Daily Archives: January 19, 2021

The New Version of Unreality in the Long Web of Conspiracy 19/01/2021 World – KSU | The Sentinel Newspaper

Posted: January 19, 2021 at 9:11 am

There are people who believe that the coronavirus is an instrument of world domination created by the enemies of their country.

They are the same who believe that when their candidates fail, there has been fraud or that everything the leader says is simply a translation of the wishes of the people.

These are the people who support Donald Trump in his attempted coup whose pathetic, fleeting, and atrocious end was the assault on Capitol Hill.

In short, we are witnessing a new version of unreality in the long web of historical conspiracy. Or, to put it another way: there is a new configuration of anti-vaccines and anti-democrats in a post-fascist key.

Like fascisms, new populisms mix, distort, and deny science through conspiratorial fantasies.

In the United States, which today has the largest number of vaccine doses available, incumbent President Trump has yet to be vaccinated, despite the advice and frustration of some of his staff.

In fact, the large number of Americans who do not consider getting vaccinated are widely distinguished by their Trumpism at the political level.

Thus, illusions and lies used in political circles abound.

For example, Trumpist ideologues, often posted or reposted by their defeated leader, argue that vaccines are a form of state social and demographic control or a weapon deliberately used by China.

Thus, the national and global vaccination campaign is portrayed by fanatical Christian evangelists and QAnon conspiracy theorists who believe Trump has been confronted and is facing a conspiracy of satanic cannibal pedophiles who dominate the Democratic Party, Hollywood and global finance.

According to this illusion, this conspiracy is responsible for all the problems in the world, and that would also include vaccines.

In this context, reality is falsified by denial of science, disease and election results.

As the Washington Post points out, many who profess the obvious lie of a vaccine plot to control peoples bodies are the same who believe the big lie of a Trump victory in the presidential election.

In particular, it should come as no surprise that people who deny reality in general also deny it in the special sense of vaccines.

What we are now seeing globally is a new political alliance of the ignorant, the gullible and the liars.

Before Trump, anti-taxxers had no political movement to channel their paranoia. This is now possible for many of them, as American populist historian Richard J. Hofstadter warned, conspiracy theory and blind suspicion were at the heart of the xenophobic populist style in the United States.

But if at Trump this situation is presented in an ambiguous way, in the sense that he too, in a contradictory way, wants to present himself as the main supporter of the vaccine, in this sense the Republican plays two roles: pro-vaccine for the public independent and anti-vaccine for your followers.

In Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro has taken a clearly obscurantist position. He looks back on a Brazilian experience spanning more than a century as a leader in mass vaccination campaigns.

If Brazil has been an example for Latin America and the world, it is today the opposite, a country ruled by an extreme paranoid who praises the farce.

Bolsonaro said he is not planning to be vaccinated and even argued that the vaccine could grow beards in women and men to become crocodiles or start talking in effeminate ways.

As in the United States, the Pfizer vaccine is the main victim of this campaign of falsification of reality which contains homophobic, xenophobic and nationalist elements.

None of this is new, because, as Hofstadter said, the paranoid style existed long before and was in fact the main mark of reactionaries, and after fascists and anti-Semites: This style has existed for a long time before the extreme right. find out, and their targets ranged from the international bank to the Freemasons, including the Jesuits and the arms manufacturers.

This has not always been the case in the history of classical populism. It was precisely the first populist regimes to come to power after 1945 that left these illusions behind. When necessary, populism turned to science.

And indeed, historically, in classic times of populist rule, science has not been attacked and scientific and medical development has generally not been ignored.

Besides the folklore of spiritualism so well portrayed by the writer Toms Eloy Martnez in La soap opera de Pern, on the occult and the magic of Peronism of Triple A with Jos Lpez Rega and Isabel Pern as leaders, Peronism as populism in general, was not reactionary in its relation to science.

Support for the science extends to the health of the leaders themselves, who in many cases have promised to be vaccinated first. The situation is very different for the new far-right populisms. For them, the vaccine conspiracy is real, and the reality is simply disposable.

http://www.latinoamerica21.com, a pluralist medium engaged in the diffusion of critical and true information on Latin America.

Translation by Maria Isabel Santos Lima

Continued here:

The New Version of Unreality in the Long Web of Conspiracy 19/01/2021 World - KSU | The Sentinel Newspaper

Posted in Populism | Comments Off on The New Version of Unreality in the Long Web of Conspiracy 19/01/2021 World – KSU | The Sentinel Newspaper

Europe’s populists looked to Donald Trump. But after the Capitol violence, they’re now looking away – SBS News

Posted: at 9:11 am

For Europes populists, the electoral defeat of US President Donald Trump, who has been a symbol of success and a strong supporter, was bad enough.

But his refusal to accept defeat and the violence that followed appears to have damaged the prospects of similarly minded leaders across the continent.

What happened in the Capitol following the defeat of Donald Trump is a bad omen for the populists, said Dominique Mosi, a senior analyst at the Paris-based Institut Montaigne. It says two things: If you elect them, they dont leave power easily, and if you elect them, look at what they can do in calling for popular anger.

The long day of rioting, violence and death as Mr Trumps supporters stormed the Capitol last week has presented a clear warning to countries such as France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland about underestimating the force of populist anger and the prevalence of conspiracy theories aimed at democratic governments.

Heather Grabbe, director of the Open Society European Policy Institute in Brussels, said the unrest showed how the populist playbook was founded on us versus them and leads to violence.

But its very important to show where populism leads and how it plays with fire, she added.

When youve aroused your supporters with political arguments about us versus them, they are not opponents but enemies who must be fought with all means, and it both leads to violence and makes conceding power impossible.

Just how threatening Europes populists found the events in the United States could be seen in their reaction: One by one, they distanced themselves from the rioting or fell silent.

Marine Le Pen delivers a speech in Paris, France, 26 May 2019

EPA

In France, Marine Le Pen, head of the far-right National Rally, is expected to mount another significant challenge to President Emmanuel Macron in the 2022 election. She was firm in supporting Mr Trump, praised his election and Brexit as precursors to populist success in France and echoed his insistence that the US election was rigged and fraudulent.

But after the violence, which she said left her very shocked, Ms Le Pen pulled back, condemning any violent act that aims to disrupt the democratic process.

Like Ms Le Pen, Matteo Salvini, populist leader of the Italian anti-immigrant League party, said, Violence is never the solution.

In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, a prominent right-wing party leader, criticised the attack on the US legislature. With elections in his country in March, Mr Wilders wrote on Twitter, The outcome of democratic elections should always be respected, whether you win or lose.

Far-right and populist Dutch politician Geert Wilders

EPA

Thierry Baudet, another high-profile Dutch populist, has aligned himself with Mr Trump and the anti-vaccination movement, and in the past has called the independence of the judiciary and a phony parliament into question.

But already in difficulty over reported anti-Semitic remarks and rifts in his party, Forum for Democracy, Mr Baudet, too, has had little to say so far.

Still, Forum for Democracy and Mr Wilders Party for Freedom together are likely to get about 20 per cent of the vote in the Dutch elections, said Rem Korteweg, an analyst at the Clingendael Institute in the Netherlands.

Even if populist leaders seem shaken by the events in Washington and nervous about further violence at the inauguration on 20 January, there remains considerable anxiety among mainstream politicians about anti-elitist, anti-government political movements in Europe, especially amid the confusion and anxiety produced by the coronavirus pandemic.

Janis A. Emmanouilidis, director of studies at the European Policy Center in Brussels, said that there was no uniform European populism.

The various movements have different characteristics in different countries, and outside events are only one factor in their varying popularity, he noted.

Now the most pressing issue is COVID-19, but its not at all clear how politics will play out postpandemic, he said. But, he added, the fear of the worst helps to avoid the worst.

The amazing polarisation of society and the violence in Washington creates a lot of deterrence in other societies, Mr Emmanouilidis said. We see where it leads, we want to avoid it, but we are aware that we too could get to that point, that things could escalate.

Enrico Letta, a former prime minister of Italy who is now dean of the Paris School of International Affairs at Sciences Po, said that Mr Trump gave credibility to the disruptive attitudes and approaches of populist leaders in Europe, so having him out is a big problem for them.

Then came the riot, he said, which I think changed the map completely.

Now, like Ms Le Pen, Italian populist leaders have felt obliged to cut their ties to some forms of extremism, Mr Letta said.

They have lost this ability to preserve this ambiguity about their ties to extremists on the margins, he added.

He said that Mr Trumps defeat and the violent responses to it were considerable blows to European populism.

The coronavirus disaster alone, he added, represented the revenge of competence and the scientific method against the obscurantism and anti-elitism of populism, noting that the troubles surrounding Brexit have also been a blow.

We even start to think that Brexit has been something positive for the rest of Europe, allowing a relaunch, Mr Letta said. Nobody followed Britain out, and now theres the collapse of Trump.

But Mr Mosi, the Institut Montaigne analyst, struck a darker note. Having written about the emotions of geopolitics, he sees a dangerous analogy in what happened at the Capitol, noting that it could go down as a heroic event among many of Mr Trumps supporters.

The rioting reminded him, he said, of the failed Beer Hall Putsch by Adolf Hitler and the early Nazi Party in Munich in 1923.

That effort to overthrow the Bavarian government also had elements of farce and was widely ridiculed, but it became the foundational myth of the Nazi regime, Mr Mosi said.

Hitler spent the prison term he was handed after the violence writing Mein Kampf.

Go here to see the original:

Europe's populists looked to Donald Trump. But after the Capitol violence, they're now looking away - SBS News

Posted in Populism | Comments Off on Europe’s populists looked to Donald Trump. But after the Capitol violence, they’re now looking away – SBS News

Misinformation, prolonged pandemic pose security threat in Canada: Brock experts – CBC.ca

Posted: at 9:10 am

A resurgence in political instability and rise in populism being seen in the United States and other countries around the world should serve as as a chance for all levels of government to get ahead of similar situations in Canada, two Brock University experts say.

Colin Rose, assistant professor with the department of history, and Ibrahim Berrada, instructor in the Centre for Canadian Studies, pointed to a defence report, released last week, which warns that the spread of misinformation and a prolonged pandemic threatens Canadian security.

The report written in October by Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) identified three trends: intensified distrust in government,resurgence of populist support, and the manifestation of violent extremist organizations.

According to Rose, the rising levels of extremism in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic fits into a longer history, dating back to antiquity, of increasing social and political unrest during and in the aftermath of natural disasters.

"We give up certain rights and freedoms to our governments, and in exchange, they protect us from the unpredictable, respond to our needs and help us achieve our wants," Rose said.

"In the midst of a global pandemic, it becomes clearer that the state is unable to meet all these needs and provide these protections."

On Jan. 6, extremists who support outgoing President Donald Trump staged a riot at the U.S. Capitolas lawmakers were inside voting to certify Joe Biden's victory.

There are widespread concerns in the U.S. about the prospect of further violence by groups who reject the results of the Nov. 3 election.

The FBI, according to several media outlets, has warned local law enforcement to prepare for armed protests that may be attended by far-right extremists.

Rose said while achieving social trust at the federal, provincial and local levels of government is not impossible, it won't come easily, especially in light of the ongoing pandemic.

"The big problem that the federal and provincial governments face is that they come out of this with people saying they did a bad job, we didn't know what they were doing and they didn't make it clear why they were doing anything," Rose told CBC News.

"I think the biggest tools that governments and institutions have at their disposal right now is transparency and accountability,"Rose said."It would go a long way if everyone who took a vacation in the Caribbean didn't just have to resign their cabinet position, but in fact found himself out of a job."

Leaders need to be seen to be acting in the best interest of ordinary Canadians and not creating a second set of rules for the elite, Rose said.

Meanwhile, Berrada said the proliferation of misinformation on social media platforms poses a disturbing threat to Canadian peace and security.

"Radicalized right-wing populist movements are driven by misinformation, permitting the spread of ethnonationalism, xenophobia, racism, bigotry, misogyny and extremism," he said.

"Moreover, misinformation cultivates a level of distrust in our elected officials problematizing pandemic efforts."

Berrada said politicians must ensure the dissemination of reliable information, reinforce pandemic measures prioritizing the health of Canadians, and maintain the economy.

He added that a prolonged pandemic, coupled with lockdown measures and restrictions, further exacerbates an already demoralized and COVID-fatigued population.

"Ambiguity breeds speculation and speculation, then breeds misinformation in the long run. It's about clarity and [treating] Canadians like adults. Treat Canadians with the respect that they deserve and give them that information that they need," he told CBC News.

"If you have unclear regulation, if you have a mismanagement of protocols, if you have quickly changing directives and you have a different set of rules that elitein society are operating by then you will see a rise of distrust in government.

"The very fact that some people can skirt the rules without these consequences is problematic, and that is effectively what drives populism," Berrada said.

He said conspiracy theories encourage distrust in the government and promote a higher risk of violent, seditious, and anarchist behaviour.

The circulation of misinformation requires immediate attention from government officials, defence intelligence, social media giants and public health officials, he said.

Read the original post:

Misinformation, prolonged pandemic pose security threat in Canada: Brock experts - CBC.ca

Posted in Populism | Comments Off on Misinformation, prolonged pandemic pose security threat in Canada: Brock experts – CBC.ca

Go ahead with Australian Open and open all borders too – The Australian Financial Review

Posted: at 9:10 am

This also recalls Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk keeping the border closed to virus-free NSW while allowing Melbourne-based AFL bigwigs in for the AFL grand final during Victorias second wave.

Some players have complained on social media of being unaware of the hard quarantine requirement if passengers tested positive, and say they would have never boarded the flight under those conditions. With eight-time Australian Open champion Novak Djokovic pushing for better food, less isolation time, and for quarantine to be shifted to private houses with tennis courts, the players have been accused of acting like pampered prima donnas.

Border populism and propping up zombie jobs impede dynamism and the efficient reallocation of the nation's productive human capital.

Rather than seeking special treatment, the issue is about practice and performance after a two-week lay-off confined to quarters, and the unfair advantage gained by competitors able to train for five hours a day within a semi-quarantine bubble.

The hard quarantine imposed on potentially exposed players, most of whom sat rows away and had little or no close contact with an infected person, is an ultra-cautious safeguard. But it also means that the Australian Open going ahead next month is unlikely to pose a clear and present health danger that would justify cancellation at this point.

The real issue that has once again been highlighted by the Australian Open controversy is the inconsistencies of Australias open-closed state border chaos. As NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian says, it makes no sense for Victorian counterpart Daniel Andrews to allow in tennis travellers from virus-ravaged Europe and the US while maintaining the unnecessary ban on returning Victorians and visitors from hotspot-free Greater Sydney.

Mr Andrews yesterday belatedly relaxed the ban to just 10 local government areas in western Sydney. But with all of Australia now declared hotspot-free by federal health authorities, all remaining internal border barriers should now be lifted, consistent with the national cabinet decision that parochial state premiers have consistently ignored.

As we report on Tuesday, border populism is now coming back to bite Western Australia, with the block on the entry of skilled labour set to cause costly delays on Perths multibillion-dollar Metronet railway project. This comes as labour force data reveals a jobs boom in some parts of the economy, with workers who lost their jobs in pandemic-hit sectors transitioning to new jobs in other industries.

Border populism and propping up zombie jobs with JobKeeper impede this kind of dynamism. As with ending JobKeeper, lifting border bans will prompt the efficient reallocation of the nation's productive human capital, which is now needed to keep Australias safe COVID-19 recovery going.

Go here to see the original:

Go ahead with Australian Open and open all borders too - The Australian Financial Review

Posted in Populism | Comments Off on Go ahead with Australian Open and open all borders too – The Australian Financial Review

Are the brains of atheists different to those of religious people? Scientists are trying to find out – The Conversation UK

Posted: at 9:09 am

The cognitive study of religion has recently reached a new, unknown land: the minds of unbelievers. Do atheists think differently from religious people? Is there something special about how their brains work? To illustrate what theyve found, I will focus on three key snapshots.

The first one, from 2003, is probably the most photogenic moment of neuro-atheism. Biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins travelled to the lab of Canadian neuroscientist Michael Persinger in the hope of having a religious experience. In this BBC Horizon film, God on the Brain, a retro science-fiction helmet was placed on Dawkins head. This god helmet generated weak magnetic fields, applied to the temporal lobes.

Persinger had previously shown that this kind of stimulation triggered a wide range of religious phenomena from sensing the presence of someone invisible to prompting out-of-body experiences. With Dawkins, though, the experiment failed. As it turned out, Persinger explained, Dawkins temporal lobe sensitivity was much, much lower than is common in most people.

The idea that the temporal lobes may be the seat of religious experience has been around since the 1960s. But this was the first time that the hypothesis was extended to explain the lack of religious experience based on the lower sensitivity of a brain region. Despite the exciting possibility of testing this hypothesis with a larger sample of atheists, it remains to be done.

The second snapshot takes us to 2012. Three articles published by labs in the USA and Canada presented the first evidence linking an analytical, logical thinking style to unbelief. Psychologists have been theorising about different ways that brains process information for a long time: conscious versus unconscious, reflective versus experiential, analytical versus intuitive. These are linked to activity in certain brain areas, and can be triggered by stimuli including art.The researchers asked participants to contemplate Rodins famous sculpture, The Thinker, and then assessed their analytical thinking and disbelief in god. They found that those who had viewed the sculpture performed better on the analytical thinking task and reported less belief in god than people who hadnt seen the image.

In the same year, a Finnish lab published the results of a study where their scientists tried to provoke atheists into thinking supernaturally by presenting them with a series of short stories and asking if the punchline was a sign of the universe (interpreting something as a sign is more supernatural than interpreting something as, for example, a coincidence). They did this while scanning their brains using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The more the participants suppressed supernatural thinking, the stronger the activation of the right inferior frontal gyrus was. We know this area is involved in cognitive inhibition, an ability to refrain from certain thoughts and behaviours.

Together, these studies suggest that atheists have a propensity to engage more in analytical or reflective thinking. If believing in gods is intuitive, then this intuition can be overridden by more careful thinking. This finding certainly raised the possibility that the minds of atheists are simply different from those of believers.

So how robust are the findings? In 2015, a replication crisis hit the field of psychology. It turned out that the results of many classic studies couldnt be achieved when running them again. The psychology of religion and atheism was no exception.

The experiment with Rodins Thinker was the first to be investigated. Three new studies were conducted with larger samples than the original and they all failed to replicate the original results. With one sample, they found the very opposite: contemplating the Thinker increased religious belief.

One possible limitation with the original studies is that they had all been undertaken in the USA. Could culture act in such a decisive way that the analytical cognitive style associated with atheism in one country might be nonexistent elsewhere? The author of the original Rodin study attempted to answer this in a new study which included individuals from 13 countries. The results confirmed that a cognitive analytical style was only linked to atheism in three countries: Australia, Singapore and the USA.

In 2017, a double-blind study was carried out to test in a more robust way the link between unbelief and cognitive inhibition. Instead of using brain imaging to see which area lit up, they used a brain stimulation technique to directly stimulate the area responsible for cognitive inhibition: the right inferior frontal gyrus. Half of the participants, however were given a fake stimulus. The results showed that the brain stimulation worked: participants who had it achieved better in a cognitive inhibition task. However, this had no effect on decreasing supernatural belief.

The third snapshot is this one: a man is standing against a background which looks like a church. He appears to be doing the sign of the cross with his right hand while his left hand rests on his heart. He is a priest but not of any church that believes in gods: he presides over the Positivist Temple of Humanity, a church for atheists and agnostics created by August Comte in the 19th century. This priest is not doing the sign of cross but the Positivist blessing.

Together with photographer Aubrey Wade, I stumbled upon this active temple in the south of Brazil, while collecting data for a large ongoing project involving over 20 labs across the world: Understanding Unbelief.

Finding an active church of unbelievers dedicated to the love of humanity its golden principle being live for others ruptured how I thought of atheists and the boundary separating them from the religious. And this has implications for how we develop studies in this area. When doing experiments with believers we can use multiple stimuli, from religious images to music, to trigger a religious effect or cognition in the lab. But finding an equivalent for unbelievers has proved hard.

One brain imaging study conducted at Oxford University compared an image of the Virgin Mary with that of a regular woman, both painted in the same period. Researchers found that when Roman Catholics concentrated on the Virgin Mary while being subjected to electric shocks, this alleviated their perception of pain compared to looking at the other woman. This decrease in pain was associated with an engagement of the right ventro-lateral prefrontal cortex, a region known to drive pain inhibitory circuits.

No similar effect was found for the unbelievers, although they rated the secular image as more pleasant than the religious one. But what if the unbelievers being tested were members of the Positivist Temple and were instead shown an image of their goddess of humanity would this have alleviated pain in a similar way to that experienced by the religious individuals?

The future cognitive science of atheism will have to think hard about how to move forward. It needs to develop models that account for cultural variations as well as consider the implications of atheists engaging with rituals that celebrate humanity.

View post:
Are the brains of atheists different to those of religious people? Scientists are trying to find out - The Conversation UK

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on Are the brains of atheists different to those of religious people? Scientists are trying to find out – The Conversation UK

Researcher bullish on belief despite growth of atheism – Winnipeg Free Press

Posted: at 9:09 am

"God is still doing reasonably well in the polls."

That was the title of the most recent research by Reginald Bibby, a sociologist of religion at the University of Lethbridge.

According to Bibby, who has been conducting surveys about religion in Canada since the 1970s, 32 per cent of Canadians say they definitely believe in God while around 27 per cent say they think God exists about 60 per cent overall.

He also found 15 per cent definitely dont believe God exists, while 26 per cent dont think so.

As for Manitoba, Bibby found a higher number of people in this province believe God exists 42 per cent. About 20 per cent think there is a God, while 10 per cent are sure there is no God. Twenty-nine per cent say they dont think there is a God.

This is a marked change from 35 years ago; back then, 61 per cent of Canadians said they definitely believed in God and 23 per cent thought God existed. Also back then, only six per cent of Canadians said they were atheists.

Why the change? Bibby traces it partly to the baby boomer generation, who "have been less inclined to express decisive belief in God," he said.

Boomers passed their lack of belief to their children, who have in turn passed it to their children, he added. "Both belief and disbelief are socially transmitted," he said.

Another reason is greater acceptance of atheism in Canada compared to years ago. Today, he said, "one doesnt have to suppress the fact that they dont believe."

Bibby acknowledges the trendlines in Canada are moving away from religion. There has been a "noteworthy decline in clear-cut believers since the mid-1970s," he said.

Yet he is still bullish on belief. While many Canadians have said goodbye to God, "large numbers have not," he said.

What do other scholars of religion think about Bibbys findings? I reached out to a few to find out. They expressed appreciation for Bibbys research, but werent so sure things are that good for God in Canada.

"The average Canadian has moved toward no religion," said Sam Reimer, professor of sociology at Crandall University.

"Research over time shows increased disaffiliation, lower religious practice, like attendance, and lower belief this is the dominant trend."

What impressed John Stackhouse, professor of religious studies at Crandall, about Bibbys findings is how widespread non-belief has become.

He noted there are no statistically important differences between men and women or regions of Canada when it comes to not believing.

Similarly, he said, the drop-off in belief by older Canadians traditionally regarded as the most religious stands out.

When it comes to belief in God, "its a pretty flat landscape," he stated, suggesting God may not be doing as well in the Canadian polls as Bibby thinks.

Its like "we Canadians continue to race the Dutch, and perhaps the Aussies and Kiwis, for the steepest rate of de-Christianization since perhaps the French Revolution," he said.

For Rick Hiemstra, director of research at the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the question needs reframing today.

He noted when Bibby first started asking this question in the mid-1970s, "the idea of what belief in God might mean and what someone might be asserting if they claimed to believe in God was more defined."

Back then, the question would have been interpreted through a lens of attendance at religious services, assenting to historic creeds or practising faith through scripture study and prayer. Today, he said, it is more likely to mean whatever people want to believe.

"The responses from the 1970s and from today are not really comparable," he said. "The question may have stayed the same but the way it is understood has changed."

Hiemstra suggested a better way of ascertaining belief would be to ask what belief in God means to people, and how it changes the way they live and relate to others.

For Joel Thiessen, professor of sociology at Ambrose University, Bibbys headline about how God is doing is "technically not incorrect. It just doesnt capture the main storyline and shifting trajectory of decline."

Simply asking people if they believe in God "doesnt really tell us a lot about what difference belief makes or not to peoples lived experiences," he said.

Lori Beaman is the Canada Research Chair for Religious Diversity and Social Change at the University of Ottawa. She also would ask the question differently.

"Id be more interested in exploring how people perceive Gods impact in their day-to-day lives and intersections around important issues like climate change, social justice and so on a more complex picture that focuses on practice rather than belief, or in addition to belief," she said.

Kevin Flatt, professor of history at Redeemer University College, agreed. For him the more important question is what belief in God means how it impacts behaviour. "Thats where the action is," he said.

For Sarah Wilkins-Laflamme, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Waterloo, the main takeaway from Bibbys research is the change in religiosity in Canada.

"Its easy to get jaded or bored by a trend that weve seen develop over many decades, but we shouldnt forget the magnitude of that trend," she said.

We are "transitioning from an age that lasted many hundreds of years during which the vast majority of Westerners believed in a Christian God, to an age now where belief and non-belief co-exist its a fundamental shift."

faith@freepress.mb.ca

John LonghurstFaith reporter

John Longhurst has been writing for Winnipeg's faith pages since 2003. He also writes for Religion News Service in the U.S., and blogs about the media, marketing and communications at Making the News.

Read full biography

Read more from the original source:
Researcher bullish on belief despite growth of atheism - Winnipeg Free Press

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on Researcher bullish on belief despite growth of atheism – Winnipeg Free Press

Why Intelligent Design of the Universe Is Not an Absurd Idea – Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence

Posted: at 9:09 am

Raymond Bergner, psychology prof at Illinois State University, wrote a most interesting paper in 2017 discussing the intelligent design controversythe question of whether the universe shows evidence of design. Mercifully, it is only eight pages, well within the patience of the average viewer and very clearly written.

He makes clear he is not arguing for the concept but only explaining why it is not at all absurd. He makes a number of key points. Here are two, some thoughts interspersed:

Many extraordinarily intelligent and relevantly informed people believe and have believed in intelligent design. Famously, Isaac Newton, himself a heretic and hardly a slave to conventional religious belief, once stated that, This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. More recently, Albert Einstein, a secular Jew who repeatedly affirmed his disbelief in a personal god, stated that, the scientists religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. Other great scientifically informed minds from the past e.g., Galileo, Kepler, and Maxwell( as well as the present time (e.g., Francis Collins, Fred Hoyle, and Alan &andage( have expressed essentially the same belief.

Village atheism is not a particularly scientific position, even if it is popular among some readers of pop science literature.

Anyone can shout There is no God! if they dont need to ask or answer questions like How then did human consciousness come to exist? Or even How did the universe come to exist? If the village atheist wants to say that the universe has always existed (is infinite backwards in time), he is going to run into a huge logic problem: Everything that could possibly happen would already have happened, including the fact that we dont exist. But we do exist. And human consciousness is still the The Hard Problem.

While there is disagreement about its implications, there is little disagreement among physicists today that our universe is fine tunedboth for e1isting in its present form and for bringing about life forms. Various physical parameters, among them the value of the strong nuclear force, the charge of the electron, and the rate of expansion of the universe in the first second after the big bang, all have a widerange of theoretically possible values. However, only an extremely tiny fraction of these values, and these allowing for essentially zero deviation, allow for such things as the existence of atoms, the formation of stars, the clumping together of matter to form planets and galaxies, and ultimately the origination of life forms. This being the case, the scientific consensus is that our universe is an extraordinarily unlikely one. The realization of each of these values, taken alone, is extraordinarily improbable. The fact that so many of them con ointlyhave precisely the necessary value represents such an incomprehensible unlikelihood that Stephen Hawking,- himself, an avowed atheist and opponent of intelligent design, refers to our universe as an apparent miracle.

Nothing is absurd if it is based on evidence. People can say we live in an absurd universe if they like, but if thats the evidence, then it is.

Fine-tuning is not only a fact but it comes with a hope. If you are a science fiction fan convinced we are not all alone here in the universe, you should take comfort in the fact that the universe appears to be fine-tuned for life. How we can reach other intelligent life forms is a separate question but at least you have a good reason to suppose they exist. It is certainly an incitement to keep looking and boldly go.

Bergners argument that design of the universe is a reasonable idea is not an endorsement of any specific theological or religious belief (a fact he makes clear). All such arguments must be based on other grounds and usually are.

All that design does is alert us to the fact that our consciousness of design is not an accident or an illusion. Its an invitation to know more about who we are and why we are here.

You may also enjoy: Does physics today point to mind rather than matter only? A cosmopsychist looks at the universe, God, and free will.

Follow this link:
Why Intelligent Design of the Universe Is Not an Absurd Idea - Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on Why Intelligent Design of the Universe Is Not an Absurd Idea – Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence

Cyberpunk 2077’s Development Was Shorter Than Anyone Realized – CBR – Comic Book Resources

Posted: at 9:08 am

Announced in 2012, active development on CD Projekt Red's controversial Cyberpunk 2077 didn't actually begin until several years later.

Although CD Projekt Red'sCyberpunk 2077 was announced in 2012, active development on the controversial game didn't begin until much later.

According toBloomberg, CD Projekt Red employeesclaimed development didn't start until late 2016. At that time,Adam Badowski took over as director and the game underwent a massive overhaul.

RELATED:Cyberpunk 2077: Wood Hawker's Billy Joel Parody SLAMS CD Projekt Red

Cyberpunk 2077 has been marred with controversy. Even before its release, which was delayed on three separate occasions, CD Projekt Red made headlines for forcing employees to work overtime (aka crunch). Despite this, the final product was -- by CD Projekt Red's own admission -- not refined for last-gen consoles. Furthermore, players have reported that the game can cause epileptic seizures, with many requesting a warning, as well as a long-term fix for this issue. As such, Sony and Microsoft are now issuing full refunds to those who request them, while PlayStation even pulled the game from the PlayStation Store altogether.

"After 3 delays, we as the Management Board were too focused on releasing the game," CD Projekt Red Co-CEO Adam Kiciski explained. "We underestimated the scale and complexity of the issues, we ignored the signals about the need for additional time to refine the game on the base last-gen consoles. It was the wrong approach and against our business philosophy. On top of that, during the campaign, we showed the game mostly on PCs."

RELATED: Cyberpunk 2077 Modders Have Restored the Game's BIGGEST Cut Feature

CD Projekt Red has issued several apologies since the game's Dec. 10, 2020 release, with the most recent arrivingon Jan. 13. "We are committed to fixing bugs and crashes and will continue to work and improve the game via future updates to make sure you are enjoying the game regardless of the platform," thecompany wrote. "We will use this space to inform you about the progress being made on Cyberpunk 2077s further development, including information about updates and improvements, free DLCs and more."

Cyberpunk 2077 is an open-world, action-adventure story set in Night City, a megalopolis obsessed with power, glamour and body modification. You play as V, a mercenary outlaw going after a one-of-a-kind implant that is the key to immortality. You can customize your characters cyberware, skillset and playstyle, and explore a vast city where the choices you make shape the story and the world around you.

Developed by CD Projekt Red, Cyberpunk 2077 is available now on PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Google Stadia and PC.

KEEP READING:Cyberpunk 2077: CD Projekt Red Head Disputes Fake Demo Report

Source:Bloomberg

Mortal Kombat: Scorpion's Weapon Is the Key to the R-Rated Reboot

Jon Arvedon is CBR's lead news editor and began working for the site in 2017. Hes been an avid superhero fan since he was a young child, though it wasnt until much later in life that he finally began venturing into the actual comic books that made those characters so popular in the first place. Nevertheless, he immediately developed a strong passion for the medium and began aggressively expanding his knowledge, using any and all downtime at his old office job to scour the depths of Marvel Unlimited, comiXology and the occasional wiki page to help fill in the gaps. His love of comics is rivaled only by that of his love for Star Wars. If you're so inclined, you can follow Jon on Twitter at @JonArvedon.

Here is the original post:

Cyberpunk 2077's Development Was Shorter Than Anyone Realized - CBR - Comic Book Resources

Posted in Immortality | Comments Off on Cyberpunk 2077’s Development Was Shorter Than Anyone Realized – CBR – Comic Book Resources

How Star Wars Could Bring Back A Weapon More Powerful Than The Darksaber – Screen Rant

Posted: at 9:07 am

The Darksaber is symbolically powerful, but a future Star Wars property could reintroduce the Dagger of Mortis, which is significantly stronger.

The Star Wars canon has emphasized the power and importance of the Darksaber in The Mandalorian, but future properties may reintroduce an even more powerful weapon: the Dagger of Mortis. This mystical weapon holds symbolic significance like the Darksaber; but whereas the Mandalorian weapon is functionally almost the same as any other lightsaber, the Mortis Dagger is capable of far more. The Dagger may appear in several upcoming Disney+ Star Wars shows, potentially being a significant plot element that brings The Mandalorian, Star Wars: Ahsoka, and Star Wars: Rangers of the New Republic together in a crossover event. But what is the Dagger of Mortis and what can it do?

The Dagger of Mortis first appeared in Star Wars: The Clone Wars, where it was fought over by the three Star Wars Force-users who were found in the mysterious Wild Space realm known as Mortis. These beings, named The Father, The Daughter, and The Son all used the Force with near-omnipotent power, so naturally, the abilities and weapons of Jedi and Sith paled in comparison to those of Mortis. The Force wielders were nearly immortal as well, but the Mortis Dagger was one of the few things that could kill them. The Dagger was used directly to kill The Daughter and The Father, and indirectly to kill The Son (whose immortality was removed upon the death of The Father).

Related:Disney Already Cast A New Young Luke, Why Didn't Mandalorian Use Him?

The Darksaber may have the most unique lightsaber blade color and origin, but it is ultimately just another lightsaber in terms of functionality, though it does increase a wielder's aggression and tugs at their dark side instincts. Still, the weapons true power comes from its historical and cultural significance to Mandalorians. One must defeat the Darksabers owner in combat to have a rightful claim to it, and the wielder of the weapon is also considered the true ruler of Mandalore (at least by the time of 9 ABY). By being able to kill a god-like Force-wielder, the Mortis Dagger far outclasses any lightsaber, including the Darksaber. Considering the connections between Ahsoka Tano, the Mortis Force-wielders, and the World Between Worlds, the Dagger could easily make its reappearance in Star Wars: Ahsoka.

Of the three Jedi visitors to Mortis, Ahsoka Tano is the only one still alive in 9 ABY. The Dagger could be pursued by both Ahsoka and Grand Admiral Thrawn (who Tano was tracking down in her episode of The Mandalorian). The Dagger was left on Mortis when Ahsoka, Anakin, and Obi-Wan left the realm, but how they ended up there (and how they left) isnt made explicitly clear in The Clone Wars, so a non-Force user like Thrawn may attempt to access the Dagger through more crude methods, as Veris Hydan did to the entrance to the Worlds Between Worlds in Star Wars Rebels.

The Mortis Dagger could also be tied to the mystical World Between Worlds, given their shared connections to the Force wielders of Mortis. Perhaps the Mortis Dagger can be used for more than killing Force wielders and is a method of entering the mysterious plane. The World Between Worlds gives visitors access to any point in time and space, which would easily make it important enough to involve Din Djarin and Cara Dune (as well as Luke Skywalker and Grogu) in Ahsokas adventures. Though unlikely, the plane (and by extension, the Dagger) could be the catalyst for a crossover between the Star Wars Canon and Legends universes.

Next:Everything We Know About The Mandalorian Season 3

Why Batwoman Is Replacing Kate Kane Instead Of Recasting Ruby Rose

David Miller is an author for Screen Rant, indie comic writer, and life-long lover of all things Star Wars, Marvel, and DC. He was born and raised in New York and has a degree in English from Rider University. When not writing, he enjoys reading comics and getting his fix of caffeine. He relates to Peter Parker maybe a little too much.

See more here:

How Star Wars Could Bring Back A Weapon More Powerful Than The Darksaber - Screen Rant

Posted in Immortality | Comments Off on How Star Wars Could Bring Back A Weapon More Powerful Than The Darksaber – Screen Rant

How to Fix Some of the Bachelors Thorny Logistical Issues – The Ringer

Posted: at 9:07 am

Matt James, the star of Season 25 of The Bachelor, is a boundary-breaking lead. Hes the first Black Bachelor. Hes the first Bachelor in more than a decade not to have previously appeared on The Bachelor or The Bachelorette. Hes tied for the title of tallest Bachelor. And according to a comment by one lust-struck contestant, he has 16-pack abs, which would make him an anatomical marvel.

Through the first three weeks of his season, though, Matts behavior has been about as conventional as it comes. Sure, hes boldly embraced the turtleneck despite the harsh responses to past turtleneck attempts. But he hasnt done anything to overhaul the structure of the series itself. If anything, hes helped highlight how much the ABC series needs a lead to disrupt the typical protagonists approach to finding lovea James Holzhauer of The Bachelor who would optimize the process and produce polarizing, riveting TV. Its time for a Bachelor or Bachelorette to streamline the series inefficiencies, impose order on the chaos that comes between the Bachelor and his would-be betrothed, and make host/hype man Chris Harrison promise viewers the most pragmatic season ever.

Lets concentrate on cocktail parties, staples of the series that traditionally follow the competition portions of group dates and precede rose ceremonies. Since time immemorial (or at least, like, 2002), cocktail parties have tended to be free-for-alls where contestants vie for opportunities to talk to the lead. Almost inevitably, the most aggressive guests make more than one visit, earning the ire of their mansion-mates, while meeker or more courteous contestants dont get time at all. The first two cocktail parties in Matts season, which began with a record-setting 32 contestants, were egregious examples of lousy logistics and unequal exposure. On night one, villain Victoria talked to Matt twice, and several women were left lamenting their lack of time. And on this weeks episode, contestant Sarah Trott stole the spotlight from a few angry group date participants when she crashed a cocktail party and bogarted time despite having had a one-on-one date days earlier.

It seemed like there were a lot of women he didnt talk to, and that might be because hes never been on this show before, says Rachel Lindsay, an attorney who was a contestant on Season 21 of The Bachelor, starred on Season 13 of The Bachelorette, and currently cohosts Ringer podcast Higher Learning. So he doesnt realize the importance of how necessary it is to talk to everyone, because hes never been a person whos been left out or been fighting for time.

Even experienced members of Bachelor Nation have struggled to distribute time to contestants. The disorder endemic to cocktail parties flows from the conceit of the series: As Matt said at his second rose ceremony, Theres only one of me and so many of you all. But its also partly a product of mismanagement. Matt pledged to continue to follow my heart, and while thats a start, hed also do well to follow a more rigorous game plan. To offer an analogy the former Wake Forest football star might appreciate: After the hike, the quarterback doesnt just react to the routes his receivers run. Coaches call plays. Yet on The Bachelor, most leads adopt a passive approach and leave it to the contestants to corral them or not, which prevents the stars from making informed assessments and leads to distracting strife. There must be a better way.

To find a solution to this cocktail-party tumult, I sought out a man whos found love and efficiency: John F. Shortle, professor and chair of Systems Engineering and Operations Research at George Mason University, and coauthor of the fourth and fifth editions of definitive textbook Fundamentals of Queueing Theory. Queueing theorya branch of operations research, an analytical discipline devoted to making better decisionsis the roughly century-old mathematical study of improving the process of waiting in line. If waiting in line is boring, you might think studying about waiting in lines would be boring as well, Shortle says. But I enjoy it.

Shortle typically studies waiting as it relates to air transportation, telecommunications, and other non-reality-TV activities; in 2016, he won an award for a Military Operations Research paper titled Spatial and Temporal Modeling of IED Emplacements against Dismounted Patrols. Perhaps unsurprisingly, he hasnt been asked about The Bachelor before, but he reviewed several scenes from Matts first cocktail party to prepare. Are there mathematical models that we can pull out of a textbook and apply to The Bachelor? Shortle says. Probably not so much. But I think theres a lot of principles about designing queuing systems that would apply.

In a normal scenario, Shortle explains, queueing systems are designed to reduce anxiety, eliminate confusion, and set expectations. Generally, its nice to know whos next in line and how long the wait will be; thats why automated answering systems often quote an estimated time to talk to a human. Fairness is another bedrock goal, which can sometimes be achieved by sticking to a first come, first served model or ensuring that shorter service times are associated with shorter wait times (the raison dtre of supermarket express lanes).

On The Bachelor, fairness is how much time does each person get with the Bachelor, and will they get any time, Shortle says, adding, unfairness creates a lot of stress and anxiety for the people that are waiting. Yet the way the series is set up, contestants dont know if or when theyll get to talk to the lead, or how much time theyll have before the next contestant cuts in. It seems theyve actively avoided those kinds of principles in The Bachelor, Shortle says.

Granted, social pressure discourages contestants from borrowing a Bachelor too soon, and the prospect of becoming a pariah dissuades some from double-dipping. But that only goes so far with these unwritten rules, because people dont agree on them or people will abuse them, Shortle says. Most leads allow the norm-eroding intrusions, though they may file the offenses away for future rose ceremonies. You allow them to interrupt, and you take note of it, and its probably what youre going to use against them when you send them home, Lindsay says.

Of course, the producers have every reason to craft the worst waiting experience possible. Theyre trying to maximize entertainment value, Shortle says, and thus theyre probably trying to maximize stress among contestants. So you take these queuing principles, and its almost like you do the opposite.

But the producers interests arent always fully aligned with the leads. If the Bachelor or Bachelorette genuinely wants to find love, he or she should be motivated to talk to every contestant and minimize the time-wasting sniping that stems from jockeying for cocktail-party position. Youre basically making a decision based on the short amount of time that you have, Shortle says. And so being able to spend time with everybody would be helpful, so youre not sending somebody away that would have been your first choice in the end.

Theres no way to make The Bachelors hyper-compressed process perfectly resemble real-life dating, but it wouldnt be difficult to do better than the anarchic status quo. From the contestants perspective, its just a totally unstructured system, Shortle says. And so I think the most basic thing is instilling some kind of order in the process. For example, the Bachelor could try to initiate some amount of control in terms of who he sees. If hes trying to choose among 30 people, then he wants to get to all 30. He could turn down people that come twice and try to let people know that hes going to get to everybody. I think the key things would be fairness and providing some level of reducing uncertainty.

How would that work in practice? Take night one, the thorniest challenge from a logistical standpoint. You have 30 contestants, Shortle says. You take the time, you divide it by 30, and you give each person that amount. That would be kind of the obvious solution. Its fair to everyone. Maybe you randomize the order, and then you get someone there that kind of enforces it and says, OK, your times up. Youre next.

One obstacle is that its easy for the leads to lose track of time during the interminable mixers. You dont know what time it is, Lindsay says. You dont know how long the nights gone. Whats more, the producers might not want to play the helper elves to the leads department-store Santa. But if the producers wouldnt cooperate on policing the line, maybe the Bachelor could politely and apologetically turn repeat visitors away or watch the clock and keep the procession moving. Admittedly, that would mean monitoring the time, which could be distracting. It would also mean keeping conversations/makeout sessions short, which would take discipline when the chemistry clicks. It seems like it might be a big ask for that person, Shortle says. But if they took a little more control, then some of these issues might be better.

The journey to find a romantic partner is supposed to be sexier than a trip to the DMV, and contestants taking tickets and staring at the wall until their numbers are called would be bad TV. Plus, trying to turn cocktail parties into orderly affairs could come off as anal-retentive micromanaging, a type A turnoff. Then again, it might also make a Bachelor seem considerate and assertive. Honestly, it depends if you really like them or not, Lindsay says. If you really like them then you find a reason to like what they did, and if you dont then you use it against them.

Shortle proposes a possible middle ground between being controlling and laissez-faire: One idea could be the Bachelor goes into the lounge and says, OK, Ill see you next, and then you, and then you. The Bachelor could even emerge for a few minutes to make small talk, promise that hes going to get to everyone, and put people at ease. If theres an element of service that occurs in the wait, then that improves the experience, Shortle says, who likens this solution to a restaurant serving drinks or making menus available while would-be diners wait to be seated. (The Bachelors producers do ply contestants with wine, but that may be as much about manufacturing drunken drama as it is about easing anxiety.)

Its easy for spectators (or operations research analysts) to say they would do a better job than the Bachelor. But when youre the lead, Lindsay says, You realize that youre stuck between this place of trying to find love, and then also make a TV show. For instance, Shortle notes that the uncertainty about when the Bachelors latest tte--tte is over, and the time it takes for leads and contestants to travel between conversational settings, are sources of slowdown that could be trimmed by bringing contestants in and out of one room where the Bachelor talks to everyone.

Congested systems are very sensitive to the length of the service time, Shortle says. So anything that you can shave off of that can vastly improve things. However, he concedes that while a more streamlined method would give more time for everybody, it would also sap some of the opportunity for the contestants to plan a personalized activity (and could become monotonous for fans).

That said, disrupting the traditional cocktail party and making entertaining TV arent mutually exclusive. When youve seen one argument about someone stealing or not getting time, youve essentially seen them all. And after a combined 40-plus seasons of The Bachelor and The Bachelorette, novelty has a high value. Some of the most memorable moments in franchise historyKaitlyn Bristowe having sex before fantasy suites, Colton Underwood jumping the fencehave come from leads scrapping the script. And whether its Courtney Robertson not-so-spontaneously skinny-dipping or, in Rachels case, a contestant or lead breaking with tradition by bringing her dog on dates or attending church, producers are pretty willing to accommodate the leads demands.

When I brought it up, they were like, Thats amazing. Thats never been done before. Lets do it, Rachel says about her request to bring Nick Viall to church on her hometown date. The producers were similarly supportive of her desire to be accompanied by Copper, who helped her choose a fianc.

At times, though, the producers can be impediments. At one cocktail party, Lindsay says, the producers told her that she couldnt talk to a contestant because of time constraints. And when she was on Nicks season, she saw other women talk-blocked by producers. Theres manipulation within there, Lindsay says. At least in my experience, I never saw someone not try to talk to the lead. If they didnt get to talk to the lead its because they were pushed back by a producer, maybe for some drama, for some conflict, maybe because the lead wanted more time with a specific person.

Lindsay went out of her way to prevent that from happening on her season. On night one, she says, I was very emphatic about the fact that I wanted to talk to every single person. I was not sending somebody home, or keeping someone, when I hadnt had a conversation with them, even if it was for a minute. She told the contestants at the outset of the party that she planned to talk to all of them, and she repeated her preference to the producers throughout the night. They were rushing people toward the end. I was getting two to three minutes with each person, but I got to talk to everyone, and it was one of the longest first nights ever, they said, because of me.

Its time for someone to take the quest for cocktail efficiency one step further. Some of the most indelible Bachelors are the ones who did things differently, like Jake Pavelka, Brad Womack, and Jesse Palmer (who had a spy in the house). Maybe a quant could achieve Bachelor immortality by breaking the Bachelor the way Jeopardy James broke the trivia institution.

Holzhauer found a wife before he found fame, and on Jeopardy!, he wasnt trying to woo anyone; he just had to hunt Daily Doubles and answer trivia questions correctly. But his chutzpah and skill still made him a fan favorite and a geek icon. ABC built its reality juggernaut on the strapping, shapely backs of generic hunks and hotties, but The Bachelor could benefit from mixing in nerds other than Venmo John, whos off the market. (And not just self-professed nerds like Becca Kufrin and closet nerd Wills Reid, who never really revealed what they were nerdy about.) To survive the casting gauntlet, they would have to be somewhat suave and sensitive nerds, naturallyso, not Nathan Fielder in The Hunkbut their tactics and passion could shake up the franchise in a welcome way.

Maybe a lead could conduct the cocktail party blindfolded, la Love Is Blind, or eliminate long shots and focus on front-runners, or ask the contestants to rate one another and go with the wisdom of crowds. On the superb seventh season of The Bachelor Australia, astrophysicist Matt Agnew resolved a she-said, she-said standoff at a cocktail party by surveying the other contestants about an alleged incident, which allowed him to deduce that one woman was lying and astutely send her home. Maybe Aussie Matt exhibited some PE teacher energy by grilling the women about what went down. But his strategy seems smarter than the latest American Matts decision to send the seemingly innocent Marylynn home because Victoria claimed without evidence that she was straight-up toxic.

In other words, be bold. Break with cocktail convention. And tell contestants, producers, and fans to trust the process. Maybe youll find love and be a Bachelor legend.

I think leads are so scared, Lindsay says. As outspoken and independent as I am, I was still scared to do that, because you dont know what you can and cant do. Its a psychological experiment. You really do change in that world, because youve never been in it before and you dont know who to trust and what to trust, and what you have power over and what you dont. When you probably have a lot more than you think, because at the end of the day they never want their lead to look bad. They will always protect the lead.

Talking to every contestant early onand then concentrating on the true contenderspaid off for Rachel, who has been married to Bachelorette beau Bryan Abasolo since August 2019. Given the lackluster collective success rate of the series stars, future leads should consider consulting Shortle, who could be to Bachelor strategy what Neil Lane is to Bachelor bling. But The Bachelors producers probably wont be retaining his services, unless its to learn how waiting could cause even more conflict. I think their optimal strategy would be to ask me what I think would be the best thing to do, and then they would do the opposite, Shortle says. Maybe in that sense I would be a good consultant.

Here is the original post:

How to Fix Some of the Bachelors Thorny Logistical Issues - The Ringer

Posted in Immortality | Comments Off on How to Fix Some of the Bachelors Thorny Logistical Issues – The Ringer