View source for JAN 30

==5: JAN 30. ==

===Assigned===

:*Wrangham C10 – “The Evolution of Right and Wrong” – 1st half (198-212; 14)  Key concepts: Good Samaritan Problem, emotions as moral guides, interference, baby prosociality, Ultimatum Game, reverse dominance hierarchies, self-protection, conformity, obedience, shame, guilt, and embarrassment.

===In Class===

:*Writing Workshop on Practice Writing
:*Wrangham's broader argument in "The Goodness Paradox"

===Writing Workshop===

====Some writing concepts - Review of first writing====

:*A general challenge of good writing -- '''Getting outside of your head''' -- looking at the writing as if you didn't write it.

:*Here are a few good writing concepts to look for in the samples on the handout.
::*'''Good starts''' -- Without good introductions and signals of organization and thesis readers are disoriented and confused.  Set context by framing the topic.  Tell your readers where you are going to take them.  
::*'''Flow''' -- How well does one sentence follow another?  Do you notice places where flow is interrupted?
::*'''Efficient writing''' -- Literally, how much you say with so many words.  Awkward phrasing and limited word choice reduce efficiency.

:*Review of writing samples.

::*Get into your groups and agree on one of the highly nominated writing '''from the other section''' to read. Give yourself about two minutes to read it.  Then, in a brief discussion, keep track of what was good about the writing and what might still be improved.  Repeat with another piece of writing.

===Wrangham's broader argument in "The Goodness Paradox"===

:*Here are a couple of topics from earlier chapters that it will be helpful for you to know about:
::*Claims about aggression in humans.
::*A bit of history on the self-domestication hypothesis.
::*Bonobos!
::*The Tyrant Problem
::*Capital Punishment as a solution

===Wrangham C10 – “The Evolution of Right and Wrong” ===

:*C10 - Self-dom is a broad gene/culture theory, but also shaped morality.  Coalitionary aggression could also police conformity to expectations.  Values!  Proactive aggression is a source of social control.  

:*Kullabak story.

:*Humans very groupish.  90%chimp 10% bee.  But group benefits aren’t the only motivation for morality.  Also, perhaps, self-interest in avoiding negative judgements from a dominant groups or value consensus.  “We evolved to fear the killing power of the men in the group” 200.  

:*part of the “goodness paradox” is that people who commit genocide are often conventionally moral in other areas of their lives.  “Most violence is motivated by moral emotions.”  202. 

:*Three problems: 
::*1. Why are we so prosocial.  Good Samaritan problem  (Digression on baby prosociality and theory of mind.  Helper and hinderer puppet shows:  [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anCaGBsBOxM Yale Theory of Mind & Baby prosociality]  [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7JbLSIirXI Basic Puppet set up for prosociality studies on babies].   )
::*2. Emotions as moral guides - how do we classify actions as “right” and “wrong”?
::*3. Interfering with others

:*1. Good Sam problem - How do you explain altruistic behaviors that are not directed at kin?  Maybe “Veneer Theory”, but toddlers are spontaneously helpful and babies are deeply prosocial (watch video on babies).  3yr olds will disobey commands that involve harm.  

::*Ultimatum Game - also demonstrates that we are not strictly rational about sharing.  Donor’s offer about 1/2, anticipating Decider’s sense of fairness.  (Culturally variable.).  

::*Group selection theory might help solve the Good Sam problem, but group selection might not benefit the whole group.  Example of control of women in some Hunter-gatherer society.  “We need other mechanisms to explain how self-sacrificing behavior evolved (the Good Sam problem)

:*2.  How do we classify actions as right or wrong?  208: We are both utilitarian and deontological (duty to a principle).  Trolley problem v. Organ donor.  (Digression to show "The Trolley Problem" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WB3Q5EF4Sg The Trolley Problem])

::*Three biases that help explain how we classify actions right or wrong:  
:::*Inaction bias - we favor omission over commission.
:::*Side Effect bias - we favor avoiding intentional harm.
:::*Noncontact bias - we have a bias against physical contact with someone being harmed.

::*research: thought to be connected to nonmoral cognitive bias.  Others add that they may confer benefits.  

:*3. Interfering with others.

::*Chimps - Passion and Pom, and Prof.  young mother Gilka. Passion charges her and kills her baby, Otta.  Not atypical for chimps.  Sudden violent behavior toward a chimp without obvious provocation.  Thought to be a strategy (show of violence) for securing food.  Point: males police some of this behavior, but not much.  Very little 3rd party punishment.  

::*By contrast, humans punish (differently) and are more generous.  

:*'''1st half of reading ends here.'''

:*Theories that help with these three theoretical problems:

:*Boehm’s theory - reverse dominance hierarchy - is that Homo sapiens used coalitionary proactive aggression to control alpha males.  This would produce a selection pressure against alpha male reactive aggression.  Then, with the discover of “coalitionary power”, males use that power to enforce expectations on pain of execution.  Read at bot 213: in hunter-gather groups you can be killed for LOTS of things.  (Note this also gives an account of patriarchy.).   “Once men dominate the society through their control of death, their word becomes law.” “Some three hundred thousand years ago, males discovered absolute power.” 215.

:*216-221: Wrangham’s “solutions” to the three puzzles.

:*1.  Prosociality - Good Samaritan problem - Following Boehm, W argues that coalitions of militant egalitarians would cut down bullies.   Two further possibilities: they might do it from judgements about the good of the group (enforcing cooperation) or from self-interest of the coalition of males.  Either way prosocial behavior would be rewarded.

:*2. Emotions as moral guides - how do we classify actions as “right” and “wrong”?  The three biases seem like defenses against a possible accusation.  "I did nothing" "That wasn't my goal" "I never touched them".    Makes sense in a linguistic world of gossip and reputation, especially if there is a proactively aggressive coalition of men policing things.  Could be origin of "inner voice" of conscience.  Helps us steer clear of moral mobs. 

:*3. Interfering with others.  Why do we monitor each other's behavior and intervene sometimes?  W claims this reflects a bias toward conformity, that is, not wanting to be seen as a nonconformist (or the moral mob will get you).  Shame, embarassment, guilt, pain from being ostracized, all only human responses.  read about embarassment 219.  Cyberball research 220.