I've been thinking of a number of topics to write about and have came up with quite a few good topics for posting, but I think this one might be the topic that I see flaunted around the most without it even being analyzed. This one refers to the common belief and appeal to something being natural is akin to something good for human consumption, or something non-harmful to people. This belief has a counter-belief that goes with it as well, the belief that something that is artificial is bad for people in some way.
It may be at first obvious that most absolutes like this are wrong in some way. There could be an artificial 'black swan' substance out there that isn't bad for people, or there could be a small minority natural things that would be harmful to people. I'm not stating that there are some exceptions to the rule, I'm saying that the rule is broken, it doesn't work.
I think this mistaken belief has came from the sheer arrogance of people and can be traced back at least to Thomas Aquinas. He created a purposeful world where, if it rained it was to water the grass and in this world people were at the center of its purpose (look at his natural law and how man alone was endowed with reason). Even natural evils have their purpose. That being said the idea that everything natural has a purpose, is meant for humans and has existed for a long time along with people are mistaken and arrogant beliefs.
It is extraordinarily arrogant to believe that the world was put here for us and that everything in the world has a purpose. It is a step further than that to say that everything that is natural is good for people. The world is abrasive. To demonstrate this a person could just go outside, where-ever they are, and eat any random leaves or animals they run into, it wouldn't take very long before this natural world makes you extremely sick at the minimum. Natural things aren't necessarily good for people, and in many cases they are hazardous. Mold, Cyanide, Arsenic, Lead.... are all natural and all not safe at some level. The claim all natural is supposed to make it seem like the product is safer, less harmful to the environment, but that is not the case.
Eric Schlossen, in his book Fast Food Nation (pages 120-130), points out that the differences between natural and artificial flavors isn't very great, and that in fact many 'natural' flavors have to go through more processing than the artificial flavors. In fact often they use the same chemicals derived by different means. The key to food safety is not whether something is natural or not, it has to do with its testing and track record.
So when you see something that say's 'all-natural' it doesn't mean anything outside of a marketing ploy. Make choices based on food studies, not the distinction between what is natural and what is artificial.
I was going to end with that, but I just want to make a comment of Genetically Modified Food and labeling. Many people who have fallen for the 'all natural' belief want the GMF's to have a label to say that they have been genetically modified. I actually agree with them in theory, but I disagree with them for a different reason. It is great to know what you are eating and where it comes from, but labeling something as a GMF would create a non-rational fear of that product that would bias what is really a safe and well tested food. Genetically modified foods have to go through a bunch of tests and get approved, you don't get that same level of guarantee with some natural products. If you want to know more on this issue just watch the Bullshit episode on it and look into the issue.
Looking into those food issues will change how you view 'all natural' and GMF's and you'll probably even gain a deeper understanding of the world around you, even if it doesn't have a purpose.
Thanks for reading,
The Moral Skeptic
May 19, 2010
May 13, 2010
Interview Questions and Lying in an Job Interview
I've wanted to write on this topic for a while and this post has been a topic that has been mulling around in my mind. The topic initially came to mind when I talked to two friends who were job hunting and in their search applied to Future Shop, the electronic retail giant. To start their application to work there they had to answer some questions on a computer program to determine their suitability for working at Future Shop. Now I'm not aware of the nature of the questions outside the one question they told me about, but the one they talked to me about was very interesting.
The question was a simple one, with what I think is a straightforward answer, 'Have you ever stolen something from a place where you worked?' The answer in the context of a person looking for a job, and being asked that is of course, 'No I've never stolen anything at all, let alone from a place I've worked' or something to that effect. That answer was given by one of my friends, but the other had a much different take on the question. He, being naive, thought that it would be unrealistic to never have taken anything from work before, so he stated that yes he had taken something from a former workplace, a few pens to be exact.
Needless to say that the person who said that he had never stolen anything before was given another few questions to answer and my other friend who said he stole pens (I'm pretty sure he's never stolen anything in his life) was given the message of 'thank you for your application' and no more questions were asked. With that my friend who said he never had stolen anything and myself, had a good time making fun of the naive friend. Yet in the days since then the question stuck in my mind, not because the question itself is interesting, but because of the ramifications it has in the context it is being asked.
I am reminded of the documentary The Fog of War, which is a commentary featuring Robert Mcnamara, the former Secretary of Defense, and his reflection on the life he has lived and the choices he has made. Early on in the film Robert is talking about how he went through school and is put in a position like my friends who applied for Future Shop when he had to do some tests for the Ford Motor company. The interesting question he was given by Ford was. 'What job would you work at in the summer', and there was a list of 4. If memory serves the choices included, a machinist (or something like that) and a florist. Robert knew in this context (An Application for Ford) that machinist was the correct response, despite the fact that Robert had, coincidentally, actually been a florist in the past and really enjoyed it. He ended up saying that he and the group of fellows he did the test blew the test out of the water due to his, and his friends, ability to understand the question in the context in which those questions were given.
Anyway getting back to the Future Shop question, I can think of 2 types of people (Those who have stolen and those who have never stolen from a job site) and because of that there are 4 possible answers for the question:
1. Those who have stolen and will admit they stole.
2. Those who have stolen and will lie about having stolen anything.
3. Those who haven't stolen and say that they haven't.
4. The rare case, to which my one friend fits, those who haven't stolen but think that they should say that they have.
From that we can understand the type of people Future Shop is eliminating from there potential employment with that question. People in types 1 and 4 are the type of people eliminated, those people who are honest enough to admit they have stolen in the past and those who have never stolen, but are really poor at judging the answer to a situational question. The people who will get through are those people who will both lie and steal and those who have never stolen in their life.
I'm not sure that this is what Future Shop had in mind when they made up this question, because I think that most people have taken something from a former workplace, probably something trivial like paper or pens or something like that, but won't admit to somewhere they are applying to work that they have ever stolen something. The people who are punished by this question are actually anyone who is really honest, or really misunderstands the question. That is why this question is so interesting. It is because of the limited responses, the implication of those responses and how people always have to take the context into consideration when being asked a question.
I think what this question really shows is how far our society has come in understanding the context of questions, because that is really what the question is about. People generally know the 'correct answer' and what you actually think/what actually occurred are two very different things. This changes the questions from being actually honestly answered to one where people are looking to give the response that is being looked for. It is a system where lying is encouraged and rewarded, a system that punishes honesty. I'm not trying to pass judgment on the system, but simply illuminate what it actually does. So as I continue my on the hunt, knowing that I will be actively looking to 'give the best response' and hope that I'm rewarded for it.
Thanks for reading,
The Moral Skeptic
The question was a simple one, with what I think is a straightforward answer, 'Have you ever stolen something from a place where you worked?' The answer in the context of a person looking for a job, and being asked that is of course, 'No I've never stolen anything at all, let alone from a place I've worked' or something to that effect. That answer was given by one of my friends, but the other had a much different take on the question. He, being naive, thought that it would be unrealistic to never have taken anything from work before, so he stated that yes he had taken something from a former workplace, a few pens to be exact.
Needless to say that the person who said that he had never stolen anything before was given another few questions to answer and my other friend who said he stole pens (I'm pretty sure he's never stolen anything in his life) was given the message of 'thank you for your application' and no more questions were asked. With that my friend who said he never had stolen anything and myself, had a good time making fun of the naive friend. Yet in the days since then the question stuck in my mind, not because the question itself is interesting, but because of the ramifications it has in the context it is being asked.
I am reminded of the documentary The Fog of War, which is a commentary featuring Robert Mcnamara, the former Secretary of Defense, and his reflection on the life he has lived and the choices he has made. Early on in the film Robert is talking about how he went through school and is put in a position like my friends who applied for Future Shop when he had to do some tests for the Ford Motor company. The interesting question he was given by Ford was. 'What job would you work at in the summer', and there was a list of 4. If memory serves the choices included, a machinist (or something like that) and a florist. Robert knew in this context (An Application for Ford) that machinist was the correct response, despite the fact that Robert had, coincidentally, actually been a florist in the past and really enjoyed it. He ended up saying that he and the group of fellows he did the test blew the test out of the water due to his, and his friends, ability to understand the question in the context in which those questions were given.
Anyway getting back to the Future Shop question, I can think of 2 types of people (Those who have stolen and those who have never stolen from a job site) and because of that there are 4 possible answers for the question:
1. Those who have stolen and will admit they stole.
2. Those who have stolen and will lie about having stolen anything.
3. Those who haven't stolen and say that they haven't.
4. The rare case, to which my one friend fits, those who haven't stolen but think that they should say that they have.
From that we can understand the type of people Future Shop is eliminating from there potential employment with that question. People in types 1 and 4 are the type of people eliminated, those people who are honest enough to admit they have stolen in the past and those who have never stolen, but are really poor at judging the answer to a situational question. The people who will get through are those people who will both lie and steal and those who have never stolen in their life.
I'm not sure that this is what Future Shop had in mind when they made up this question, because I think that most people have taken something from a former workplace, probably something trivial like paper or pens or something like that, but won't admit to somewhere they are applying to work that they have ever stolen something. The people who are punished by this question are actually anyone who is really honest, or really misunderstands the question. That is why this question is so interesting. It is because of the limited responses, the implication of those responses and how people always have to take the context into consideration when being asked a question.
I think what this question really shows is how far our society has come in understanding the context of questions, because that is really what the question is about. People generally know the 'correct answer' and what you actually think/what actually occurred are two very different things. This changes the questions from being actually honestly answered to one where people are looking to give the response that is being looked for. It is a system where lying is encouraged and rewarded, a system that punishes honesty. I'm not trying to pass judgment on the system, but simply illuminate what it actually does. So as I continue my on the hunt, knowing that I will be actively looking to 'give the best response' and hope that I'm rewarded for it.
Thanks for reading,
The Moral Skeptic
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)