Syriana - Deepak Chopra's comments (possible spoiler)

[burythehatchet]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-lesson-of-syriana_b_12897.html

I thought his post was pretty accurate, at least in terms of capturing the way I felt after seeing the film. It left me feeling cold and depressed although I would recommend that everyone go see it because it is a wake-up call. There was nothing about the storyline that I found implausible, and that sense of reality was a very stark reminder of the deep shit in which we find ourselves as long as the neo-cons, the DLC, and their corporate masters rule the world.

Some comments from Chopra's post:

It would be difficult, if we take this film as being realistic, not to despair over our current situation. "Syriana" is about the insidious corruption that oil money engenders in everyone, whether Arab or American, who comes close to it. George Clooney, who plays a CIA operative--meaning a killer when necessary--is the most conscientious character we meet, except for two enraged Arab brothers, whose arc is to begin as workers in an oil field and end up as suicide bombers. The twin themes of money and death make for a grim two hours.
...
The lesson I took away from "Syriana" is that the oil market is another tentacle of all-embracing globalism. To demonize that fact is easy, but globalism confronts us with enormous openings. We are all enmeshed in the same tangled reality, and although this film uses scare tactics to awaken us to that truth, "Syriana" feels exactly right.
...
At the moment there is chaos--murders, espionage, bad faith, corrupt motives, and all-dominant greed. But we are quickly learning that when the right hand is cut, the left hand bleeds. Suicide bombers can shatter Wall St., oil companies can disrupt politics, and espionage can lead to powerful lies instead of reliable information.

[Fovea]

1. Are we talking about this Deepak Chopra?

http://www.tpj.org/docs/pioneers/pioneers_view.jsp?id=548

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Doubtful

The OP is about the (famous) Deepak Chopra the Skeppers hate, not the Freepers.

The famous one is fairly left-wing.

"Deepak" is a fairly common Indian first name, as "Chopra" is a common family name.

For example, there is/was also a Deepak Chopra in the Philadelphia area, who lived about a mile from where I once did; I suppose there are three or four each in the NYC and Los Angeles areas, as well.

--p!

[sasha031]

3. thank you for clearing that up

he is a contributor to the DNC

http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Deepak_Chopra.php

what is a skepper?

[trotsky]

4. A "skepper" is apparently a derogatory name

for someone who doesn't automatically accept what they're told.

[sasha031]

5. does it come from skeptical?

[trotsky]

6. Yes, I believe so.

Skeptical, skeptic, etc.

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Derogatory? You mean, like "Woo-Woo"?

I've seen that one used hundreds of times at DU alone.

As for doing what you're told, the Skeppers are no less guilty of that kind of obedience than the Woo-woos.

--p!

[trotsky]

8. Ah, of course.

The "But Ma, he did it first!" defense.

Who tells skeptics what to do, if we automatically question what we're told?

[beam me up scottie]

9. Why our dear leader Randi.

Don't you pay attention to what the woo woos say about us?

:rofl:

[trotsky]

10. How could it have slipped my mind?

I was just glancing over at my Randi shrine, even!

What are our marching orders for this week? Did you get the broadcast e-mail yet?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dogmudgeon]

19. Obsessed? Moi?

I usually try to figure out what someone believes before I accuse them of a kind of belief I oppose.

I don't have a special group where I can post the alarm about every skeptically incorrect statement I notice.

I can't recall the last time I made over 20 ridiculing or name-calling posts in a single thread. Or 50. Or, in one case, 75.

I don't have special macros for "BWA-HA" and the ROTFL man.

I also don't participate in dog-piles with four to ten of my best Skep group pals piling on a single DUer.

Meanwhile, how's that search using the terms "beam me up scottie" and "woo-woo" coming?

You also accuse me of being obsessed with you for "far longer" than since July 27th, 2005. Obsession is a form of mental illness. This is, therefore, a personal attack. I will accept a brief, non-self-debasing admission of error in lieu of apology. I do not seek your submission, simply something that used to be known as "fair play".

Pride and aggression are a lot more fun, aren't they? Nearly all of your posts are in the Skep group, and the few that aren't simply deal with Skep subjects -- I've seen all of three exceptions to that, and only in the last month. That's okay, but this is a political message system. You should probably refrain from using the word "obsession" as sloppily as you do.

Because it's just silly.

--p!
"... (Jack's warriors) who killed Piggy ..."
(William Golding, Lord of the Flies)

[beam me up scottie]

21. Strike a nerve?

Awwwwwwwwww :nopity:

You're getting the attention you so desperately crave, quit whining.

Or maybe you could ask for a special group to whine in peace.

You could team up with all of the others with persecution fantasies that bait certain groups of DUers until they get a response only to pule about it to anyone who will listen.

Yip yip yip !

[Dogmudgeon]

20. Ms. Rhodes?

I like her programs, too, but I never thought she was involved in that Skep stuff.

The shrine thing may be taking it a little far, though. But that's just my own personal sense of things.

Of course, I don't tune in every day, so I may be a little behind in my listening.

--p!

[trotsky]

22. Ohhh, so a "skepper" is someone who listens to Randi Rhodes.

OK, got it now. Thanks! :thumbsup:

[Dogmudgeon]

34. Y'know, I was wondering about that

But does Ms. Rhodes know? :)

--p!

[salvorhardin]

11. That's a goddamn lie!

I know so because I just got done fellating Randi and he told me! :rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

13. BWAHAHAHAHA !!!

But it was MY turn!!!:mad:

[salvorhardin]

14. You're right

Woowoo is a silly and sometimes insulting word to use. I've been trying to encourage the use of credophile.

[beam me up scottie]

15. But the DU spell check just started recognizing "woo woo".

:evilgrin:

[depakid]

17. Skeppers are no less guilty???

If one is skeptical- one looks at the evidence and follows where it leads. Where evidence is reasonably inconclusive, they use the precautionary principle- and err on the side of least likely harm.

In game theory- there's something very similar that's called maxi-min strategy. Choose the course that will result in the best-worst outcomes. Truly rational skeptics will choose that strategy in most non-zero sum games.

[salvorhardin]

18. That's wrong

Minimax doesn't work well for non-zero-sum games. It leads to non-optimal outcomes. For instance, in the prisoner's dilemma minimax would dictate that both prisoner's confess. When it comes to non-zero-sum games, tit-for-tat is the best strategy. Minimax will not work either in infinite games where there are no fixed rules or boundaries. Minimax also presumes rationality where the actors will work in their own best interests. That is so often not the case, especially in economics and politics.

[depakid]

24. That's for n-player games

Mini-max works for two player (or sitation) single instance games (you can use it with more complex games with best results too)- and it's analogous to the case in point (a policy decision), whereas tit-for-tat (Rappaport's solution for iterative games) isn't.

Great stuff to model, though.

[depakid]

26. Not applicable.

[salvorhardin]

28. Sorry, you're wrong

Minimax only works for finite, zero-sum games. In non-zero-sum games it produces less than optimal results. It does not work at all for infinite games. Your original statement about minimax and non-zero-sum games was bullshit. Michael Rappaport is a right wing ideologue and supply sider.

[depakid]

29. I'm not talking about optimal results

In conditions of uncertainty, which is what many policy decisons are - you almost always want to use maxi-min.

You don't want to take the chance of a worst outcome- which is what you might get by trying to optimize.

Policy decisions usually aren't prisoners' dilemmas (though something like the Tragedy of the commons, is)

Of course, it would be nice if you had some probability numbers for the outcomes- but in many situations (like this one) you don't. Plus- you run into Merton's unintended consequences- so you can't even be sure of the actual cost/benefit of any of the decisions.

Logically then, you want to avoid the worst outcomes. As in my example.

oops! :silly:

Thought this one was the immigration consitutional amendment thread. gak!

Some of this obviously still applies. That's teach me to look at the "my posts" link more carefully.

[salvorhardin]

31. I think what you're trying to get on about

Is the mini-max regret criterion. It still does not apply in non-zero-sum games and requires perfect knowledge of the game.

And I just figured out that you mean the mathematical psychologist Anatol Rapoport rather than the Milkin lovin' supply sider Michael B. Rappaport. I was confused by your mis-spelling.

[depakid]

33. I was thinking of Anatol Rapaport

The systems thinker and game theorist. I don't care for Micheal, either.

For a quick threadjack (I don't get to talk about this stuff much)

Robert Axelrod was interested in finding a winning strategy for repeated prisoner's dilemmas games. He conducted a computer tournament where people were invited to submit strategies for playing 200 games of prisoner's dilemma (Axlerod and Hamilton, 1981). Fourteen game theorists in disciplines such as economics and mathematics submitted entries.

These 14, and a totally random strategy, were paired with each other in a round robin tournament. Some of these strategies were highly intricate. But the result of the tournament was that the simplest of all strategies submitted attained the highest average score.

This strategy, called TIT FOR TAT by its submitter Anatol Rapoport, had only two rules. On the first move co-operate. ON each succeeding move do what your opponent did the previous move. Thus, TIT FOR TAT was a strategy of co-operation based on reciprocity. By conceptualising reciprocal altruism as a series of prisoner's dilemmas we can see that TIT FOR TAT might be the Evolutionary Stable Strategy for our reciprocal altruism adaptation. It might even help to explain the evolution of co-operation in a more general way than Trivers' theory of reciprocal altruism.

[Dogmudgeon]

30. This is true

Please note (and please note I've said "please note" a number of times in addressing this subject across many threads) that there is a difference between skeptical thought and "Skepping".

Take a look at some of the many posts in this thread. A lot of them have been made in response to my own quip about the phony "outing" of Deepak Chopra. There's also a lot of back-slapper "me-too" responses. It's nothing more exalted than a dog-pile. Trotsky even posted an "all points bulletin" of sorts on the Skepticism (sic) forum to call the troops out, the automatic kind of honor-culture response.

Notice, too, that NO ONE so much as asked my opinion of Chopra, or other Skeptically Incorrect ideas. The DU "Skeptics" have never done so. Not ONCE. They avoid evidence of any kind. They either don't want to sour their game, or don't want to deal with actual and substantive criticism of their social movement.

So what do I want? I'm not looking for the WWF championship cup here. I would be happy if organized Skepticism took a critical, perceptive look at itself, and to hell with their churning-bile heroes (see below). But then I realize, most people who get involved with "skepperly" Skepticism are not in it for the advancement of Science or a search for The Truth. Some do it for credentialing a non-existent or impoverished CV. Some do it to polish a questionable Reputation as a scientific Renaissance Man. But most just do it for a reason to rumble.

I am quite familiar with things like game theory, formal and informal logic. Yes, they are important in any discussion of clear thinking, but to conflate Internet Skepticism with clear thinking is quite a leap! Most of what passes for "skepticism" is ridicule and sissified gangfighting, mostly in imitation of the rhetorical tactics of Skeppers who have had more inchoate rage than scientific acumen. Admired heavyweights like Martin Gardner, the much-referred-to James Randi, Phil Klass, and Penn Jilette, among many others. (I am unable to find so much as a single PhD in any scientific discipline among them. Can anyone help with this?)

Those who earn the reputation of being skeptics, rationalists, and thinkers do well to not involve themselves in the Rotisserie League Science that is organized Skepticism, or "Skepping". Exposure to ridicule by Skeppers is of the same order of correction as exposure to the "prayers" of The 700 Club. Unfortunately, it's gone long past the point of being "ha-ha" funny -- or even "bwa-ha-ha" funny.

--p!

[beam me up scottie]

32. Yip yip yip!

[salvorhardin]

35. Is it true

That those little purebred doggies have a high incidence rate of seizures and other brain disorders?

[beam me up scottie]

36. You mean the ones that shiver all the time and always pee on the floor?

I think so.

That may be why they yip so much too.

[Dogmudgeon]

38. Another poser (Pigwidgeon) is no match for the Mighty Skeptics!

Hey! BMUS made a new macro! It's "Yip yip!"

It joins "BWA-HA" and the ROFL Man.

Aren't computers great? They let you do all sorts of Scientific things, like compose catty macros.

But I must not be yipping too much, since most of the 30-odd posts here are from Skeppers piling the old ad hominem on me -- the same way Pat Robertson prays for me. (And can't you guys even try out a new rhetorical fallacy? All this Ad-H stuff is so freshman-year!) I think this is about #6 for me, compared to about 25 against me. And why would that imbalance exist?

It's kind of funny, you know, BMUS? I think there's a term for people who can't fight on their own, the way that Skeptical Fellows prefer to do.

What do they call that kind of behavior?

Cowardice, maybe?

Cowardice in a fight. Cowardice in intellectual discussion.

Funnier still -- all of the posts made to my detriment are sarcastic, mocking, and ridiculing -- as I said, catty (no macros required). Not one of them deal AT ALL with ANY issue of the Science you (pl.) claim to champion. And let me UN-subtly telegraph it just one more time -- not one single DU Skeptic has EVER engaged me in an actual, for-real discussion of what my contention about the Skep Movement might be.

Not one. Not once. Never. Nada.

But save your phony pity and violin macros, BMUS, for your parents or your ex or whomever set you on your path of bile. And gloat to your heart's delight. I have no fear of "Skeptics" who are unable to argue without having several of their friends around for a good ol' LiveJournal-style dogpile. But if it soothes your rage to think so, "so mote it be!" as the Wiccans like to say. (I'm not a Wiccan, either, but once again, if you want it to be so ...)

The bulk of the people looking at this may think I'm a twice-damned fool for replying to such infantile bullshit. And they would be absolutely correct in making that judgement.

But just think of the esteem they'll hold the Skeptics in.

--p!

[beam me up scottie]

39. Bringing my parents into this, Piggy? And you alerted on me?

You are truly a piece of work.

I guess I did strike a nerve.

Here's another, it's too bad your faux "spiritual" experiences and your insecurity about them clouded your perception of skeptics, but I notice it did the same with doctors and scientists.

They say brain damage can do that.

That's why I don't blame you.

I pity you.

[trotsky]

37. *We* avoid evidence?

Good grief, Pigwidgeon, if you have any evidence whatsoever that Chopra is anything but a huckster and fraud, please present it! As I recall, when it gets down to the nuts and bolts of evidence in a thread, you're usually one of the first to change (or avoid) the subject.

I posted in the other group so fellow DUers could get a laugh at the silly little name you (?) concocted. People should know when they're being called names, shouldn't they?

Too many problems in this country are caused by a surplus of credulity and a dearth of skepticism. Skeptics such as myself see very little difference between some of the silly ideas parroted on DU and things we find among the general American population like "Bush is a godly man" and "Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11." Any time unsupported ideas are presented, they SHOULD be attacked with gusto. If they have any sort of real evidence to back them up, the skeptics will be put in their place! And wouldn't you just looooove to do that?

[beam me up scottie]

40. I think his personal attacks are a good indication that he has none.

He whines about skeptics every chance he gets and yet he won't respond to your challenge.

I wonder why?

[Dogmudgeon]

42. "The Waiting Is The Hardest Party" (Tom Petty)

My apologies, O Wise One.

I know that like small children and third-world tyrants, most Skeppers do not like to be kept waiting.

Sadly, grown-ups occasionally need to get some work done, and deal with li'l ol' problems as they come up. It will happen from time to time; if you're still sad about it, look at the upside: You get much more free time. In the interest of extending the proverbial olive branch, I'll make a couple of suggestions:

1. You can make more of those cute little animations.


2. You can program more macros to keep the ROFL Man company and to further the aims of Sound Science.


3. You can work on the navigational electronics for the Mars Project.


4. You can hunt the Web for more dirt on Haters Of Science like Yours Truly.


5. You can do some Democratic activism like the name of this website suggests.


6. You can continue your PhD work on the physics of electrons in charged infrasolar plasmas.


7. You can work on that CSICOP Fellowship that tells the world: "I'm a Real Scientist!"

You see, you can't just be a Scientist. You have to leave a body of work, and I'm afraid that spam-style posting in Democratic Underground (remember DU?) doesn't quite qualify.

Yip, yip ... Yippee!

--p!

[serryjw]

16. You scared me.......I love the REAL

Deepak Chopra..who is a MD NOT a MR!

This is the one you are referring to:



http://www.osi-systems.com/management_main.html

[Neil Lisst]

23. Christopher Plummer Character = James Baker

I thought the film covered important territory, but the editor needs a beating.

[burythehatchet]

25. yeah, I caught that too nt

[Neil Lisst]

27. I took my son and his girlfriend to see it yesterday

When I leaned in and said "James Baker character," as Plummer developed, he smiled and nodded approvingly.

There are other characters loosely based Texas oil men, but not so obvious. That chilling spiel with the second son was pure James Baker.

Our conclusion on the film was unanimous: Important material poorly edited, poorly presented. In my view, it lacked clarity, and it wouldn't have taken much to fix that. I look forward to getting the DVD.

[mucifer]

41. this weekend I saw Syriana and Munich. Both good films.

Both about violence causing more violence and no end in sight.