What lecturers think when students say…

Now, you might think that I’ve turned into a jaded and cynical old man when you read the following. And you might be right. I should also emphasise that there are many things students say that are not silly or irritating.

As for the rest…

Student: I don’t understand X. [Silence] (Extra points for incoherent babbling between the words “don’t” and “understand”.)

Lecturer: Okay. So you’re going to fix that, right? I mean, there is all that stuff I’ve been saying for the last N weeks, which you’ve been paying money to hear about. Quite a lot of money, if you recall.

Student: What do I write here? (Extra points for saying this after a detailed explanation has just been given.)

Lecturer: What should you write, or what you’re going to write? From the looks of things, you’re going to write total bullshit — oh look, you already have — because your question demonstrates a preoccupation with the mindless act of putting ink on paper to the exclusion of actual learning. Of course, the real trick is to write the correct answer, but this may unfortunately require you to understand all the stuff I’ve been saying.

Student: How should I format my answer? (Extra points for total misunderstanding of where and why marks were actually lost on the last assessment.)

Lecturer: You have two options: you can format it so that I can understand it (looks to the contrary notwithstanding, I am in fact an ordinary human being), or you can make it look like gibberish. Now, having thought carefully about the implications of those two options, you may be inclined to ask how to do the former, to which I humbly advise you to learn your shit and stop conflating your lack of understanding with a mere “formatting” deficiency.

Student: You took X marks off me here — that’s too harsh! (Extra points for inventing a rationale based on a vague and completely fictitious set of Rules of Marking.)

Lecturer: I took X marks off because you were wrong, a fact you’re not apparently disputing. I must now point out that being wrong isn’t a good place from which to be arguing for different marking criteria, since your judgment is now compromised both emotionally and intellectually — a double whammy of fail. In trying to diminish the importance of your first error, you are in fact compounding it with a second one. Perhaps we should revise your mark downwards a bit more…

Student: What do you mean by this question here? (Extra points for not saying anything else at all.)

Lecturer: Is that a trick question? The words are right there on the page. They go together into sentences to represent meaning. Would you like some different words? You know we all love to spend hours flailing around for alternate phrasing without the slightest clue as to what part you don’t understand.

Student: This question is ambiguous. (Extra points for saying “sort-of ambiguous”.)

Lecturer: Ah, now sometimes that does happen. But hopefully it has also occurred to you that a question may well appear ambiguous if, in fact, you have no idea what you’re doing. Let’s not jump to conclusions.

Student: Is the exam going to be hard? (Extra points for having failed everything so far.)

Lecturer: In the far future, science will have unlocked the mysteries of the human mind, and I’ll be able to peer into your head in order to predict the intellectual and emotional challenges that you in particular will face when confronted by a series of questions assessing your personal level of comprehension. Until that time, why are you asking me how hard you will find it?

(In fact, should said future come to pass, I wouldn’t need to give you an exam in the first place, so actually the question never makes sense.)

2nd/3rd-year student: I need some help with [basic introductory concept]. (Extra points for having come to this realisation after an entire semester, or even an entire year, of needing to have already understood said concept.)

Lecturer: Yes, funny thing about university courses (or at least those not yet dumbed down to the point of irrelevance) — you actually need to know the stuff you get taught in first year. Another way to put this might be: you actually need to know the stuff you’ve been paying other people to do for you and fraudulently submitting as your own work.

Student: Yes. (Extra points for saying this in response to something that could not possibly be interpreted as a yes-or-no question.)

Lecturer: You haven’t understood a single thing I’ve just said, have you?

Look everyone, I’m being ethical

It is the fate of all blogs and media outlets to weigh in on #GamerGate at some point. Let’s not pretend now that I stand apart from the Global Media Conspiracy — we all know I’m in it up to my eyebrows.

It has unfolded in a kind of frantic, ongoing information disaster of the scale and fervour that could (probably) only happen via social media. Picture a derailing train of infinite length, where flaming, wrecked carriages pile up around the landscape without end, the rest of the train, with its unlimited momentum, relentlessly ploughing into the crash site.

Except it’s all virtual, right? Nobody gets hurt. Sticks and stones.

Well.

Where do we start? The voyeuristic hate-mongering over other people’s personal lives? The doxxing? The miscellaneous death threats? The rape threats? A bomb threat? The threat of “the deadliest school shooting in American history“? Oh yes, and the blessing of the neo-Nazis at Stormfront. (We Hunted the Mammoth provides a rather good record and commentary on such things.)

Nothing to fear except fear itself. And all that stuff I just said.

And yet, there are actual real people who sincerely believe that GamerGate is about ethics. Take @BlackOscuros, who I’m picking on only because I’ve had a conversation with him. It was reasonably civil, and included discourse like this:

Here I’m inclined to call for a little sense of perspective. Precisely how much sexism and harassment — how many rape threats and death threats — must occur before the injustice of an article pronouncing “Gamers are Dead” is taken down a notch on our list of priorities?

It’s also telling that, slightly earlier on, @BlackOscuros had this to say:

I was rather taken aback that someone would place their own movement — one ostensibly founded on ethics — in such ignominious company. Surely any sane person would abandon a movement long before the most positive thing that springs to mind is “it deserves a fair trial, like the Nazis”. Don’t oversell it.

What I can see now is that GamerGate is an issue of identity. That’s why it’s defended so fiercely, despite all that has happened. The “ethics in game journalism” trope serves as justification in the minds of GamerGaters themselves, and that’s it. It’s not the reason for the existence of the movement any more than thetans are the reason for the existence of Scientology, or scientific rigour is the basis of climate change denialism. They’re all about identity — belonging.

It’s not enough, for some people, to merely promote ethics in game journalism. You need to be a GamerGater. You need to self-identify. And then it really becomes about you and your comrades. You’re in it together; all for one.

After all, people have been fighting for ethics in journalism for a long, long time — as long as journalism has existed — and it’s never been a “-gate” before. Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and others enjoy almost cult-like celebrity status as revealers of media dishonesty on a far greater scale than GamerGate deals with, but even they are not a “movement”. Similarly, I’ve witnessed the silliness and dishonesty of Australian media every week on MediaWatch for years, but Paul Barry, Jonathon Holmes and other presenters have never (as far as I know) spearheaded a large amorphous online gathering of armchair media critics. They’ve always just got on with the job.

“Actually, it’s about ethics in video game journalism,” is the refrain now subject to so much parody.

Why do we find it funny? Because the fact that it has to be said in this manner confirms the total failure of the movement to advance the goal. Because a movement that spends most of its time and effort (a) harassing prominent female game developers and critics, and (b) defending itself from accusations of such harassment, cannot simply claim arbitrarily to be about something else.

Nobody listens to a movement so easily discredited by its own adherents (not people like @BlackOscuros, but rather the sort who openly vilify and threaten others). Why should they? There are many thoughtful, rational commentaries on media ethics outside of GamerGate that one can brood over without having to wade through an endless vapid confrontation conducted in 140-character spittle. If GamerGate’s adherents had ideas worth more than their own egos, they would drop the baggage — leave the movement  — and simply talk about their ideas, free from any association to misogynistic dropkicks.

But they don’t. They stay and dig in, fighting an imaginary battle for their own survival.

Insulting Islam

I came to know of Uthman Badar recently via the news that his talk at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas, titled “Honour Killings are Justified”, had been called off. It’s certainly a provocative title. My instinct was not to take it at face value, and Badar himself said it would be “ludicrous”, but it’s difficult to make an assessment of a talk that never happened.

Since information is scant on that topic, I’d like to address something else Badar has raised in this article (in a publication called 5Pillarz, which describes itself as “an opinion and analysis-based website which concentrates on British Muslim news but also looks to the wider Islamic world”).

I’ll start at the end, where Badar finally says:

Hence all beliefs and sanctities should be protected from insult, including that which is most sacred to billions around the world: God and His Prophets, peace be upon them all. This should be done, in our present context, by the elevation of values, not imposition of law. You can’t regulate civility. You can’t force people to be respectful. This is about elevating the human condition -reviving the sacred and the most basic value of human decency, which has been eroded by secular liberalism in the most hideous of ways.

(My emphasis.)

Badar would have done well to say this up-front. Up until those final sentences, you get the distinct impression that he is talking about the imposition of a blaspheme law, or something like it.

After all, he spends a fair bit of time tearing down the notion of free speech; indeed, the piece is titled “Free speech is a liberal tool of power”. Badar does make a some reasonable points when he argues against the notion of an absolute right to free speech. Many of us are quite open to being persuaded, in particular situations, that free speech is absolute. It clearly isn’t, though, and there are many times where, for good reason, we simply cannot (or should not) say whatever we please. All of us know this, at some level, but we do not always remember it.

I agree with much of what he says, but his free speech argument doesn’t really support his broader point about the protection of belief from insult. It looks like it does, on the surface, but it’s a subtle non-sequitur. By “protection” Badar means something other than by means of the law. But free speech is fundamentally a legal notion. It implies that we have (at least some) legal protection, not necessarily moral virtue, when we choose to say something controversial. Libertarian defenders of free speech are often happy to concede the moral argument entirely (focusing instead on what they conceive to be a higher principle — individual rights).

The upshot is that free speech is the apples to Badar’s oranges. Badar’s argument that we should encourage (not enforce) civility by the “elevation of values” does not require a step back from free speech. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the legal protection of free speech at all, either in theory or practice. (Some people, particularly committed ideologues, do often mistake criticism of their ideas for an attempt to silence them, but we need not give their complaints credibility.)

Putting the free speech issue aside, Badar also runs into trouble when he tries to distinguish between “insult” and “critique”:

When it comes to critique – as opposed to insult – I’d say, bring it on. Any attempt to quash or stifle serious debate is unacceptable in Islam. Critique of any ideas or beliefs is kosher. It’s halal. Insulting any beliefs or people is not. Critique Islam all you want. Write in measured, considered tones about why Islam is not the truth, or why the Prophet was not a prophet. Such books fill bookstores across the West as it is. Never have any of these books resulted in a riot. But to mock, to denigrate, to provoke, to agitate – that is something else, and is unacceptable.

A very fine line indeed, you might think. Badar tries to make it concrete by praising “critique” and damning “insult” in the strongest terms he can, but that’s emotional reasoning, and doesn’t actually serve to distinguish the two very well.

The real problem here is that the magnitude of the disagreement between religious groups, or the religious and non-religious, is so large that speaking honestly, openly and concisely about what you think of someone else’s beliefs is almost inherently mocking, denigrating and provocative. A debate? What “debate” would you have with someone who sincerely believes that the sky is green, or that we’re inhabited by ghosts who came from a volcano blown up by an ancient extraterrestrial? Your inner voice is not weighing up the evidence and formulating critiques. It’s saying “WTF?! Okay, just smile and nod. Smile and nod”.

Sure, we can, in theory, sit down for a few months (or even years) to meticulously explain in a weighty treatise where some belief system went wrong. “Never have any of these books resulted in a riot”, Badar claims, for those books that address Islam. I don’t actually know if this is true, but there is a logic to it — the longer and more detailed the explanation, the more opportunity the writer has to demonstrate (or fail to demonstrate) that they operate from a position of intellectual rigour and not malice. But writing books is a pretty high bar to set. A little forethought is always a good thing, but I don’t think one should be asked to refrain from commenting on a contentious issue unless or until one has devoted months of one’s life to researching and expounding the topic. This would just create a kind of intellectual aristocracy that shuts out most people.

Of course, we can be diplomatic and simply not point out how absurd we find the claims of (other) religions. For the purposes of maintaining harmonious relationships across belief systems, such discretion is necessary much of the time. But we must also be seekers of truth. Falsehoods have real consequences (see Iraqi WMDs, doomsday cults, vaccine denial, climate change denial, etc.), and we cannot always sit idly by while people are lured into believing something we know to be false. We know people are hurt by having their beliefs questioned, especially if those beliefs are held as dearly as religion often demands. But the same people, or others, or the wider community, can often be hurt even more if those beliefs are left unchallenged.

And so we must at least occasionally speak up, not because “it’s a free country” (as if there was any logic to that), but because we’re sincerely trying to do the right thing. I don’t excuse the trolls whose motivation actually is to upset people by mocking their beliefs. If Badar is only talking about genuine trolls, then so much the better. But removing the trolls will not stop people taking offence at the comments of others; the problem is more complicated than that.

I’ll address other aspect of Badar’s article: his take on “secular liberalism”, which comes off as a little defensive:

But, let’s be honest, the reason this debate over the freedom to insult others is still a live one is because secular liberalism has dominated both East and West, not by the strength of its values, but by the strength of its militaries.

I won’t deny that the military might of the West (and others) has won it great power over the rest of the world. But are we really blaming liberalism for that? Liberalism is just one part of the political spectrum, not a banner under which Western armies march. Consider the internal politics of a country going to war — the nationalistic fervour, the secrecy, the paranoia over enemy propaganda and enemy infiltration. This is not liberalism, nor is it secularism. It was not liberalism nor secularism that advocated for the US invasion of Iraq, nor the Russian war in Chechnya. Liberals in the west are constantly being criticised by conservatives for being too weak to confront Islam, a charge to which they respond (broadly speaking) by calling for peace.

If there is peace to be made between the Western and Muslim worlds, secular liberalism will be a vital ingredient. The whole point of secularism is the peaceful coexistence of different belief systems. Where the word is co-opted to mean something else, this (I think) usually means the speaker feels threatened by such a heterogeneous society. For instance:

This is about elevating the human condition -reviving the sacred and the most basic value of human decency, which has been eroded by secular liberalism in the most hideous of ways.

There is also a certain level of hypocrisy in railing against insult while simultaneously levelling accusations of “hideous” erosion of “the sacred and the most basic value of human decency” at one’s opponents. Surely, if beliefs are sacred, then secular liberalism is entitled to the same basic level of respect as Islam.

Besides, the above statement is simply wrong, and demonstrably so. Consider the changes in Western society over the last fifty or so years. Erosion of human decency? What about the advancement of women’s rights, gay rights and the rights of (at least some) racial and religious minorities? What about the advancement of medicine and health care and the de-stigmatisation and management of mental illness and disability? None of these are fixed problems, of course, but you can’t easily deny that there’s been progress. Are these things not elevating the human condition?

Badar is thinking of Western militarism, and (though he doesn’t say it) he could also be thinking of the widening wealth gap between rich and poor, both of which are arguably erosions of human decency. I’m not sure that Western militarism has any particular philosophical basis, other than the basic tribal instinct to be as big and powerful as you can. You might legitimately blame the wealth gap on economic liberalism — the philosophy of small government. Economic liberalism has tended to ally itself politically to religious hardliners, who are opposed to liberalism in the secular/social sense.

While Badar is right about the limitations of free speech, and right about the importance of civility, he seems bent on hitting the wrong target. But then, the same thing happens when the ABC’s Scott Stephens writes about the perils of the faltering influence of Christianity. The ills of the world are arrayed before us and, whatever they are, we can be sure that it’s the damned secularists wot dun it. The varied religions of the world are getting quite good at this, and it serves their purposes (at least temporarily) to have an adversary who won’t get righteously outraged at being insulted.

It’s not even really secularism that they spurn (because, as mentioned above, secularism is merely peaceful coexistence among religions). Their true adversary is the absence of religion, including atheism and agnosticism, but also apatheism — a category for those who essentially don’t care. Defenders of religion devote so much of their human compassion, morality and civility to their cause that they conflate these qualities with their religion, and they forget, I think, that the same qualities exist outside of religion too.

Don’t mock George Brandis

He’s trying to be intellectual.

In fact, today’s xkcd comic about free speech is delightfully well-timed, considering yesterday’s remarks by George Brandis about free speech in an online magazine called Spiked.

The magazine quotes Brandis as follows:

He isn’t a climate-change denier; he says he was ‘on the side of those who believed in anthropogenic global warming and who believed something ought to be done about it’. But he has nonetheless found himself ‘really shocked by the sheer authoritarianism of those who would have excluded from the debate the point of view of people who were climate-change deniers’. He describes as ‘deplorable’ the way climate change has become a gospel truth that you deny or mock at your peril, ‘where one side [has] the orthodoxy on its side and delegitimises the views of those who disagree, rather than engaging with them intellectually and showing them why they are wrong’.

Quite so, George! It’s deplorable that we’re arresting climate change deniers, gaoling them after secret trials, banning their books, preventing newspapers and TV stations from repeating their claims, and…

Oh wait, sorry, that’s what isn’t happening. It’s confusing, isn’t it?

What’s more confusing is that, while George has identified authoritarianism as the problem, he himself is the Attorney General. I don’t know if you quite understand how authoritarianism works, George, but it usually involves the government, or at least whoever is in control of the military. Is your government in control of the Australian Defence Force, George? I know this isn’t your portfolio, but perhaps you could quickly reassure us that someone else isn’t in control of the military.

And having made said reassurance, perhaps you could then explain how a bunch of scientists and activists can, without military force, engage in “authoritarianism”. Unless said scientists have developed some sort of mind-control weapon with those mysterious fountains of grant money they (apparently) keep swimming around in.

Oh, but I think I see the source of the confusion. You see, it’s not that deniers are being prevented from speaking. Indeed, they are some of the most outspoken people in the world. Rather, it’s that gangs of merciless intellectuals are refusing to take the deniers seriously. Now that is a deplorable violation of human rights if ever there was one. The deniers’ views are being delegitimised, George says. I mean, nobody has even contemplated “engaging with them intellectually and showing them why they are wrong”.

Except, now that I think about it, everyone. It’s a fine line, I suppose. I mean, it’s easy to mistake intellectual engagement for authoritarianism when your arguments are repeatedly shown to be an exemplar of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I say “repeatedly”, because no denier argument, however frequently refuted, ever just goes quietly into the night.

Of course, there is the outside chance, as deniers endlessly regurgitate long-refuted arguments and complain that nobody has “engaged” with them, that some of us may tune out.

Sorry George, I know I shouldn’t be “authoritarian”, but sometimes, when I’ve had a long day, it’s difficult to accord due respect and deference to bullshit, even yours.

WA senate election 2014: allegiances

At first glance, it’s difficult to make much of the group voting ticket (GVT) data.

One of the most important bits of information, I feel, is whether each party preferences the Liberals before or after Labor. Or, to ask a slightly more complicated question, how does each party rank the most likely winners? The answer would allow us to categorise microparties’ own ideology, which can otherwise be tricky. Quite often, the only other readily accessible information on microparties is the blurb they put on their websites.

I’ll look at the top five parties, by primary senate votes received in the 2013 federal election. These are: Liberals (2.7 quotas), Labor (1.9 quotas), Greens (0.66 quotas), Nationals (0.35 quotas) and Palmer United (0.35 quotas). These parties are the main game1.

So, I’ve boiled down the group voting ticket (GVT) data to a set of rankings of these parties2. Based on the results, there are a few clear categories. Nonetheless, there’s a lot of confusion as to whose side Clive Palmer is on (other than his own). However, the person of the moment must be Labor’s Louise Pratt, who has been treated almost as an independent in the preferences of several minor parties.

I couldn’t think of a good way to visualise this graphically, so I’ll just use bullet points.

Allies of the Coalition, enemies of the Greens

The following parties (with a rather libertarian flavour) all put the Coalition ahead of Labor, and the Greens last:

  • Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party
  • Australian Voice
  • Building Australia Party
  • Freedom and Prosperity Party
  • Liberal Democrats
  • Mutual Party
  • Outdoor Recreation Party (Stop The Greens)
  • Palmer United
  • Shooters and Fishers
  • Smokers Rights

These parties all place the Liberals and Nationals next to each other (one way around or the other). However, they disagree over Palmer United, with some putting PUP first (including, obviously, PUP itself), and others putting it behind Labor, but still ahead of the Greens.

There are four more parties that basically fit this mould, but which seem to be making personal judgements of certain individual candidates:

  • Australian Christians (concerning Joe Bullock and Linda Reynolds)
  • Democratic Labour Party (concerning Louise Pratt)
  • Family First (concerning Louise Pratt)
  • Rise Up Australia Party (concerning Louise Pratt)

These all have a very social conservative flavour. In what seems like a personal grudge, The DLP, FF and RUAP have taken special care to put Labor’s Louise Pratt after even their Greens arch-enemy, probably for being particularly outspoken on social justice issues. And, for reasons that escape me, the Australian Christians have elevated Labor’s Joe Bullock above the Liberals’ Linda Reynolds.

Neutral on Labor vs Liberal, but still hate the Greens

There are two parties running dual tickets, with the order of Labor and the Liberals switched around:

  • Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party
  • Katter’s Australia Party

Both place PUP and Nationals first and second, and the Greens last.

Prefer Liberals, but (perhaps) don’t mind the Greens

Another two parties that stick out:

  • Australian Sports Party (which, of course, won a seat in the recount, and then lost it again when the election was annulled)
  • Republican Party of Australia

These two prefer the Liberals, Greens and then Labor, in that order — a relatively unusual combination recently (though it used to be common practice for the Liberals themselves).

Allies of Labor/Greens, but Labor first

This rather short list of parties (plus independent) put Labor first and the Coalition last:

  • Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party
  • Russell Wolf (independent)
  • Sex Party

HEMP puts PUP ahead of the Greens, while the other two put the Greens ahead of PUP.

Allies of the Labor/Greens, but Greens first

A few more parties put the Greens and Labor ahead of the other three major choices:

  • Animal Justice Party
  • Pirate Party
  • Secular Party of Australia
  • Socialist Alliance
  • The Wikileaks Party, which gives special consideration to the Greens’ Scott Ludlam and Labor’s Louise Pratt, placing them individually before the Greens and Labor.

These parties also tend to prefer the Nationals to the Liberals, except for Animal Justice (which possibly associates the Nationals with shooting and slaughtering things). They put PUP anywhere from 3rd to last.

[ Addendum (2014-03-24): the Animal Justice Party actually has dual tickets, both of which interlace the positions of the Labor and Greens candidates, two-by-two; i.e. two Labor candidates, then two Greens candidates, then two more Labor, etc. One ticket starts with Labor, the other with the Greens. ]

Finally, there are three more special cases:

  • The Australian Democrats have dual tickets, both preferencing PUP and then the Greens, but alternating the positions of Labor and the Coalition.
  • The Sustainable Population Party has three tickets that rotate the positions of Labor, the Greens and the Coalition. At first glance, this appears to be neutral, but if you look closely you’ll see that, on balance, the Greens come out slightly ahead and the Liberals slightly behind. (You could arrange three tickets such that any three parties are evenly-preferenced, so it’s informative that SPP hasn’t done this.) They also put the Nationals first and PUP last.
  • The Voluntary Euthanasia Party has dual tickets, both of which put the Coalition last and favour the Greens over Labor, yet single out Labor’s Louise Pratt again for special promotion. One of the tickets puts Pratt ahead of the Greens, and the rest of Labor ahead of PUP, while the other puts Pratt behind the Greens, and the rest of Labor behind PUP.

Conclusion

If you’re voting below the line, hopefully you’ll find this analysis useful in developing your own preferences. The ephemeral microparties often have very positive-sounding names, but it’s difficult to know at a glance what they’re really all about.

Even if you’re voting above the line, this may still give you a rough idea of who believes what, so that you know what you’re doing when you write that single “1” on your giant ballot paper.

Update (2014-03-24) — full preference list

For completeness, here’s the actual list of major preferences. For each party, the top five parties are listed in order of preference. Numbers in brackets indicate the number of contiguous candidates. Where lone candidates appear separate from the rest of their party, their names are shown.

Party Ticket # Major Preferences
The Wikileaks Party A 1 Greens (LUDLAM), Labor (PRATT), Greens [5], Labor [3], Palmer United Party [3], National [2], Liberal [4]
National B 1 National [2], Liberal [4], Palmer United Party [3], Labor [4], Greens [6]
Independent: Russell Woolf C 1 Labor [4], Greens [6], Liberal [2], Palmer United Party [3], National [2], Liberal [2]
Australian Democrats D 1 Palmer United Party [3], Greens [6], Labor [4], National [2], Liberal [4]
Australian Democrats D 2 Palmer United Party [3], Greens [6], National [2], Liberal [4], Labor [4]
Pirate Party E 1 Greens [6], Labor [4], National [2], Palmer United Party [3], Liberal [4]
Labor F 1 Labor [4], Greens [6], Palmer United Party [3], National [2], Liberal [4]
Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party G 1 Palmer United Party [3], National [2], Labor [4], Liberal [4], Greens [6]
Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party G 2 Palmer United Party [3], National [2], Liberal [4], Labor [4], Greens [6]
Freedom and Prosperity Party H 1 Palmer United Party [3], National [2], Liberal [4], Labor [4], Greens [6]
Voluntary Euthanasia Party I 1 Greens [6], Labor (PRATT), Palmer United Party [3], Labor [3], National [2], Liberal [4]
Voluntary Euthanasia Party I 2 Labor (PRATT), Greens [6], Labor [3], Palmer United Party [3], National [2], Liberal [4]
Liberal Democrats J 1 Liberal [4], National [2], Labor [4], Palmer United Party [3], Greens [6]
Australian Voice K 1 Palmer United Party [3], National [2], Liberal [4], Labor [4], Greens [6]
Building Australia Party L 1 Palmer United Party [3], National [2], Liberal [4], Labor [4], Greens [6]
Mutual Party M 1 Palmer United Party [3], Liberal [4], National [2], Labor [4], Greens [6]
Family First N 1 Palmer United Party [3], National [2], Liberal [4], Labor [2], Greens [6], Labor [2]
#Sustainable Population Party O 1 National [2], Greens [6], Labor [4], Liberal [4], Palmer United Party [3]
#Sustainable Population Party O 2 National [2], Labor [4], Greens [6], Liberal [4], Palmer United Party [3]
#Sustainable Population Party O 3 National [2], Liberal [4], Greens [6], Labor [4], Palmer United Party [3]
Palmer United Party P 1 Palmer United Party [3], National [2], Liberal [4], Labor [4], Greens [6]
Australian Sports Party Q 1 Palmer United Party [3], Liberal [4], Greens [6], Labor [4], National [2]
Liberal R 1 Liberal [4], National [2], Palmer United Party [3], Labor [4], Greens [6]
Shooters and Fishers S 1 Palmer United Party [3], Liberal [4], National [2], Labor [4], Greens [6]
Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) T 1 Labor [4], Palmer United Party [3], Greens [6], National [2], Liberal [4]
Republican Party of Australia U 1 Liberal [4], National [2], Greens [6], Labor [4], Palmer United Party [3]
Smokers Rights V 1 Liberal [4], National [2], Labor [4], Palmer United Party [3], Greens [6]
Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party W 1 Liberal [4], National [2], Palmer United Party [3], Labor [4], Greens [6]
Australian Christians X 1 Liberal [3], Labor (BULLOCK), Liberal (REYNOLDS), National [2], Palmer United Party [3], Labor [3], Greens [6]
Secular Party of Australia Y 1 Greens [6], Labor [4], National [2], Liberal [4], Palmer United Party [3]
Rise Up Australia Party Z 1 Liberal [4], National [2], Palmer United Party [3], Labor [3], Greens [6], Labor (PRATT)
Greens AA 1 Greens [6], Labor [4], Palmer United Party [3], National [2], Liberal [4]
Democratic Labour Party AB 1 National [2], Liberal [4], Palmer United Party [3], Labor [3], Greens [6], Labor (PRATT)
Katter’s Australian Party AC 1 Palmer United Party [3], National [2], Labor [4], Liberal [4], Greens [6]
Katter’s Australian Party AC 2 Palmer United Party [3], National [2], Liberal [4], Labor [4], Greens [6]
Animal Justice Party AD 1 Greens [2], Labor [2], Greens [2], Labor [2], Greens [2], Palmer United Party [3], Liberal [4], National [2]
Animal Justice Party AD 2 Labor [2], Greens [2], Labor [2], Greens [4], Palmer United Party [3], Liberal [4], National [2]
Sex Party AE 1 Labor [4], Greens [6], Palmer United Party [3], Liberal [4], National [2]
Socialist Alliance AF 1 Greens [6], Labor [4], National [2], Liberal [4], Palmer United Party [3]
Outdoor Recreation Party (Stop The Greens) AG 1 Liberal [4], National [2], Labor [4], Palmer United Party [3], Greens [6]
  1. Of course, another microparty could slip through once again, as the Sports Party, Motoring Enthusiasts, Democratic Labour, Liberal Democrats have done recently, but that scenario requires a rather different sort of analysis. []
  2. I’ve used an R script to do this based on the AEC’s CSV data. I’m happy to share it if anyone is interested. []

WA senate election 2014: GVT rankings

The senate group voting tickets (GVTs) for the 2014 WA Senate election have now been released in CSV form. This allows me to do what I did last time.

First, here are the median positions of each party among all parties’ preferences:

wa-senate-gvt-pos-2014We’ve lost a few parties since last time:

  • One Nation;
  • the Australian Independents;
  • No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics; and
  • the Socialist Equality Party.

And we’ve gained a few more to make up for it:

  • the Building Australia Party;
  • the Democratic Labour Party;
  • the Freedom and Prosperity Party;
  • the Mutual Party;
  • the Pirate Party;
  • the Republican Party of Australia;
  • the Socialist Alliance (not to be confused with the Socialist Equality Party); and
  • the Voluntary Euthanasia Party.

And there are two groups of independents:

Of the parties contesting both elections, here’s how their GVT positions have shifted since the 2013 federal election (based on WA GVTs only):

wa-senate-gvt-diff-2014Negative numbers here mean that a party has migrated towards the start of preferences, which is a good thing (for them). Positive numbers mean the reverse.

It’s curious that the established parties: Labor, Greens, Liberal and National are all beneficiaries of the shift. The major losers appear to be a collection of microparties, plus Family First. (In particular, I’m pleased to note the precipitous fall of the Rise Up Australia to the end of just about everyone’s preferences, as well as the complete absence of One Nation.) Perhaps the microparties’ exceptional performance in 2013 has made them seem less cute and cuddly than they were before. Nevertheless, many of them still adorn the prime real estate near the top of other parties’ preferences.

Labor and the Greens have also improved their standing with respect to the Liberals (though the Greens are still the least favoured of all the parties with a realistic possibility of claiming seats). Presumably there is now less of a frantic push to get Labor out, since that goal was roundly achieved last time. The fulfilment of Tony Abbott’s particular legislative ambitions perhaps doesn’t attract quite the same level of urgency.

Democracy sausage 2014

In 2013, a small group of geeks, including myself, began mapping the locations of sausage sizzles and cake stalls on election day. So far we’ve done this for the 2013 federal and West Australian state elections. We were interviewed briefly on ABC local radio. [brushes hair back heroically]

It turns out that these elections just keep coming. We have South Australia and Tasmania on Saturday, and WA again in three weeks. And we’re ready (unless I’m lying, but that hardly ever doesn’t happen).

We have a website — democracysausage.org — at which you can plan your route to the nearest sausage/cake-equipped polling booth, or just marvel at the distribution of democracy sausage purveyance.

We also have a Twitter account — @demsausage — and a hashtag — #democracysausage — with which you can notify us of new and wonderful democracy sausage and cake opportunities. And please do! This is how we collect the data to build our map.

So, let us know on election day, or before it, if you spot a sausage sizzle or cake stall, or if you’re helping to organise one.

(I should mention that, for the 2013 federal election, we were somewhat out-gunned by another, unaffiliated group whose website was/is electionsausagesizzle.com.au. We’re not sure if they’re planning anything this time around.)

Sorry Tony, you fail the Turing Test

It’s election time again, and that means its also incoherent-shouting-about-taxes time. Tony Abbott is quick off the block, claiming that “the carbon tax and the mining tax are anti Western Australian taxes.”

It’s almost too drearily, predictably inane a comment to warrant analysis. But one of Abbott’s skills, I now realise, is his soul-crushing dreariness, the effect of which is perhaps to make his opponents give up out of sheer mind-numbing boredom. He’s even worse when you actually listen to him — I can feel the long seconds of my life slipping away during the exaggerated “ah”s and “um”s that litter his speech, pointlessly punctuating a collection of words that are already drawn out and so devoid of substance that they may as well have been randomly generated. That is, by an “Ab-Bot”, if you will1.

Isn’t it a bit patronising to start calling the carbon tax “anti-WA”, when the fight has always been a national one? Presumably, had the AEC lost 1,375 ballot papers in Victoria instead, Abbott would now masterfully be describing the carbon tax as “anti-Victoria”.

Isn’t it a bit condescending to be attacking the carbon and mining taxes without even trying to offer an argument? He has in the past, of course, but since we’re still having this fight, are we fighting over ideas, or are we now just being assaulted by keywords intended to make us go crazy?

And I always think we let off politicians and commentators rather lightly for their liberal use of the “anti-” prefix. For something to be “anti-WA”, it should in principle constitute a direct existential threat to the state — an issue that brings into question the very survival of Western Australia. But while my last power bill included an estimated “carbon component” of $14.282, I can assure all concerned that I am not, in fact, teetering on the edge of oblivion. We’ve all faced down greater threats to our existence than that.

One of the threats we continue to face, it bears repeating ad nauseam, is climate change itself. The debate over the carbon tax, or rather carbon pricing generally, is lost if we forget why it was implemented in the first place. And no, it won’t instantly make climate change go away — it’s part of a very long term struggle to mitigate the damage we’re doing as a global civilisation. Nonetheless, seen in that light, a few dollars on your fossil fuel power bill, to encourage renewable energy, is not a great deal to ask. That’s the argument that needs to be made, because it’s the truth.

But it’s too risky a strategy, Abbott must think, to inject actual information or reasoning into anything he says. He’s not stupid himself, but he seems to think (or perhaps he knows) that treating us like idiots is his best chance.

  1. I can’t possibly be the first person to have made this terrible, terrible joke. But I am making it. []
  2. Higher for some, no doubt, but I would guess still very small compared to things like food and rental/mortgage payments. []

Teaching SE: code as design

Software engineering lecturers have some misconceptions to grapple with — students’ certainly, but also our own.

One is this: we have tried to carve out an unambiguous1 distinction between software design and software implementation. In a previous post, I discussed a 2nd-year unit that historically focused on the Unified Modelling Language (UML). This unit purported to teach software design, to the exclusion of the “implementation” of that design. The unit content consisted almost entirely of diagrammatic notations (parts of UML) that, we assumed when they were first introduced, would stand on their own as the language of software design. The unit mentioned almost nothing about code, because we considered code to be a low-level implementation detail already covered in other units.

“UML is how you will write software”, some of us thought (to varying extents). “What comes after is just a labourer’s job.”

We2 wanted to believe this, probably because it seemed to imply that SE was maturing, that it was starting to develop efficiencies that would make current practice look like dark-age superstition. The notion of having separate “design” and “implementation” phases has been taken from older engineering disciplines (to some extent), in which a physical object is first designed, then constructed. That strict progression seems obvious. Design is the intellectual effort — the problem solving — while construction is physical creation of what you’ve designed.

Our UML fixation also owes something to the fact that diagrams play such an important role in older engineering disciplines. How would you construct a plane or a building without any diagrams to work from? You could do it, by describing measurements using only words and equations, but it would be painfully inefficient and error-prone. Why would you not want a picture of the thing you’re about to create? For software engineering, UML seems to slot naturally into this role.

We also noticed that software development requires you to think at different levels of abstraction. Initially, the work is highly abstract, big-picture stuff: whiteboard sketches and high level specifications, both of which have often been done with UML (or, historically, other diagrammatic notations). Work then progresses to more concrete and finely detailed stuff: code. There seems to be an obvious distinction here: a design phase, complete with diagrams, and a construction phase.

But this was always a conceptual mistake. Both activities are design, and there isn’t a construction phase at all (at least, not one that has any significant cost). The big-picture diagrams and the finely-detailed code are both purely intellectual; they’re both part of a single problem-solving exercise — one big design phase. The problem solving doesn’t stop until the coding is finished, and it often goes back on itself, with some whiteboarding required in the midst of coding. What would you think of the engineering of aircraft, buildings, etc. if you knew that the engineers routinely conducted critical redesign work half-way through physical construction? It’s not so much that software engineering is radically different3, but that we’ve been misusing the terms.

Real-world SE uses the term “building” or “build process” to refer to a set of automatable steps — compiling, linking, packaging, running unit tests — that turn the code into a finished product4. SE education forgets this a bit, but it’s a much closer analogue of the construction of a physical object than is the concept of the software “implementation”.

Once you accept that coding is, in fact, fundamentally a design activity, you realise that you cannot really teach software design without coding. If you take the coding out of software design, you’re really just left with an empty shell.

Our UML unit suffered because students were unable to connect UML’s diagrammatic notations to the things software actually has to do. Buildings and planes have schematics that broadly look like the physical object; there is an intuitive spatial relationship. But software has no tangible existence. A software diagram has nothing to do with what the software looks like, because software doesn’t look like anything. Software diagrams are no more than an aid to problem-solving. And how could we expect students to undertake problem-solving — design — without access to the one notation — code — in which the solution must be written?

Ultimately, code is everything. UML diagrams are merely subsets of the information present in code. They are abstract representations that highlight a few key details at the expense of many others. This can be very useful, but only as a way of organising your understanding of the code. Almost perversely, UML shows the big picture but never the whole picture. Experienced software engineers will understand the kinds of information omitted from a UML diagram, and thus what work remains to be done. But without code, students will look upon the diagram itself as the thing they need to master, without seeing it as merely a view of something more complicated.

Last year, alongside introducing patterns, I gave students a non-trivial amount of coding to do. (In hindsight, I probably gave them too much, to the point that it became a significant drain on their time, but such things can be recalibrated.)

In the weekly practical sessions, students formed into groups of three (or so). Over the course of the semester5, they worked on developing three pieces of software: an image viewer, library catalogue and a blog editor. Each system would be developed in a different language: Java, C++ or Python6, with the students choosing which language to assign to which system. Code, of course, is not just one notation, but many. The use of multiple languages was intended to show that software patterns (and other design concepts) apply to different languages and in slightly different ways.

Each week, I gave the students a few extra requirements for each system, drawing from the topics covered in that week’s lecture. This was all non-assessable — just preparation for the tests, assignment and exam.

A further twist was that students rotated between the different projects within their group, so that one group member would work on the image viewer one week, the library catalogue the next week, then the blog editor, then return to the image viewer, and so on. This would expose each student to three different languages, and also to the challenges of working with other people’s code. In practice, students became frustrated at the inability of their colleagues to actually finish their assigned tasks. That suggests I have some more thinking of my own to do, but I hope that these frustrations themselves served as a learning experience.

The unit still includes UML as a way of organising broad concepts. In fact, the introduction of code makes it easier to talk about UML. Students and I can use it to focus on the design concepts we need to convey, without getting too bogged down in superficial syntax or arcane rules.

By giving students the opportunity to write code, we give them all the information and the complexity that software design actually entails. Armed with that insight, they are in a better position to understand what design diagrams are for, and they can use them more effectively.

  1. Well, sort of. We occasionally pay lip service to the concept of an overlap. []
  2. Almost certainly not everyone believed this. Those who didn’t probably have some entitlement to point and laugh. []
  3. Software engineering is different — all engineering disciplines are different from each other, in terms of the methods and tools used — but we need not manufacture more differences than actually exist. []
  4. Or, rather, a potentially working product. The software build process is exceptionally cheap, because it’s automatable and has no material costs, so it’s done early and often. []
  5. In practice, mostly in the first half of semester, due to mounting stress levels and triaging of study effort. []
  6. There are many possible choices, of course, but I sought languages that were widely used and represented a diversity of approaches, but which basically adhered to the traditional OO paradigm. Java is our baseline teaching language (giving it the edge over C#). C++ stands out because of its pervasiveness and unique (if somewhat horrible) challenges. Python is a good representative of the dynamically-typed languages. []

Fred Singer’s climate consensus denial

So I read with some bewilderment1 a recent article by Professor S. Fred Singer on climate change. It jumps around a bit but mostly tries to attack the idea of scientific consensus. Singer’s logic leads from platitudes like this:

Scientific veracity does not depend on fashionable thinking.

to risible conclusions like this:

In other words, the very notion of a scientific consensus is unscientific.

This makes less sense than the reader comments beneath climate-related news articles. Take any established theory from any other scientific discipline — General Relativity, the Standard Model of particle physics, Evolution, Germ Theory, Genetics, etc. ad infinitum. If you follow Singer’s logic, these are all “unscientific”, not just in spite of overwhelming scientific support, but actually because of it. Presumably something can only be “scientific” if a large number of scientists disagree with it. This takes denialism to a whole new level.

The fallacy underlying Singer’s thinking (assuming, for the hell of it, that he’s actually being honest) is that “consensus” is equivalent to groupthink. Singer hasn’t apparently grasped the idea of a conclusion being arrived at independently by many people. But that’s what you should generally expect to happen if (a) we live in a universe that obeys rules, and (b) those people apply sufficient rigour in their observations and analysis, as scientists are expected to do.

But why is consensus important? Because we rely on experts all the time. An “appeal to authority” is perfectly rational when there is a disparity in expertise, as between climate scientists and laypeople. It’s not the scientists who rely on scientific consensus. They rely on rigorous observation and analysis. But laypeople lack the time and expertise to do the same, and for them (us), the notion of a scientific consensus is immensely important as a way of assigning credibility to particular scientific ideas.

Singer’s article actually begins by denying that any consensus exists at all, which is contrary to a number of surveys, and (if you pay attention to those who write about this sort of thing) the absence of any significant pool of climate expertise on the sceptic side of the debate. Singer is aware of the 97% figure — the proportion of climate scientists who agree that climate change is real and human-cased. His response? First of all:

The degree of consensus also depends on the way the questions are phrased.  For example, we can get 100% consensus if the question is “Do you believe in climate change?”  We can get a near-100% consensus if the question is “Do you believe that humans have some effect on the climate?”  This latter question also would include also local effects, like urbanization, clearing of forests, agriculture, etc.

The word “some” (underlined by Singer) is the key to his whole argument — an issue of wording on the survey questionnaires. Here are three surveys (of actual real-world climate scientists or climate science papers) that have each independently reported a 97% consensus:

  • One by Doran and Zimmerman (2009) that I discussed three years ago, which asked scientists the question: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” (my underlining).
  • One by Anderegg et al. (2010), which classified 1,372 climate researchers as either convinced or unconvinced of the IPCC’s position, which is of course that humans are making a significant contribution to global temperature increases.
  • Another by John Cook et al. (2013), who examined and categorised 11,944 climate-related abstracts. Abstracts that minimised the impact of humans, or claimed that humans contribute less than half of the total effect, were counted as a rejection of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This is another term for human-cased climate change, of course, but one that makes explicit its global nature.

In order words, the bar is set a lot higher, and so the consensus a lot more meaningful, than Singer makes out. Those who believe that humans are having “some” effect on the climate, but only a local or minimal one, have not been counted in the consensus.

Singer himself brings up a fourth survey by Oreskes (2004), which also found a consensus view among published papers. Singer only mentions this in order to dishonestly imply that something scandalous happened:

…after being challenged, Oreskes discovered having overlooked some 11,000 abstracts — and published a discreet Correction in a later issue of Science.

The “discreet” correction is advertised in large capital letters across the top of the downloadable PDF. The correction says:

The keywords used [in searching for papers] were “global climate change,” not “climate change.”

Not quite the same thing as “overlooking 11,000 abstracts”, which is Singer’s preposterous interpretation2. And notice that even the correction itself, raised by Singer just to spread doubt, again undermines his own point — we’re talking about global climate change here, not local effects.

In the midst of this, Singer has the audacity to cite his own survey without furnishing us with the wording of his questions3, finding of course that support for human-caused climate change is much lower. He does, however, tell us that it was done in 1990 with less than 100 respondents. It was also apparently targeted at the American Meteorological Society, because:

I figured those must be the experts.

Just smell the rigour. Meteorologists are not the experts — climate scientists are. But even if we assume the survey was done rigorously, it’s still much smaller than all of the above-mentioned surveys, and 24 years out of date.

But Singer also confuses surveys of climate scientists with public opinion polls:

On the other hand, independent polls by newspapers, by Pew, Gallup, and other respected organizations, using much larger samples, have mirrored the results of my earlier AMS poll.  But what has been most interesting is the gradual decline over the years in public support for DAGW, as shown by these independent polls.

The public does hold a much more cynical view of human-caused climate change than climate scientists, but Singer’s comparison here is utterly absurd. “Respected organisations” these pollsters may be, but what they do has no bearing on the existence (or otherwise) of a scientific consensus. They’re surveying laypeople, whose understanding of scientific issues is more a function of media coverage and ideology than of observation and analysis. Does Singer not understand the difference?

His other notable example is the “Oregon Petition”, said to have been signed by 31,000 “scientists and engineers”, 9,000 with PhDs. It’s clear that the list of signatories to the petition includes a very broad swathe of qualifications, most of which have nothing to do with climate science, and the majority of which probably have no connection to the active pursuit of scientific research at all (since a PhD is a basic qualification for a researcher in academia, and since less than a third of signatories claimed to have PhDs). The petition’s website itself states that only 31 signatories have a “climatology” qualification, a mere 0.1% of the total. It doesn’t say these are even PhDs, so they almost certainly include non-scientists. After all, the petition failed to ask signatories what they actually do, or in fact anything about them at all other than their name and self-reported qualifications (making the list impossible to verify). Singer also doesn’t concern himself with the difference between a petition and a survey. The former gives us a big, but ultimately meaningless number. The latter, more usefully, gives us the proportion of respondents (experts, in our case) who hold a certain view.

Singer’s other argument against the existence of the consensus is that there’s a global peer-review conspiracy. He complains about the corruption of the process — as evidenced by a few anecdotal examples gleaned from the “climategate” collection of stolen emails, in which scientists and journal editors are seen to be exercising their professional judgement. The whole point of peer review, of course, is to act as a front-line filter against the least meritorious scientific papers. Of course someone, somewhere, is going to have been making recommendations and sending communications about the worth or worthlessness of certain papers. The fact that so few climate sceptics ever get past this first hurdle annoys them terribly, but it doesn’t mean that the peer-review process across the world’s entire climate science community has become mired in systemic corruption. It could simply mean that said climate sceptics are full of shit (and doubly so for then claiming persecution). Given the quality of Singer’s other arguments, it’s hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Singer also briefly wheels out the “no warming for 15 years” myth, and complains that the fact of it having been the warmest decade on record is irrelevant. He comes armed with this self-defeating analogy:

It may help here to think of prices on the stock market.  The Dow-Jones index has more or less been level for the last several weeks, fluctuating between 15,000 and 16,000, showing essentially a zero trend; but it is at its highest level since the D-J index was started in 1896.

Singer argues that the current level does not indicate the trend, which is technically, pedantically true, but we’re never just talking about the current level. By saying that the Dow-Jones — or the current temperature — is the highest it’s ever been, we’re relating it to past levels, which is what a trend is all about. Singer just doesn’t want to admit that there’s such a thing as a long term trend that overwhelms whatever short-term trend he might find interesting. In the course of arguing that the Dow-Jones hasn’t changed much in weeks, Singer is actually conceding that it has changed considerably over the longer term. So, of course, has the global temperature. And it’s the long term trend that matters.

That’s certainly the case for climate models, which Singer laughs off for their apparent inability to explain short-term natural variability. But short-term variability is basically irrelevant in determining the broad magnitude and impact of climate change. A model doesn’t get “falsified” for failing to produce a level of precision that it doesn’t need and was never designed to produce. Run the models against the past temperature record and they quite successfully predict the large-scale shape and magnitude of the rise that we’ve observed.

Singer ends with a plug for one of his own creations:

The wild claims of the IPCC are being offset by the more sober, fact-based publications of the NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change).

This is sheer delusion from the man who set up the NIPCC, which appears to be a group of cranks angry at not being taken seriously. The IPCC already considers and incorporates into its reports the full range of scientific opinion on climate change. Far from being “wild”, its claims are often considered quite conservative. Singer’s claims are nothing but denialism.

  1. In the naïve sense of one who expects intellectual honesty. []
  2. Presumably someone did a search for “climate change” and noticed that the tally of results was 11,000 higher than that reported by Oreskes. You might think that the simple, accidental omission of one of the search terms would explain the disparity in results. But the climate sceptics, bastions of reason that they are, know that really Oreskes must have had all those extra papers at hand and dishonestly or incompetently misplaced them. Because that sounds better. []
  3. For instance, did Singer ask survey respondents whether they believe that humans will cause the world to end, and did he count each “no” response as a rejection of human-caused climate change? He doesn’t see fit to tell us, even after raising the issue of wording. []