|
Post by epaul on Sept 19, 2013 19:04:16 GMT -5
Some people can read social scientists, other people can't. I just can't. I get a headache. There might be much of value in the social sciences, I don't know. Or care. All I know is, trying to read it or listen to it or even briefly consider it gives me a headache and I have to stop.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Sept 19, 2013 19:16:33 GMT -5
epaul, take two novels and call me in the morning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 19:41:57 GMT -5
"Morality doesn't come from my parents or church. "
I have to give that one a think, Peter. Can you expand on morality being nature vice nurture? I've always believed there are all manner of belief systems that are shaped by surroundings. Then I saw a scientific study that showed how brutally tribal (read: racist) dolphins and other animals are. Does Momma dolphin teach baby to attack other tribes, or is that some hard-wired survival response?
Interesting, or disconcerting.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Sept 19, 2013 19:57:09 GMT -5
Paul, you didn't ask me, but the question interests me. I think we're innately tribal, siding with what's more like us against what's less like us. There's some old Arab saying...for me against my brothers, with my brothers against my cousins, with my cousins against the world. Or something like that.
Years ago, I was asked to teach a small-time course on comparative morals and ethics. I had to learn something about it in a hurry, in the hope of not looking like an idiot. The difference between morals and ethics is elusive, but skip that. What I found was that most cultures and religious traditions had essentially similar ethical precepts. Why is open to speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 19, 2013 20:27:22 GMT -5
I'm not worried about being picked on. I just believe that humans are inherently moral and rational. In nature vs. nurture I'm nature all the way with morality. Morality doesn't come from my parents or church. We disagree, but you reminded me of something I should have added: social influence. Our peers also help form our morals, along with parents and societal norms.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 19, 2013 20:28:34 GMT -5
Some people can read social scientists, other people can't. I just can't. I get a headache. There might be much of value in the social sciences, I don't know. Or care. All I know is, trying to read it or listen to it or even briefly consider it gives me a headache and I have to stop. I can appreciate that. I like it, but I get your headache on other subjects.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 19, 2013 20:34:06 GMT -5
"Morality doesn't come from my parents or church. " I have to give that one a think, Peter. Can you expand on morality being nature vice nurture? I've always believed there are all manner of belief systems that are shaped by surroundings. Then I saw a scientific study that showed how brutally tribal (read: racist) dolphins and other animals are. Does Momma dolphin teach baby to attack other tribes, or is that some hard-wired survival response? Interesting, or disconcerting. I don't know if there's a definitive answer to that, but you skipped a step. First, baby dolphin learns to become part of the tribe. The tribe helps guarantee individual members' survival.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Sept 19, 2013 20:42:17 GMT -5
"Morality doesn't come from my parents or church. " I have to give that one a think, Peter. Can you expand on morality being nature vice nurture? I've always believed there are all manner of belief systems that are shaped by surroundings. Then I saw a scientific study that showed how brutally tribal (read: racist) dolphins and other animals are. Does Momma dolphin teach baby to attack other tribes, or is that some hard-wired survival response? Interesting, or disconcerting. Don's got a good start on it. How can it be that most people from vastly different circumstances can essentially wind up in the same place? You can also look at it as a question of cause and effect. If religion shapes your morals that gives credence to the idea that church is really just a large brainwashing organization preying on people who are desperate to not go to hell. I've been around a whole lot of varied religious and not one of them was there because they were hoping to avoid damnation. Also, if morals are taught by parents and religion what about atheists and orphans? Are they doomed to be moral-less? Obviously not. I believe that we are hardwired for certain things. Morals are one of them, vocation is another one. I believe in resonance in life. That's resonating with your true nature to get the most out of life. It's very difficult but I think age and wisdom helps. I also believe that that is the true cause and effect of religion. Religion is a response to the hardwiring. It rises from the preexisting condition, not the other way around. It also resolves the conflict between predestination and free will. You're born with a pattern of attraction but you're also free to ignore it at will. Now I obviously believe that the hardwire is divinely inspired but it could also be evolutionary. I'm not preaching. But regarding the question at hand, I don't buy the presumption of a blank slate that is rationalized after the fact.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Sept 19, 2013 20:57:42 GMT -5
I kind of lost interest in authors who divided people into groups so readers could go, "Dang, that's right!" I think the first one that caught my eye was "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" and I looked at it and all I could think was, "Not the men and women I know." Actually I thought a few really rude things but I'll stick with that one. It ranks right up there with those business seminars we all seem to have to endure once every ten years or so to find out what axis we are on regarding various personality traits. The last one I went to I turned to the guy next to me and asked him, "When do we find out who the assholes are?" He laughed, got fussed at and I whispered to him, "I guess that would be me."
I know lots of women from Venus. I know lots of women who aren't from Venus. I know some from Mars. I know a few from Purgatory. I know one from heaven. I dated one from hell. I guess I just don't like buckets or boxes or labels or stereotypes or assumptions or whatevers. And there seems to be no end in the number of authors who can't seem to stop trying to figure out how "THEY" can think what they do compared to folks like "US".
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Sept 19, 2013 21:31:56 GMT -5
Tramp, I think we tend to identify with these artificial divisions the more we identify with one side or other of the division. The division between introverts and extroverts interests me because I'm way over on one side, and the profiles of that type seem like my biography. Divisions into liberals and conservatives mostly, in my experience, are invoked by very conservative people. Because I don't identify with either pole, I don't care much for the division, and tend to resent it when it's directed my way. Thank you for not pigeon-holing and cartooning me.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Sept 19, 2013 23:22:22 GMT -5
Nature ~80% Burture ~20%
We don't go around killing people because it's not practical as a life style.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Sept 20, 2013 0:08:19 GMT -5
Well, Jim, I don't know about righteous minds, but, you definitely have a lively, keen, and adventurous one. You would make a fine Norwegian, and that is about as high as my compliments reach.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 20, 2013 4:07:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 20, 2013 7:03:19 GMT -5
I kind of lost interest in authors who divided people into groups so readers could go, "Dang, that's right!" I think the first one that caught my eye was "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" and I looked at it and all I could think was, "Not the men and women I know." Venus & Mars never interested me either. Jadene read it. She's a slow reader, so it was on the nightstand for months. It made me uncomfortable. I had the feeling I was in trouble for something that she would one day explain to me, based on what she had found in the book. I hated that book. On the other hand, there are differences between men and women, and some of them I find interesting. Women take four times (?) as many words to say the same thing as men. Women have larger whatchamacallits (the frontal part of the brain associated with language - the part that I would no doubt know the name of if I was a woman) than men. Women and men are different. It can be measured. It's tangible. (On second thought, maybe I should read this book.) I can understand not being interested in The Righteous Mind. I understand that a lot of people, possibly most people, do not fit neatly into the liberal or conservative category. Some people are their own unique blend of liberal and conservative. Some just toe the line neatly down the middle, never straying so far that they actually take a side; they understand both sides but are committed to neither. And then there are the apolitical who have no interest in events outside their immediate circle. But there are conservatives and there are liberals, people whose opinions consistently track the stereotypes. Some of them are proud of it, and some resent being typecast. But they are somewhat predictable. There's a strong tendency for the two camps to fight with and demonize each other. A lot of times I don't understand conservatives. It's tempting at times to think of them as stupid, uninformed, illogical, and/or evil. But I know that it doesn't really explain the divide. I see plenty of instances of intelligent, caring people who just can't seem to understand what is so clear to me. And I wonder why that is. Righteous Minds probably doesn't have all the answers. The whole concept behind Righteous Minds - that we are all intuitionists - may seem laughable ten or fifty years from now when we finally know the answers. In the meantime, I'll read books like this every so often, hoping to gain a little insight on the (to me) baffling divide between right and left.
|
|
|
Post by Bassman on Sept 20, 2013 8:55:38 GMT -5
On the other hand, there are differences between men and women, and some of them I find interesting. Women take four times (?) as many words to say the same thing as men. Women have larger whatchamacallits (the frontal part of the brain associated with language - the part that I would no doubt know the name of if I was a woman) than men. Women and men are different. It can be measured. It's tangible. (On second thought, maybe I should read this book.)
I love whatchamacallits, best candy bar in the world. unless your talking about those thingamajigs on the front of a women.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Sept 20, 2013 8:59:30 GMT -5
What?!!
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Sept 20, 2013 9:35:59 GMT -5
I believe that we are hardwired for certain things. Morals are one of them, vocation is another one. I also believe that that is the true cause and effect of religion. Religion is a response to the hardwiring. It rises from the preexisting condition, not the other way around. But regarding the question at hand, I don't buy the presumption of a blank slate that is rationalized after the fact. I don't mean to nit-pick, but it seems to me that the hardwiring for certain things (morals, beliefs, etc.) is what's there (intuition, pre-existing condition, etc.), and the response (explanation, rationalization, mythologizing, etc.) rises from it. I (you, he, she, it, they, one) feel something to be true, and do my (your, his, her, their, ones) imperfect best to explain it in a clear rational manner so that others may understand. Is it the sometimes negative connotations to the word "rationalization" that's the wrench in the works? Personally, my objection is the negative connotations the word "righteous" in the title brings to my mind. It may not be what he intends to communicate -- there is a perfectly good meaning to the word. But I've dealt with enough self-righteous people that the word rubs me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 20, 2013 10:07:24 GMT -5
Personally, my objection is the negative connotations the word "righteous" in the title brings to my mind. It may not be what he intends to communicate -- there is a perfectly good meaning to the word. But I've dealt with enough self-righteous people that the word rubs me wrong. (risking ducking back in here. I think he's implying the negative connotation. I think that's the thesis. We think we're right FIRST....and everything else stems from that presumption)
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Sept 20, 2013 10:14:07 GMT -5
I believe that we are hardwired for certain things. Morals are one of them, vocation is another one. I also believe that that is the true cause and effect of religion. Religion is a response to the hardwiring. It rises from the preexisting condition, not the other way around. But regarding the question at hand, I don't buy the presumption of a blank slate that is rationalized after the fact. I don't mean to nit-pick, but it seems to me that the hardwiring for certain things (morals, beliefs, etc.) is what's there (intuition, pre-existing condition, etc.), and the response (explanation, rationalization, mythologizing, etc.) rises from it. I (you, he, she, it, they, one) feel something to be true, and do my (your, his, her, their, ones) imperfect best to explain it in a clear rational manner so that others may understand. Is it the sometimes negative connotations to the word "rationalization" that's the wrench in the works? Personally, my objection is the negative connotations the word "righteous" in the title brings to my mind. It may not be what he intends to communicate -- there is a perfectly good meaning to the word. But I've dealt with enough self-righteous people that the word rubs me wrong. What I object to is the characterization that we start as a blank cognitive framework that is filled by experience and outside teachers. And also the notion that only top level, expressly dedicated thought (like I'm going to now sit down and calculate the load bearing capacity of the main roof truss for the next few hours) is the only "rational" thought. Rational thought happens at all levels, even unconscious ones. The brain is still pulling together disparate information, making complex calculations, forming opinions and making decisions while we're driving to work. Limiting the definition of rational thought is what allows some to dismiss religion as irrational mythology. I believe we arrive with a working understanding of the world and I believe that is all that's needed to form a moral understanding. I think it informs our experience and we rationally continue to evolve our understanding of it at many levels of conscious thought. I believe religion, when it happens, arises from those inquiries as we try to square our innate understanding with the infinitely complex universe we find ourselves in. And I think that the true value in these questions is not in categorizing us into liberals, conservatives, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Agnostics, or Atheists based on what our parents or the Imam down at the Mosque said, but rather that we recognize we are all on the same path and the same quest and there is a great deal that we can share in sorting it out. I simply don't buy Haidt's primary assumption and therefore his conclusions are meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Sept 20, 2013 10:15:10 GMT -5
Personally, my objection is the negative connotations the word "righteous" in the title brings to my mind. It may not be what he intends to communicate -- there is a perfectly good meaning to the word. But I've dealt with enough self-righteous people that the word rubs me wrong. (risking ducking back in here. I think he's implying the negative connotation. I think that's the thesis. We think we're right FIRST....and everything else stems from that presumption) Agreed.
|
|