The YouTube version with the actual book illos are worth seeing too- although they're mostly just slyly humorous which makes a good contrast w/ the LOL text.

I'll have to listen to that this weekend.

I brought in my breakfast, the little mini-quiche/frittata/Denver Omelette in a ramekin, and after nuking it and giving bites to my cubicle neighbors, they have named it a definite hit, and want the recipe. I also bought some grapes and pineapple chunks for my fruit for the day. Lunch will be something from the grill (summer Wednesdays is always grill day at the cafeteria) and some corn on the cob, and then dinner will be the chicken sausage from TJ's that I've been munching on all week with some veggies.

I played the audible book through itunes.

That's what I tried. It kept asking for my Audible username/password and whatever I put in didn't work. I really didn't want to hear it enough to bother solving the problem.

ION, reason sucks.

Reason Seen More as Weapon Than Path to Truth

For centuries thinkers have assumed that the uniquely human capacity for reasoning has existed to let people reach beyond mere perception and reflex in the search for truth. Rationality allowed a solitary thinker to blaze a path to philosophical, moral and scientific enlightenment.

Now some researchers are suggesting that reason evolved for a completely different purpose: to win arguments. Rationality, by this yardstick (and irrationality too, but we’ll get to that) is nothing more or less than a servant of the hard-wired compulsion to triumph in the debating arena. According to this view, bias, lack of logic and other supposed flaws that pollute the stream of reason are instead social adaptations that enable one group to persuade (and defeat) another. Certitude works, however sharply it may depart from the truth.

...

“Reasoning doesn’t have this function of helping us to get better beliefs and make better decisions,” said Hugo Mercier, who is a co-author of the journal article, with Dan Sperber. “It was a purely social phenomenon. It evolved to help us convince others and to be careful when others try to convince us.” Truth and accuracy were beside the point.

Indeed, Mr. Sperber, a member of the Jean-Nicod research institute in Paris, first developed a version of the theory in 2000 to explain why evolution did not make the manifold flaws in reasoning go the way of the prehensile tail and the four-legged stride. Looking at a large body of psychological research, Mr. Sperber wanted to figure out why people persisted in picking out evidence that supported their views and ignored the rest — what is known as confirmation bias — leading them to hold on to a belief doggedly in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.

Now some researchers are suggesting that reason evolved for a completely different purpose: to win arguments.

IS NOT.

is too!

Look, I came here for an argument! You're just contradicting me.

I'm sorry; this is Abuse.

I love this place.

(I hesitated too long and Teppy took my line about abuse)

Last night I had baked salmon with lemon and dill, and roasted Brussels sprouts. Tonight, it's back to the red lentil dal that I'll never finish eating.