America the Ignorant - DPChallenge Forums

09/22/2010 04:34:02 PM · #351

Sorry, by "position" I meant how we view biology influencing such things. Shannon talked about competing instincts of self-preservation and altruism and considered altruism to be a "strong" instinct. I would consider it to be a very limited instinct, especially once you are outside your immediate ingroup. To me, altruism is generated in our moral sphere, not biological one (and I think such a distinction would be poppycock to Shannon).

Haidt's talk probably answers your last line. I have more axes to contend with than you may. (And while we can joke about "more being better", I don't intend to make that inference.) So while an action may be viewed as purely "discriminatory" in your 2-axis view, it may be more understandable from a 3- or 5- axis view.

Wasn't there a place where you could take a test and Haidt's group would show you where you fell on the 5 axes? I think I may have mine somewhere in my portfolio.

If this means anything it appears that my own morality is mainly a 3-axis scale with harm, fairness, and purity being more important than loyalty and authority.

Message edited by author 2010-09-22 16:35:52.

09/22/2010 04:35:02 PM · #352

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...those not in our "ingroup"--have never been deemed worthy of empathy or concern. These outsiders can be enslaved. And they can be killed. Slavery and genocide are hardly historical anomalies. They have been the overwhelming rule."

Those not in our "ingroup" HAVE been deemed worthy of empathy or concern, which is why slavery was abolished, women can vote, and minorities are represented in government. I agree with the assessment that our ingroups have expanded and although history is rife with examples of domination to make "our" lives better at the expense of others, there has also been a clear historical march toward social altruism and equality as a result.

09/22/2010 04:37:24 PM · #353

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...those not in our "ingroup"--have never been deemed worthy of empathy or concern. These outsiders can be enslaved. And they can be killed. Slavery and genocide are hardly historical anomalies. They have been the overwhelming rule."

Those not in our "ingroup" HAVE been deemed worthy of empathy or concern, which is why slavery was abolished, women can vote, and minorities are represented in government. I agree with the assessment that our ingroups have expanded and although history is rife with examples of domination to make "our" lives better at the expense of others, there has also been a clear historical march toward social altruism and equality as a result.

I think that march is only clear if you view the world through Western Civilization. AND, interestingly, I would contend that this is a direct result of Judeo-Christian influence upon that civilization. ;)

Take India and China, 1/3rd of our current population. They do not have the same march to altruism and equality that we do.

Message edited by author 2010-09-22 16:38:13.

09/22/2010 04:44:43 PM · #354

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I remember that graph. I still have mine in my portfolio but I can't access it since I'm no longer a paying member. Anyway, I see your point. However, don't you think that maybe if altruism isn't a strong instinct it's because we were taught to supress it? I don't know if this study was what Shannon was referring to before or not.

Message edited by author 2010-09-22 16:45:53.

09/22/2010 04:47:23 PM · #355

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Shannon talked about competing instincts of self-preservation and altruism and considered altruism to be a "strong" instinct. I would consider it to be a very limited instinct, especially once you are outside your immediate ingroup.

Can you given any examples where we don't exhibit altruism when our own self-interests are not at risk?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Whence Turkey, Japan, Lebanon, Taiwan... the Greeks and Romans?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Take India and China, 1/3rd of our current population. They do not have the same march to altruism and equality that we do.

Sure they do. India is trying to eliminate castes, arranged marriage and honor killing, and has even appointed "untouchables" to government positions. China is also working on reforms, but of course the self-interests of the ruling elite precludes rapid progress.

09/22/2010 05:04:29 PM · #356

I never know how to reply to nested responses.

1) I'm not sure I can really come up with an example where our own self-interest is not at risk. How about this? One would assume that if you were rich you would have more resources to allow you to worry less about your self-interest versus a poor person. Following me? Studies have shown that "while the rich do give more in overall dollars, according to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income." Wouldn't we expect the reverse if there was a direct inverse correlation between the two insticts?

2) I'm gonna have to look up the word "Whence" cuz I don't get what you are saying... :)

3) I think you may only be showing one side of the equation. Certainly I don't think my point is moot simply by hearing that China is "working on reforms"...

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/22/2010 05:14:34 PM · #357

1) The rich are also subject to self interest. They'll give to charity, but fight taxes with a mad passion lest they lose a yacht or the inherent power and respect that comes with BEING rich.

2) If altruism is Western and based on Judeo-Christian principles, then where did the relatively fair societies of Turkey, Japan, Lebanon, Taiwan, the Greeks and Romans come from?

3) Of course not. Nor would you be satisfied with reforms in North Korea or Iran. As totalitarian regimes, those countries' altruism is precluded by the self-interests of oppressive rulers.

Message edited by author 2010-09-22 17:15:17.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

09/22/2010 05:28:22 PM · #358

Shannon, don't you see what you're doing? In effect, the thesis you are pushing here is "Given a level playing field, altruism will always win out." Shown any example where altruism is NOT winning out, you say, "Yeah, but that's not a level playing field!"

It's still the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I don't think history, thus far, supports your thesis re: altruism. Perhaps we ARE heading towards that long-sought nirvana, but we can't look to history, or even to the present, to support its inevitability.

Regarding the Western bias of altruism, and its ties to the Judeo-Christian ethos, as proposed by Doc, I'm not sure I'd make that link so strongly, myself, because, as you point out, the Greeks predate the J/C ethos. Rome, maybe not as much, since the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire and begat the Holy Catholic Church and all that good stuff. Nevertheless, at least two of your examples, Japan and Taiwan, didn't start down their path to "enlightenment" until they became heavily influenced by Western interests. Japanese culture radically morphed post-WWII, and Taiwan, as a political entity, was essentially created by the Americans.

R.

09/22/2010 05:29:18 PM · #359

I get to nest this time!

Originally posted by scalvert:

1) The rich are also subject to self interest. They'll give to charity, but fight taxes with a mad passion lest they lose a yacht or the inherent power and respect that comes with BEING rich.

See, this is where I can't imagine a scenario where you couldn't say, "there is still self-interest there". My point was trying to get at it proportionately. Rich people still have self-interest, but you would assume they have less REAL reason for self-interest (i.e. survival concerns). Their security is less apt to be truly threatened. I would then expect the rich to proportionately give more from their resources out of altruistic desires, but they do not appear to do so.

Originally posted by Shannon:

2) If altruism is Western and based on Judeo-Christian principles, then where did the relatively fair societies of Turkey, Japan, Lebanon, Taiwan, the Greeks and Romans come from?

If you consider Greek and Roman societies to be relatively "fair" to suit your purposes, then I'd argue that the word is useless. Both Greek and Roman cultures were far more "unequal" than they were "equal", even if you could point out points of light.

Certainly one could not blame this historic march to equality you claim to see on an actual genetic evolution as the timeframe is a blink of an eye.

Originally posted by Shannon:

3) Of course not. Nor would you be satisfied with reforms in North Korea or Iran. As totalitarian regimes, those countries' altruism is precluded by the self-interests of oppressive rulers.

Message edited by author 2010-09-22 17:32:05.

09/22/2010 05:44:30 PM · #360

An interesting example of how Judeo-Christianity shaped Roman morality to protect the rights of others.

After the sack of Jersusalem in 70AD, Tacitus set out to basically demonize the Jews in his history. Interestingly he writes that, "Among the Jews all things are profane that we hold sacred; on the other hand they regard as permissible what seems to us immoral." Tacitus goes on to list a number of Jewish moral perversions and among the beliefs he found particularly "sinister and revolting" was the fact that, for Jews, "it is a deadly sin to kill an unwanted child."

Infanticide was a commonly accepted form of birth control in both Greek and Roman cultures. We have come a long way from that point and we have Judeo-Christianity exclusively to thank for it.

Perhaps this is an example where altruism fails. A letter from a Roman soldier to his wife:

"Know that I am in Alexandria...I ask and beg you to take good care of our baby son, and as soon as I've received payment I shall send it upon you. If you are delivered [before I come home], if it is a boy, keep it, if a girl, discard it."

How does REAL self-interest play to compel this result over altruism? A girl doesn't consume more resources or somehow make it harder for the family to survive. If you make that argument, then I would think an argument supporting burqas would be every bit as compelling.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/22/2010 05:55:25 PM · #361

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I don't think that's right. He's not simply saying "Yeah, but that's not a level playing field!". He's saying it's not a level playing field and here's why...

Example, Jason said China and India aren't marching toward altruism. He provided no specifics or evidence for this. It was simply a statement of fact. Shannon countered, but they are moving toward altruism. Shannon cited recent changes to India's caste system, honor killings, etc but didn't provide any evidence for it. Rather than asking for that evidence, Jason simply dismissed it saying " I think you may only be showing one side of the equation". Again, just a statement of fact or possible fact with no evidence or specifics cited. If Shannon's argument has holes, Jason's are the size of airbuses.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

09/22/2010 05:58:45 PM · #362

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Shannon, don't you see what you're doing? In effect, the thesis you are pushing here is "Given a level playing field, altruism will always win out." Shown any example where altruism is NOT winning out, you say, "Yeah, but that's not a level playing field!"

It's still the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I don't think that's right. He's not simply saying "Yeah, but that's not a level playing field!". He's saying it's not a level playing field and here's why...

Example, Jason said China and India aren't marching toward altruism. He provided no specifics or evidence for this. It was simply a statement of fact. Shannon countered, but they are moving toward altruism. Shannon cited recent changes to India's caste system, honor killings, etc but didn't provide any evidence for it. Rather than asking for that evidence, Jason simply dismissed it saying " I think you may only be showing one side of the equation". Again, just a statement of fact or possible fact with no evidence or specifics cited. If Shannon's argument has holes, Jason's are the size of airbuses.

True enough, but I'm referring specifically to his dismissal of Korea etc due to their tyrannical governments. And he's RIGHT, of course, altruism IS taking a back seat to tyranny, no question about it, in those places. But the argument itself is fallacious, BECAUSE he eliminates from his graphs, so to speak, all counter-examples.

R.

Message edited by author 2010-09-22 18:00:26.

09/22/2010 06:02:37 PM · #363

I thought the examples were obvious enough to all that they weren't necessary. India obviously has the caste system, arranged marriages, etc. China has a huge laundry list of human right violations. I don't think it's incumbent upon me to prove the point. I wasn't making the claim that history has shown a march of progress.

09/22/2010 06:15:44 PM · #364

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Shannon, don't you see what you're doing? In effect, the thesis you are pushing here is "Given a level playing field, altruism will always win out." Shown any example where altruism is NOT winning out, you say, "Yeah, but that's not a level playing field!"

It's still the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I don't think that's right. He's not simply saying "Yeah, but that's not a level playing field!". He's saying it's not a level playing field and here's why...

Example, Jason said China and India aren't marching toward altruism. He provided no specifics or evidence for this. It was simply a statement of fact. Shannon countered, but they are moving toward altruism. Shannon cited recent changes to India's caste system, honor killings, etc but didn't provide any evidence for it. Rather than asking for that evidence, Jason simply dismissed it saying " I think you may only be showing one side of the equation". Again, just a statement of fact or possible fact with no evidence or specifics cited. If Shannon's argument has holes, Jason's are the size of airbuses.

True enough, but I'm referring specifically to his dismissal of Korea etc due to their tyrannical governments.

R.

But is it really a dimissal when as you say governments like Korea are tyrannical in nature, that is they are cruel to its people and oppress change. It would be like dismissing the notion that water flows down river because someone built a dam to prevent it.

Message edited by author 2010-09-22 18:17:03.

09/22/2010 06:15:52 PM · #365

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

In effect, the thesis you are pushing here is "Given a level playing field, altruism will always win out." Shown any example where altruism is NOT winning out, you say, "Yeah, but that's not a level playing field!" It's still the No True Scotsman fallacy.

The No True Scotsman fallacy consists of excluding counterexamples that aren't relevant to the proposition. Is it a No True Scotsman fallacy to say "if available, people breathe air," and you point out cases where air isn't available? Nope. I said, "when self-interest is not a concern, people favor altruism." Pointing out cases where altruism is not favored BECAUSE self-interest is a perceived concern does not refute the proposition, nor is excluding self-interest irrelevant to the claim.

FALLACY: 1. Catholics are against contraception. 2. Person X favors contraception. 3. Then person X is not a Catholic.
NOT A FALLACY: 1. Roman Catholics consider the pope to be their leader. 2. Eastern Orthodox Catholics don't consider the pope to be their leader. 3. Eastern Orthodox Catholics aren't Roman Catholics (the counterclaim doesn't refute the premise)

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Japan and Taiwan, didn't start down their path to "enlightenment" until they became heavily influenced by Western interests. Japanese culture radically morphed post-WWII, and Taiwan, as a political entity, was essentially created by the Americans.

Those countries are overwhelmingly Shinto, Buddhist and Tao. They are neither Western nor Judeo-Christian. In fact, if morality were dependent upon religion, then at least some theocracies would be among the most moral societies in history. Has there ever been such a thing?

09/22/2010 06:18:39 PM · #366

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Just because China has a laundry list of human rights violation doesn't prove or disprove what is happening now. America has it's share of human rights violations too and some could argue it's going backwards currently, but few could argue that over the course of 200+ years that it hasn't progressed toward altrusim.

Edited for clarity

Message edited by author 2010-09-22 18:35:56.

09/22/2010 06:20:05 PM · #367

Originally posted by yanko:

Bingo!

09/22/2010 06:32:25 PM · #368

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Japan and Taiwan, didn't start down their path to "enlightenment" until they became heavily influenced by Western interests. Japanese culture radically morphed post-WWII, and Taiwan, as a political entity, was essentially created by the Americans.

Those countries are overwhelmingly Shinto, Buddhist and Tao. They are neither Western nor Judeo-Christian. In fact, if morality were dependent upon religion, then at least some theocracies would be among the most moral societies in history. Has there ever been such a thing?

That may be true but that doesn't mean they weren't heavily influenced by western ideals. I think that's undeniable. One can just point to the popular culture in those regions (ex. Anime, Bollywood, etc).

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

09/22/2010 06:40:59 PM · #369

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Whatever social comparisons we want to make between Tea Party politics and Weimar Germany, one distinction, I believe, is we do not seem to be going down the road to fascism. The libertarian bent of the discourse today probably keeps that from the realm of possibility.

What other "striking" similarities are being drawn? Our xenophobia? I would say that is actually on the decline compared to a decade ago.

Examples include:

o Disillusionment with government (and a vacuum of response) undermining the credibility of traditional parties;

o Spread of the perception that the white middle class is being persecuted/prejudiced;

o Demonisation and scapegoating of certain religio/ethnic groups (illegal immigrants, blacks, muslims);

o Calls to nationalism and increasingly shrill characterisation of opposing views as being "un-American";

o Calls to arms and emphasising individual responsibility for personal and local security; and

o Tone of public speaking, the appeals to powerful base emotion (fear, anger) over intellect.

At the same time, US politics appear to be lurching to the right with the Democrats occupying the conservative agenda, the Republicans looking to harder line views in order to differentiate, and yet still losing out to the even more extreme and disillusioned tea partiers.

09/22/2010 06:45:39 PM · #370

Originally posted by yanko:

You could also point to the popularity of Levi's in Saudi Arabia or McDonald's in Beijing as examples of Western influence. Does Western morality follow?

09/22/2010 07:01:34 PM · #371

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by yanko:
That may be true but that doesn't mean they weren't heavily influenced by western ideals. I think that's undeniable. One can just point to the popular culture in those regions (ex. Anime, Bollywood, etc).

You could also point to the popularity of Levi's in Saudi Arabia or McDonald's in Beijing as examples of Western influence. Does Western morality follow?

Certainly. Don't the Levis go hand in hand with fewer burqas? :)

Message edited by author 2010-09-22 19:02:12.

09/22/2010 07:10:24 PM · #372

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by yanko:
That may be true but that doesn't mean they weren't heavily influenced by western ideals. I think that's undeniable. One can just point to the popular culture in those regions (ex. Anime, Bollywood, etc).

You could also point to the popularity of Levi's in Saudi Arabia or McDonald's in Beijing as examples of Western influence. Does Western morality follow?

Certainly. Don't the Levis go hand in hand with fewer burqas? :)

but then you'll have to ban scissors or else that'll lead to daisy dukes...

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

09/22/2010 07:15:53 PM · #373

Originally posted by yanko:

but then you'll have to ban scissors or else that'll lead to daisy dukes...

Did the term daisy dukes come from the character on Dukes of Hazzard, or did the character get her name from the shorts? See, THESE are the important things we should be discussing.

David Ey

Nikon D80

09/22/2010 07:18:47 PM · #374

Where are the pictures?