|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 17, 2013 11:25:36 GMT -5
www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379434351&sr=8-1&keywords=the+righteous+mindLike a lot of the books I read (or listen to), somebody talked me into buying this (maybe Kari), and then by the time I get around to reading it I can't remember who first brought it up. But I like it. So thanks, somebody. Amazon's summary: It's pretty interesting so far, especially the part about how we form our moral judgements based on intuition, and THEN use reason to justify and/or explain why we feel the way we do. I'm going to have to try to refrain from political and religious arguments. This book makes it pretty clear that it's not just the other guy who's being illogical. ... or not.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 17, 2013 14:04:22 GMT -5
The Can/Must thing is a brilliant observation. He's a wonderful thinker. I can only assume that since he has the motivation of the right wrong, the left (upon reading him) probably feels the same way about his assignment of their motivations.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Sept 17, 2013 14:46:51 GMT -5
"If you’re ready to trade in anger for understanding, read The Righteous Mind."
I'm afraid that rules out a very large number of people.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 17, 2013 15:28:08 GMT -5
The Can/Must thing is a brilliant observation. He's a wonderful thinker. I can only assume that since he has the motivation of the right wrong, the left (upon reading him) probably feels the same way about his assignment of their motivations. You've already read more Haidt than I have? I don't know what you mean by the "can/must thing." I think I remember a TED speech in which he talked about the motivations or values and their priorities for conservatives and liberals. As I remember it, we didn't fully agree with Haidt. I don't remember us fully disagreeing with him either. I think I bought the book because I wanted to understand his thinking better, but the book hasn't really gotten into that yet, except in the most general terms. Hopefully when I'm done I'll have a better handle on it. Or at least be able to remember what those five? values were. The first chapter alone makes the book worth reading though. The concept that we're making moral and value judgements in an instant and then using all our logic, reasoning and language skills after the fact to try to convince ourselves and others that our instincts and intuitions were correct seems to be true. I could tell you about the experiments he and others have done to demonstrate the validity of the theory, but I don't need to. I can feel it in my gut. (That's kind of like a joke, but according to the book, not really.) One of his more interesting conclusions is that you can talk yourself blue in the face, but you're never going to change somebody's mind on a moral issue unless you appeal to his or her intuition. Facts won't change their mind. Reason won't change their mind. They didn't get their view from facts and reason, and neither did you. But if you can appeal to their intuition and manage to change their perspective from a gut level, you've converted them to your way of thinking. Note that first you have to see and fully understand their perspective, and in doing so, you might accidentally convert your own opinion to match their perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Sept 17, 2013 17:08:40 GMT -5
The notion that humans are not rational but rationalizing animals is nothing new--Heinlein used the line in the 1940s. And one of our best teachers in grad school taught that literary criticism is the process of articulating and justifying gut responses to art.
On the other hand, the recognition that we are not fundamentally calculating machines can and should lead to a kind of moderate overcompensation, which is what I take to be behind, say, the legal system's elaborate, fussy requirements for evidence and procedural correctness. Or any set of protocols for vetting the reliability of our evaluations and decisions. Therefore, logic and the scientific method and careful attention to semantics and the insistence on checking sense perceptions against non-human instrumentation.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 17, 2013 18:08:24 GMT -5
The notion that humans are not rational but a rationalizing animals is nothing new--Heinlein used the line in the 1940s. And one of our best teachers in grad school taught that literary criticism is the process of articulating and justifying gut responses to art. On the other hand, the recognition that we are not fundamentally calculating machines can and should lead to a kind of moderate overcompensation, which is what I take to be behind, say, the legal system's elaborate, fussy requirements for evidence and procedural correctness. Or any set of protocols for vetting the reliability of our evaluations and decisions. Therefore, logic and the scientific method and careful attention to semantics and the insistence on checking sense perceptions against non-human instrumentation. In your opinion or at least as you rationalize it, right?
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Sept 17, 2013 21:36:15 GMT -5
Heh.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 18, 2013 6:18:02 GMT -5
The notion that humans are not rational but rationalizing animals is nothing new--Heinlein used the line in the 1940s. Who? That's where I started from. As a result of trying to answer that question for myself, I wound up buying Starship Troopers. By the time I get around to reading it a year or two from now, I will have forgotten all about this conversation. I may want to thank you at that time, but I will no longer remember who you are.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Sept 18, 2013 12:15:29 GMT -5
Starship Troopers might not be the best place to start with Heinlein--though if it points you toward Joe Haldeman's The Forever War (and eventually to Linda Nagata' very new The Red: First Light*), then starting with one of RAH's most annoying books might be OK. * Self-promotion: There's a review here-- www.locusmag.com/Reviews/2013/08/russell-letson-reviews-linda-nagata/
|
|
|
Post by lar on Sept 18, 2013 13:43:11 GMT -5
Starship Troopers might not be the best place to start with Heinlein--though if it points you toward Joe Haldeman's The Forever War (and eventually to Linda Nagata' very new The Red: First Light*), then starting with one of RAH's most annoying books might be OK. * Self-promotion: There's a review here-- www.locusmag.com/Reviews/2013/08/russell-letson-reviews-linda-nagata/ This is off topic but my introduction to Heinlein was "Stranger in a Strange Land". I was hooked and have been since that time. You may now resume the discussion I so rudely interrupted.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 18, 2013 13:46:01 GMT -5
Starship Troopers might not be the best place to start with Heinlein-- Well then it's good for everyone involved that I won't remember why I bought that particular book when it comes time to assign blame.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Sept 18, 2013 14:04:16 GMT -5
Starship Troopers is a juvenile Stranger in a Strange Land on the line between his juveniles and his adult books.
Starship Troopers is the one where her outlines the voting is for military vets only.
Glory Road is the one that hooked me.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 18, 2013 14:06:29 GMT -5
Two things:
1. Do not assume that I am not a juvenile.
2. Doug, please report to the grammar thread for disciplinary action.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,910
|
Post by Dub on Sept 18, 2013 14:16:37 GMT -5
Just picked up "The Righteous Mind" on Kindle. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 18, 2013 14:17:49 GMT -5
Just picked up "The Righteous Mind" on Kindle. Thanks. I'll be anxious to hear what you think of it.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Sept 18, 2013 14:19:57 GMT -5
"This is off topic but my introduction to Heinlein was "Stranger in a Strange Land". "
Yeah, this was the first of his I read as well. Back in the 6th grade. Looking back on it I bet I didn't understand half of it. Reading that book then told me that there is no such thing as 'age appropriate". If you can read it and get something from it, it is appropriate. Not saying I wouldn't get something different today.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 18, 2013 14:25:55 GMT -5
Just picked up "The Righteous Mind" on Kindle. Thanks. I may want to do the same at some point. I'm listening to it on Audible. It works well for most of the book, but some parts go by a little too quickly. It'd be nice to have it in print and be able to slow down and take my time when I need to.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 18, 2013 14:31:50 GMT -5
"This is off topic but my introduction to Heinlein was "Stranger in a Strange Land". " Yeah, this was the first of his I read as well. Back in the 6th grade. Looking back on it I bet I didn't understand half of it. Reading that book then told me that there is no such thing as 'age appropriate". If you can read it and get something from it, it is appropriate. Not saying I wouldn't get something different today. I either did or didn't pick the right book to start with, but I was kind of interested in his earlier books that were written for kids. From what I read last night about Heinlein, he was frustrated by censors and purposely included adult themes in his children's books, feeling that kids were able to handle a lot more than adults were giving them credit for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 15:47:57 GMT -5
I may have to read this as well. There is one thing I get more certain of the older I get, and that's how little I really know about anything. Perhaps I need to gut up and become more opinionated.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Sept 18, 2013 15:53:35 GMT -5
Starship Troopers was written for Scribner's as a "juvenile" (what we now call Young Adult) novel, but when the publisher rejected it, Heinlein took it to Putnam (and to The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, which serialized a shortened version) and never wrote another Scribner's juvenile. As a body of work, Heinlein's juveniles hold up very well--much better than similar efforts from other A-list SF writers (Asimov, Lester del Rey, even Jack Vance).
Scribner's also wanted Heinlein to extensively (and rather stupidly) revise Stranger, but he refused and Putnam took it instead--though only after Heinlein agreed to trim it by about 60,000 words. I've read both the cut and uncut versions, and I have to say that the Putnam editors were not wrong.
|
|