The Reason Rally on March 24th is a godsend, um, stroke of luck, in that it’s being held in Washington DC. Okay, I’d rather it be in a city that’s not a pain in the ass to drive through but at least it’s close to me here in central NC, not even a day’s drive away. I can swing that!

Except, I’m actually scheduled to do a seminar that day. And to make it more frustrating, they just issued discount codes on bus fare to the event, and I would have been able to snag a bus only a short distance away for less than gas would have cost me. Since I’m not feeling too confident of the car doing long trips anymore, this would have been great.

By all means, take advantage of this, and check out the Reason Rally event – there’s a lot of great speakers and music, and you can scare the hell out of all of the religious politicians just by being there in numbers. Even the bus ride should be a hoot, and a chance to network a bit.

From my selfish perspective it’s not all frustrating, though – Rock Beyond Belief is being held the following weekend, Saturday March 31st, right here in the state (meaning Ft Bragg, NC,) and I should be able to attend that one. If you can make it to the Reason Rally, you can make it to Rock Beyond Belief too, most likely (unless you went and scheduled to teach a photography seminar on that date like a fool.) As an added incentive, the success of Rock Beyond Belief is needed to spur events like these throughout the country, and the US military needs a reminder that their mission does not involve pushing christianity, so there’s actually a greater reason to attend. I hope to see you there, and I mean that, since it’d be nice to meet someone who’s actually found this site…

By the way, both of these are free to attend, which makes them a better deal than anything except air. Yet, they took a lot to organize, so even if you can’t attend, send them some appreciation, just for making the effort. And spread the word around too – that’s what social networks are for.

Bad UFOs is a skeptical website run by Robert Sheaffer, who writes fairly regularly about both current and older UFO cases. He recently featured a lengthy paper by Tim Printy, who has taken a prominent report from 1957, investigated by the University of Colorado’s ‘Condon’ Report and a few independent investigators, and re-examined all of the details available in what can only be described as a meticulous manner. The results are published in his e-zine and are freely available (just to warn you, this is an 8 Mb, 40 page PDF download.)

The case involved a US Air Force RB-47 electronic surveillance aircraft that had recorded several radar traces as well as visual phenomena (what most people call “lights”) during a flight across several states. I was passingly familiar with the case, having seen synopses of it in both the Condon Report and the rebuttal to this, a report to the American Association for the Advancement of Science titled “Science in Default” from independent UFO proponent Dr. James E. McDonald – it was McDonald’s report that I’d seen first, and even though he was supposedly demonstrating the astounding evidence of this case, the distance between his own accounts of the evidence and the conclusions that he drew did not convince me that he was even remotely impartial. So it was with some surprise to hear that this case has been called among the most convincing examples of “airborne intelligence.”

Suffice to say, Printy pretty effectively demonstrates otherwise. From the fact that there was never any official report filed, through the aspect that not only were most of the details related years afterwards, the aircrew could not even agree on what the purpose of the flight was, to the overriding lack of specifics throughout (much less actual written notes,) a decent lawyer could have had this ‘astounding case’ thrown out of any criminal court in the country. Printy waded through the morass of conflicting details and did his best in making some sense of them, referring as often as possible to information that would corroborate any particular aspect, and ended up with very little that would make this case more than a curiosity. At no time did he offer any firm conclusions, but he did support every question that could be raised regarding the explanations of “intelligence” from other investigations. Long story short: not only is there the distinct possibility that what the crew related were pings of distant radar stations and completely unrelated lights (that are not even clear were in the sky,) only two aspects gave any indication of odd behavior in the slightest, and both of these are so badly documented that they have weight only if one ignores all of the other contradictions and vague measurements throughout the case.

This is what is most interesting about reviewing UFO cases, in my opinion. Proponents very frequently seize on individual details and promote these as devastating facts, without feeling any need to establish accuracy, even when the accounts from the case are wildly contradictory. Much is made of the dependability of trained military (or police, or pilot) witnesses, but when two disagree, the investigator is left with the inescapable logical conclusion that at least one is wrong, not only trashing the value of ‘trained military’ witnesses, but obligating the investigator to try and determine which (if any) was actually right. Printy makes this very clear, as he examines the conclusions of UFO proponents and finds that little confirmation was sought for specifics, nor even a caveat for reasonable doubt (which was present in abundance.) Most remarkable is the idea that this mysterious object (or perhaps more than one – this is actually not clear at all,) that supposedly chased an Air Force plane with precision maneuvers, was using a radar wavelength commonly used by ground-based stations surrounding the flight path. Also interesting is that, despite the claims that ground-based stations actually tracked an object with great precision, not only was there no additional response when the RB-47 abandoned the chase – no fighter aircraft sent up nor any attempt to obtain other radar station traces – nobody involved seemed compelled to even write the details down, much less file a report. Note that this is a military electronic countermeasures surveillance aircraft during the height of the Cold War reporting, supposedly, an unknown pursuing aircraft over heavily industrialized US airspace… and no one gave a shit? This is what serves as astounding evidence of UFO activity? But that’s the whole point, really: The crew was not actually tracking another craft of any kind, but only relating stray radar emissions (not positive contacts from their own radar, but passive signals from somewhere else) and a bright light that did not jibe with any known sources.

Now we step back a little and attempt some perspective. The crew, to all appearances, noticed several curious aspects of this flight – odd radar traces, a bright light that didn’t resemble typical sources, and the report from a ground station that some radar return was matching their own flight path about ten miles distant – and recounted these long afterwards. Indications are, from interviews and the causal aspect of their reporting process, that they did not conflate these together in any way, and were only filing details about the flight that seemed out of the ordinary, certainly not unheard of with military operations, most especially in the earlier days of radar as the various issues with the technology were being ironed out. Because some of those details could indicate something airborne, the case could be considered to fit the definition of “unidentified flying object” and was thus sent on to the Condon report. Accounts of anomalies are made in the military, and in any decently run organization, all the time.

But because “UFO” means “aliens” to the vast majority of those interested in the subject, this case began to be viewed with an eye towards the mysterious, and the details were unnecessarily run together into one phenomenon. The light seen by the pilots became the source of the mysterious radar signals, even though they were not in the same direction at any point in time and did not occur at the same times. And of course, when reported in popular UFO media, even more conclusions are drawn than were ever present in the reports, and this is easy to see for oneself. Simply search for “RB-47 UFO” and look at the myriad ways the event is described.

Printy was fairly circumspect in his paper, too, when addressing the descriptions given by UFO proponent Brad Sparks, considering them “hyperbole” rather than what I consider a far more appropriate term, “credulous bullshit.” Sparks’ claims of “scientific evidence” would perhaps have been more justified if he understood just what the phrase meant, but even more convincing if he had better indicated of what. “Airborne intelligence” is a rather vague term to have established “proof” of, especially if we haven’t defined what “intelligence” is. We have countless forms of airborne intelligence around us all of the time – we call them, “pilots,” and perhaps even, “birds.” Even if one has established a high likelihood of it being an aircraft (this was not even remotely close to being proven,) it is rational to ask what manner of aircraft: Civilian? Military? Rooskies? Jet? Propeller? Hot air? Large? Small? Maneuverable? Clumsy? Noisy? Quiet? Seriously, just what the fuck have you actually found?

And therein lies the problem: all we have is a few radar traces and a light (or perhaps more than one), and it is only through wild guesses that these are considered related, much less “intelligent.” Proponents would certainly like to bring up the contradictory accounts of a radar signal traveling “up-scope,” meaning moving faster than the aircraft rather than passing behind as a fixed station’s signal would have, but this is based on a single comment from interviews long after the fact. I want to point out that no source of S-band radar was in use on aircraft at the time, so a military jet being overtaken by an unknown aircraft actively pinging them almost certainly would have been of remarkable interest to the operator, worthy of more than a passing comment and the subsequent ignoring of the signal.

Also noteworthy is that, in the 54 years since this occurred, not a damn thing has come of it all. This account did not establish a pattern, nor reveal anything in particular. No one since has reported anything similar (much less better evidence of aliens or even “intelligence.”) Proponents may want to seize onto the missing recordings from the flight, according to the account of the pilot. But one must reasonably ask, if the government wanted to cover something up by disappearing the recordings, why did they not plug the biggest leak of all, the six crewmembers who have been interviewed multiple times by civilians over the years?

I suspect that Printy’s exhaustive efforts, if they receive much notice at all, will garner more derision than acclaim, which would be a shame. UFO proponents are notoriously bad about enjoining people to “look at the evidence” but, it appears, only if it supports their own conclusions. Decent investigators are few and far between, largely because too few people will actually pay for a comprehensive investigation that may reveal no aliens at all, but errors in perception instead. Like ghosts and religious miracles, the money lies in credulity, not accuracy. This is largely the reason why I examine the motivations behind belief in the first place.

As with any report of mysterious phenomena, the constant repetition of the same credulous accounts, with details conflated, exaggerated, or even just created from thin air, creates an atmosphere of significance – “why do I keep hearing about these?” But we keep hearing about these because too many people want to believe in aliens (and government conspiracies, and all of the related hoohah,) and this desire affects not only how they view the details of the case, but how they relate them as well. Virtually no one hears the raw data from the source; they hear the accounts from proponents, who have reasons to make them sound significant, whether these reasons be financial, emotional, egotistical, or even malicious. But significance should be determined by how such info can affect us, like with knowledge of alien behavior or advanced technology, not by whether someone merely wants to call it significant.

I used to spend no small amount of time in forums for UFOs and paranormal encounters, and most striking was how often critical examination was greeted with outright hostility. Mind you, I’m not talking about responding to derisive comments from nonbelievers; these did occur, but far less often than was claimed. Instead, what I mean is exactly what Printy has done here: examine the related details with an eye towards accuracy and potential explanations. It was abundantly clear that calling anything into doubt engendered defensiveness, regardless of how unwarranted it might actually be. When a prominent UFO ‘investigator’ was totally punked by a simple photo of an optical mouse, it wasn’t the investigator’s completely bogus interpretation of the photo as a “True UFO” that earned the derision, but the hoaxer’s efforts in revealing the investigator as a bullshit artist. In all seriousness, too many of the forum responses defended the investigator because the hoaxer lied to him. Because, you know, all UFO reports involve people speaking in good faith. It stands to reason that this would make the investigator completely superfluous, of course…

The important question for any individual is, “Do you want trustworthy conclusions, or mere emotional supplication regardless of its accuracy?” I suspect too few people actually ask themselves any such thing, or simply believe that what they seek is trustworthy. Yet, as we recognize that UFO investigations over the decades have resulted in no useful information in the slightest, one must reasonably ask, “What is trustworthy about them?” If every last UFO report simply disappeared from history, in what way would our lives right now be different (aside from, you know, a few hundred sketchy publishers having to sell romance novels instead)?

Don’t get me wrong; I’m actually in favor of investigating anything anomalous, and in doing so with vigor. But such investigations should be done without foregone conclusions or unnecessary correlation and conflation. The RB-47 case remains yet “unexplained,” which says nothing more than “unexplained” – this does not open the door for aliens, government conspiracies, secret technology, time travel, witchcraft, or anything else anyone can imagine. In fact, this actually means that its usefulness is nonexistent. Our bar should remain higher than that.

Such distinctions escape me. I have repeatedly asked (never receiving an answer) in what way someone’s own religion differs from the particular splinter sect named in the news. Now, in all fairness, it’s important not to over-generalize, lumping things into broad categories specifically to avoid the distinctions that make significant differences, something that people are far too prone to doing in the first place. Yet, it’s not enough to draw a line in an arbitrary location and say, “but this happened on that side of the line.” Such a thing can be done ad nauseum, as Zeno demonstrated pointlessly, but does this actually address the cause in the first place?

If we ask, “Why did the haredim abuse little girls?“, the answer is, “Because their books told them that this was right.” If we then ask, “What makes them think their book is right?”, we receive a lot of vague answers about personal revelation, tautological referrals back to the book itself, or demands to respect a belief system. The kicker is, we can apply this to any religion named throughout the world, making distinctions among faiths, sects, and facets rather pointless, wouldn’t you think?

Lest anyone goes off on me for broadening the field unnecessarily, I’m going to point out that one of the most frequent arguments I hear in favor of religion is, “So many millions of people around the world can’t be wrong.” It seems that broadening the field is just ducky when it’s used in favor of one’s own practices, and that the distinctions between religious sects aren’t significant enough to warrant a more accurate count when it comes to supporting numbers.

Before I continue, I also want to highlight another interesting aspect of belief. I have yet to come across any particular religion not supported by claims of personal revelation, miracles, and the authenticity of their holy book and artifacts; however, the only ones that seem to count for religious folk are those that support their own religion. All others are roundly ignored – because they’re false idols? Because everyone else in the world is now delusional? Again, I’ve asked, but somehow this question falls on deaf ears. Of special note is the whole ‘respect’ angle, where religious folk decry how their beliefs are not being respected, beliefs that almost invariably involve not respecting others in one way or another. It’s very hard to see this as anything other than egocentric special rules, and frankly I’ve given up on trying – I realized that, in considering such arguments for more than a second, I was pursuing a concept of ‘fairness’ that actually involved being grossly unfair to everyone else who fell outside the argument. Religion, with too few exceptions to bother bending over backwards to highlight, involves little more than selfishness to an astounding degree. Even those who ‘selflessly’ limit themselves to “spreading the good word” do so from the standpoint that they’re doing something good, without in any way establishing support for this belief in their own special position.

Returning more to the original point, we can attempt to see excessive behavior (of any kind) in terms not of arbitrary distinctions, but of measurable ones. When it comes to abuse, what comes up with significant frequency is the underlying idea that the abuser holds a higher position than the abused; a privilege, as it were. [The alternate motivation of abuse is that the abuser feels threatened by the abused, which bears its own separate examination.] While our competitive minds latch onto anything supporting privilege far too easily, it results in little more than petty bullying until there is a greater cultural emphasis on such privileges – in other words, until there is more support from greater numbers of people, reinforcing the idea that this must be ‘right.’ As numerous examples throughout history demonstrate inarguably, rational support of such ideas isn’t really necessary; more often, some weak justification is accepted quickly on the sole basis that it serves to support the emotional concept of privilege.

Now, we turn to considering what happens when a few factors are established in a culture, such as:
a) considering personal revelations and older texts as reasonable ‘evidence’;
b) respect for belief systems and spirituality;
c) the idea of a greater authority that lacks demonstrable evidence or value.

What this establishes is a situation ripe for abuse, since little more is needed to generate a sense of ‘privilege’ than calling it a religion. The values that are claimed for religion are immeasurable, and subjectivity rules. Objective values to distinguish one from another are specifically avoided.

Worse, a special situation is created, where actually asking for something measurable, some distinctive benefit (much less reason for privilege in the first place,) is frowned upon, sometimes to the point of crying “persecution!” The very concept of value, that not only our society, but our whole social structure is based upon, gets discarded in lieu of some ‘diplomatic immunity’ called religion. A frequent defense of supernatural authority is, astoundingly, that we can’t prove it doesn’t exist. We also get to see, with alarming frequency, the abuse of others not on the basis of strengthening a community or even ‘saving’ people, but as demonstrations only of personal piety.

Thus, when someone tries to claim, “It’s not my religion!”, I have no issues with saying, “Yes, it is. The very rules that you depend on are the ones that provide for abuse, and your own belief structure enables every other.” Like the post title implies, does anyone really need to differentiate one fairy tale from another to make the argument that following fairy tales isn’t really beneficial to us?

The inevitable response to this accusation, naturally, is that some good comes from religion. I could be nasty and ask how one could tell it isn’t some good coming despite religion, but that’s not even necessary. It’s much simpler than that: if you’ve got some good bits, then you actually know how to find them. Perfect – you have a working brain! Keep the good bits, and get rid of the bad ones. If there are important distinctions to be made, I would certainly think that one qualifies above all others.

Most especially, while privilege is a nice thing to have, perhaps it should actually come from hard work and the efforts to improve society as a whole, rather than self-indulgence. You know, status granted by others, not by professing a personal belief system. Just a thought.

Which is, naturally, why so much of this blog deals with critical thinking; it is (part of) my own contribution towards correcting this, and an exercise in reaching people. Not to mention that critical thinking has also been remarkably informative, about nature, about behavior, and about how things work overall, so I find it pretty cool, actually. The crankiness is what led to skepticism, as I struggle to understand why people are so spastic sometimes. Belief in things without firm evidence is rampant in our society, and it does make you wonder why. Herewith, some of my musings on why this is so often seen, and how it works out that way.

First off, people are complicated. Our minds are very dynamic, having to deal with the rigors of everyday living, the propagation of the species, and the vagaries of abstract thought. A simple solution to irrationality is too much to expect, much as we’d like one, and we have so many influences on our decisions that knowing exactly what the motivation of any one aspect is would be impossible. Yet there must be at least some pattern for such behavior to be common. Much of our daily behavior, regardless of what we’re actually doing, can trace back to instinctual influences that formed the backbone of our development as a species.

This list is probably incomplete, and I may add to it later on. Not all of the items are required for belief in questionable things, and some of them are actually contradictory. While many of the influences on our behavior are the same, individuals may emphasize some over others due to their own personal experience, for example. That’s part of what makes tracking these down so hard. But take a look and see how many you recognize:

The need for simplicity: Probably the biggest contributor. We want things to be simple, understandable, easy, validating, and so on, so when we find something of this nature, we tend to stop looking. For instance, the various cancers are widespread illnesses that crop up for reasons we have little understanding of, and so we cannot plan to avoid them very well. This is frustrating, and it makes many people seize onto the false claims of alternative treatments and preventive measures. Moreover, we don’t like ambiguity, and prefer to see firm, well-delineated choices, so anything that provides this is preferable to something vague, regardless of accuracy. In reality, it’s actually safer to say that firm answers are extremely rare, and anything promising such is suspect.

Importance: Not surprisingly, we have a drive to be important, to have some kind of impact, to “make a difference.” We’d be hard-pressed to find someone who has no desire to be better than they are (and would probably worry about their mental health if we did.) From hanging out on forums about UFOs and paranormal phenomena, one of the more frequent aspects seen is the idea that believers hold a special position, able to see that which the average person cannot. In other words, they have a higher status because of their knowledge of the subject. In this way, they stand out from the “sheeple,” the masses who remain ignorant of the True Order Of Things, whether by ignorance or manipulation from some organization – the secret government, Big Pharma, Bilderberg/Illuminati/Zionists, aliens, and so on. An interesting sidenote is that our folklore is rife with the lone hero who blows apart the conspiracy or causes the collapse of the power structure, yet our history yields almost no instances of this ever happening.

“Specialness”: While related to ‘importance,’ above, this one deserves its own attention. Many of us treasure some unique experience, something that sets us apart from others, giving us knowledge and insight that they do not have. This is reflected in the near constant one-upmanship that takes place among any group of people. Note that such experiences do not have to be positive, either, and that a certain cachet is obtained from going through something traumatic or injurious – this is perhaps a reflection of how strong we are. When it comes to, for instance, seeing a UFO or surviving an illness, we tend to resist explanations that would reduce the special quality of this experience, so ideas that we were fooled by a star or recovered without the assistance of green tea are anathema.

The puzzle drive: We want answers, and we get a sense of accomplishment from finding solutions. We engage in silly games and have a fondness for mysteries precisely because of this. It would also appear that we get internal negative feedback when we cannot find answers, or are wrong. These are fantastic drives and lie behind virtually everything we’ve added to our knowledge. So when something out of the ordinary is noticed, like a puff of ‘smoke’ from the side of a collapsing building, we have some impetus to figure it out. Of course, the more complicated and difficult the puzzle, the greater the sense of accomplishment we have when we find the solution. It’s easy to see how conspiracy theories fit into this aspect, and why such elaborate machinations are advanced as solutions.

Personal accounts: We are heavily biased towards stories and experiences from someone that we know, or have simply seen (on TV for instance,) and this even extends to someone we haven’t met or seen a photo of, but that we can converse with online. Very frequently, such anecdotes will take precedence over any scientific findings or research study, regardless of how many sample points and rigorous tests such sources utilize. Perhaps this is because we trust face-to-face encounters more, and believe that better information comes from ‘real people’ and not ‘data,’ despite the fact that it is thousands of times easier for ‘real people’ to lie to us. Too often, an eyewitness account or a personal success story is viewed as sacrosanct, something that many salespeople know very well.

“It’s not my fault”: Strange as it may sound, a very significant amount of beliefs are built around the idea that, if true, it would absolve the believer of certain responsibilities, and/or explain why their lot in life wasn’t as good as it could be. The sudden surge of ‘repressed memories’ and ‘childhood sexual abuse cases’ a few decades ago was actually a symptom of this, as is a certain number of ‘alien abduction’ cases, and the idea that ‘toxins’ can explain everything that keeps us from feeling 100% healthy. The believer latches onto such things as an explanation because it gives them a reason why they might have problems with success, fitting in, and so on – something that we all deal with from time to time.

“We are being controlled”: There is a certain amount of resistance to the idea of a larger-scale society, perhaps the thought that this is a denial of free will. Governments, large corporations, and other such entities are thought to have the ability to control a populace, which to some extent is correct. While this is obviously a problem if it’s for selfish or nefarious purposes, such attributions may simply arise from the resistance to being controlled in any manner. It’s easy to see the resentment over any government that requires contributions, such as taxes, but does not act in the interests of the contributors. It’s but a tiny step into government conspiracies, which can then be used to explain the lack of evidence for any other belief as well, such as the US military suppressing the evidence of aliens.

Lost childhood: When we were young, many things were ‘magical,’ including talking on a telephone to someone thousands of kilometers away and watching batter turn into cake. So much was fascinating and ready to be discovered. As we got older, we began learning how most of it functioned, and the magic went away, replaced by science and physical laws. This sense of wonder and fascination often disappeared, and is usually missed. So when something is introduced that retains this ‘magic,’ too often we’re influenced by this desire to accept such things at face value, rather than examining it critically. This is seen in such common topics like ‘spirituality,’ and ‘other ways of knowing,’ and various realms beyond our reach. That such ideas are supported only by ancient stories or blurry photographs doesn’t ever register.

The land of milk and honey: This is a tricky one, and one that I’m not aware of any research done in the field, so a lot of this is speculation; bear with me a bit.

There is a direct relation to the ‘Lost childhood’ section above, where something fantastic or mystical lies just outside of the realm of our senses, or just beyond the reach of science. But it’s not just the pining for the awestruck days of youth – it also incorporates the drive to explore, and seek new experiences.

Many cultures are also rife with the concept of someplace nearby that is much better than normal; paradise, Avalon, valhalla, through the wardrobe, over the rainbow, behind the mountain, in the next valley, across the water, down to Ft Lauderdale, and so on. A few centuries ago, explorers sought all sorts of magical lands, from El Dorado to the Fountain of Youth, Hy-Brasil to the Kingdom of Saguenay. We are a species that explores almost entirely due to such beliefs – something pretty damn cool is just waiting to be found. Curiously, while probability indicates that the chance of finding something bad is at least as great as finding something good, we’re often more convinced that such explorations will be beneficial.

Is this a survival trait that we evolved? It’s hard to say – even though it seems to have worked, this might only be because enough of the land surrounding the African continent where mankind first arose is temperate enough to be hospitable; bear in mind that the planet is littered with failed expeditions as well. But it’s easy to see where a belief that something better is just around the corner can lead to some questionable practices, especially when so much of our planet is explored and no longer mysterious.

Is there a pattern to all of this? Unfortunately, yes: virtually everyone possesses the above traits and instincts to some degree. It seems clear that ‘belief’ isn’t a defined trait, and that we can’t pin down what makes some particular topic ‘fringe’ or ‘irrational’ – and by extension, no way to classify people as such either. The crucial factor seems only to be how well we can examine our reasons, and/or recognize that subconscious desires and emotions can affect our thinking. And as mentioned before, our ability (or lack thereof) to examine alternatives and see what might hold the most weight.

Sometimes, finding out that something is ‘human nature’ causes people to think that it’s inevitable or uncorrectable, but this is hardly the case; we have numerous traits that are human nature, yet easily controlled by rational thought. Think of our sex drive, desire for certain foods, and even the various behaviors that we vicariously enjoy through movies and books. Those things that subconsciously influence us are easily overcome by conscious action. Unfortunately, a lot of people respond to these subconscious influences by rationalizing instead, thinking that if they hold a particular view, they must have arrived there for a good, conscious reason, and this is perhaps the hardest thing to overcome. There is often a mutual support structure in place within the mind, one that isn’t going to collapse with a single piece of good evidence or a strong argument. But, these things can start the decay, and as long as someone doesn’t expect to see immediate results, these are still among the best tools to help bring about critical examination.

Seen this way, however, the crankiness with which I (and likely others) view such instances of fatuous belief is lessened considerably. People, while not exactly victims of their instincts, are nevertheless influenced in ways that they may not even be aware of, responding to the same kind in inherent goads that make birds build nests and cats bury their feces. Most, if not all, of these traits have specific benefits in the right circumstances, and evolution simply hasn’t achieved enough specificity to temper those traits in inappropriate circumstances. That’s where the rational parts of our brains come in, though sometimes it takes some gentle (or not so gentle) reminders to engage them.