mayo, sandwich. And a glass of grass juice to go with.
ReplyDelete(Don't believe it!)
I live in the North End, the Italian section of Boston where you can't walk 2 feet without coming into contact with a salumeria, a ristorante, or a pastry shop. But the key word is "walk." I don't have a car in the city, so I either walk everywhere, or take the "T."
Octo,
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't get into medicalizing or "physicalizing" because it's a path towards the dehumanization of one's opponents -- I don't see how such studies, even if their data prove to be valid, can get around the chicken-egg problem: how do the studiers know "conservatives" don't have a certain-shaped whatchamacallit in the noggin BECAUSE the whatchamacallit in question has been shaped by the gradual development of "conservative" views in that individual? We don't know that people are born conservative or liberal or anything else. They're just born. I would prefer to say that a person's character "takes a set" early in life and that it's often hard for that person to change in adulthood. As far as anything else, I'm going with the Hollywood truism, "Nobody knows anything."
Bloggingdino,
ReplyDeleteDespite what I said, I share your concern. Point taken. There is an inherent danger in ‘pathologizing’ norms of political and religious expression; and totalitarian regimes are known to abuse the psychosocial sciences and use these as instruments of oppression. Not to be taken literally, I intended the baboon photo to be a moment of satire.
There is validity, however, in the attitudinal studies of Altemeyer and Rokeach. It has been demonstrated that authoritarian attitudes do correlate with certain beliefs; and we need look no further than politicians and religious leaders who want to legislate bedroom behavior, turn our democracy into a theocracy, and force people to live as they dictate. Extreme authoritarian attitudes may not rise to the level of pathology, but these can and do threaten civil liberties and human rights.
Do we really need attitudinal studies to confirm what we already know from reading news accounts? Perhaps not, but I think the studies are still worthy in helping us understand the full gamut of human experience. If there is an inherent risk in ‘pathologizing’ the data, there is also an equal and opposite risk in ignoring the data. Either way begets oppression.
"because it's a path towards the dehumanization of one's opponents"
ReplyDeleteWell some of them deserve it, don't they? But hey, if some of the studies cited in Newsweek recently are true, animals are getting fatter even in controlled groups with measured food consumption. It seems to be correlated with the close proximity of humans and working in close proximity to obese people seems to have the same effect on humans. Is it contageous? We don't know enough to solve this problem here and of course we're flooded with disinformation.
Don't forget, people are getting bigger - MUCH bigger, not just heavier. The field of epigenitics seems to be showing us that dietary habits of a generation can have an effect that lasts for generations more. the genes remember. Children born after WW II in Holland were born to the smallest people in Europe and they were smaller than their parents even though they had a good diet in the 50's and 60's - but now the Dutch the biggest people in Europe - why? It has to be more than vitamins.
There is so much we don't understand that most of our conjecture is bound to be wildly off the mark. After a lifetime of absolute certainty that we are what we eat, it seems there really is a gene for obesity. Those with the mutation get fatter and fatter on the same food as those without it. But real science, as usual is shouted down by the exerciseandeatright industry because it's damned profitable to sell diet books and foods and health club memberships. I once read a "study" "proving" that only exercise in gymnasiums had a positive effect. I'll expect one proving that you'll burn more calories wearing Nike shoes and Adidas will make you fat.
OK, so here's the axe I have to grind. I've struggled with weight since adolescence - usually successfully and always at a price. 12 hours a week Tae Kwan Do training and a couple evenings of weight training in my 20's and I still had to take amphetamines to be able to get along on less that 1000 calories a day. Didn't lose an ounce.
I gain weight on that many today. I try to eat only one small meal a day, while my 97 pound wife eats three or four with deserts, so let's give people a break and not get all superior about our ability to stay thin. Some people are always going to be heavy even living at the edge of starvation. Some people are naturally thin and heredity plays as big a role as anything else.
So don't assume your overweight friends are undisciplined gourmands. They may eat less than you do.
Octo,
ReplyDeleteMakes sense to me. I honestly have no problem with the term "pathological" to describe the more out-there right-wingers, at least in a general sense: many of them manifest a degree of callousness and duplicity so deep that it's hard to see them as anything other than sociopaths. Only thing I avoid is saying it's how they're born or it's somehow due to the shape of their head, etc.
Capt. Fogg,
As for obesity genes, I may have just that, for all I know -- I was quite heavy as a small dino. Raised on spaghetti and stego-meatballs and lasagna. It's always been a problem for me to keep weight off, and I'm suspicious of all those Basal Metabolic Rate calculators telling me someone of my age and height/weight needs 1700-something calories just to get by without starving. It seems to me that if I go over about 1500 without exercising regularly, I gain weight, so what's all that BMR stuff about? I know there's a certain point at which the body thinks it's starving and flat refuses to shed pounds -- it goes into survival mode -- but I don't think that's it. Perhaps there's more variation in metabolism than it might seem. I don't know.
But what we're talking about is relative differences or ranges here: exercising regularly won't make a stringbean cyclist or jogger type out of us if we're not built that way in the first place. And no, you don't need to eat like a prizewinning hog to be somewhat heavy -- some people are set up that way. Still, regular exercise should keep any person at a better weight and level of health than would otherwise be possible for that person. We don't need to be pushing a special diet for big money to make that statement – it's based on experience. When I ride my bike, I do well; when I don't, within a few weeks I begin to feel at least ten years older. The difference is remarkable and undeniable.
Bloggingdino,
ReplyDeleteAfter a few hours of reflection (including my nightly repast of crustaceans), your intrepid cephalopod thinks his last comment was inadequate to your concern.
One obvious example of a totalitarian regime that abused psychiatry and treated dissent as a ‘disease’ is the former USSR. Perhaps I should have made a distinction between reasonable differences of opinion versus zealotry.
Often, I must remind myself not to stereotype our conservative friends, many of whom share our core values but differ over means leading to worthy ends. Even zealots, I suppose, are deserving of human treatment at least in this sense: How can we view them as villains or tragic characters in a drama when we paint them in strictly clinical terms. There is no poetry in psychobabble, and I owe you a concession on this point.
Ooops, should have added "free will" (i.e. to chose between good or evil) in the above.
ReplyDeleteDino,
ReplyDelete"Only thing I avoid is saying it's how they're born or it's somehow due to the shape of their head, etc."
Well you can say that because yours is 4 feet long and scaly . . . Not all of us are that lucky.
If it's true that all non-Africans have about 4% Neanderthal genes I'm quite willing to attribute Limbaughism, Palinitis and Beckibecki to an unfortunate combination of those genes.
Anyway, elephants never forget and Dinosaurs are always right. Exercise is necessary fer sure, but we didn't hear so much about the necessity and it wasn't the cure-all until they found a way to sell it to us. It used to be free ( and fun.) Same with diet. Nobody makes a buck if you just eat less, so you have to buy the book and eat weird things and when it doesn't work, why you just didn't have enough faith or something.
There are indeed variations of all sorts between people although there's political resistance to recognizing it or studying it. That's sort of a good thing to my way of thinking. My beef (organic of course) is with stereotyping people because of what they look like.
I heard the other night, that Jenny Craig offered Roseanne Barr and her then husband ten million to lose 25 pounds and attribute it to their program. Would they have had to if it worked?
This is a great post. It's always a pleasure to have something made so clear through the presentation of a couple of seemingly unconnected facts.
ReplyDelete