Difference between revisions of "FEB 2"

From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search
m
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==6. FEB 2==
+
==5: FEB 2==
  
−
===Assigned Work===
+
===Assigned===
  
−
:*Nix, Stacy. Chapter 3: Fats ''Williams' Basic Nutrition and Diet Therapy'' (pp. 31-46)
+
:*Haidt, Chapter 2, "The Intuitive Dog and It's Rational Tail" (25)
−
:*[https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScDEqlG0qUtpRUvB3jv-9T1MQ_LWmJDCQIMOkWzXtj3hk3SVQ/viewform?usp=sf_link Fill out Fats Worksheet] '''Due Tonight by midnight'''
+
:*Sapolsky, Chapter 10: The Evolution of Human Behavior 328-387 (59). For this class read only pages 354-374.
  
−
===In-class===
+
===In-class topics===
  
−
:*Giving Peer Criticism
+
:*Note from last class
−
:*Norming Rubric Scores
+
:*Small group:  Haidt’s social intuitionist model
−
:*The Lancet, Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meats
+
::*”Why do we take advice more easily from friends?”
−
:*American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, "Vegetarian Diets"
+
:*Second look: What does the prisoners' dilemma show about the problem of reciprocal altruism and the emergence of cooperation?
  
−
===Nix, Chapter 3, "Fats"===
+
===Closer Look: What does the prisoners' dilemma show us about the problem of reciprocal altruism and the emergence of cooperation?===
  
−
:*'''Nature of lipids:'''
+
:*Reciprocal altruism emerges in our species when we use our big brains to decide when it is rational to incur a fitness cost to help others in expectation of a fitness benefit from their future cooperation. It is rational for us to try to optimize our fitness by benefiting from cooperative relationships.  The big questions here is: '''When and with whom should I cooperate?'''
−
::*C, H, O  -- note that Carbs are different arrangements of these.
 
−
::*fatty acids are chains of C-H bonds with a methyl group on one end (so-called the "omega") and an acid on the other (which bonds to a glycerol)
 
−
::*Saturated (so called because no spaces in the C-H string), mono-unsaturated (space at the 9th H), polyunsaturated (spaces after 6) (linoleic acid) and, if after 3, Omega-3 or (alpha-linolenic acid)
 
−
::*Visible fats: saturated fats are dense, form solids at room temp.
 
−
::*Trans-fatty acid: natural unsaturated fats are “cis” - Carbon on the same side.  Hydrogenation of fats in industrial foods are sometimes “trans” to produce more shelf-stable fat. Heath concerns of trans-fats.
 
  
−
:*'''Functions of Fats'''
+
:*In the Prisoner's Dilemma, there is a '''discrepancy''' between the "rational" outcome (defect, rat the other guy out) and the optimal outcome (both stay quiet). The discrepancy is caused by '''uncertainty''' about the other person's behavior.  '''Will they cooperate?  Will they make me a "sucker"?'''
−
::*Essential fatty acids: linoleic acid (omega 6) and alpha-linolenic acid (omega-3). We can produced saturated fats and cholesterol, but we cannot produce these two fatty acids. 
 
−
::*34: diet of less than 10% calories from fat not consistent with health.
 
−
::*'''Lipoproteins''': the body's way of moving fat through the blood stream.  Wrapped in protein these bundles of fat can be relatively high density (lots of protein) or low density.  High density lipoproteins are important because the help with the process for removing carry cholesterol out of the body.
 
−
::*Some interesting detailed functions in '''phospholipids''' such as lecithin (for cell membranes), and eicosanoids (signaling hormones that relate inflammatory and immune response, and cholesterol, which we need for cell membrane health. Phospholipids also transport fats. (Lesson: Food is not just fuel. It plays many metabolic roles.)
 
−
::*Fats essential for tissue strength, cholesterol metabolism, muscle tone, blood clotting, and heart action.  As with carbs, you can think of fats as energy sources, but don't forget other metabolic functions.
 
−
::*Storage of energy.
 
−
::*Source of fat soluble vitamins.
 
−
::*Saiety! Don’t underestimate the importance of fats in producing satisfaction.  Digression here on “trade ups” in fats.  Animal to plant.  Plant fats with better profiles of O6/O3. 
 
  
−
:*'''Food Sources'''
+
:*Resolving this uncertainty is an ethical problem (a problem that can be addressed by values).  Values like promising, sincerity, reputation, accountability, punishment (talking stink about defectors) are all means by which we try to realize the benefits of cooperation.
−
::*Fat from meat is compatible with a healthy diet, but better when taken with fiber and balanced with high ratio of polyunsaturated fats. Trade up to lean meats, without skin.
 
−
::*Fish have mostly unsaturated fat [http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/finfish-and-shellfish-products/4231/2] compared to red meat [http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/6211/2] or chicken [http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/poultry-products/703/2] or a Starbuck's caramel brownie [https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/foods-from-starbucks/9662/2]!  Think about your saturated fat budget goal. 
 
−
::*Visible and invisible fats - similar point as the Dutch study in Moss.
 
  
−
:*Note pull out box on fat metabolism by ethnicity -- still very open research areas as far as mechanisms.  Interesting to look into further.  Hypotheses....
+
===Sapolsky, Chapter 10: The Evolution of Human Behavior 354-374===
  
−
:*'''Digestion'''
+
:*'''How can cooperation get started and become stable?''' 353-
−
::*In the mouth: Ebner's glands secrete lingual lipase, mostly designed for non-chewing infants.
+
::*In other words, how does "tit for tat" survive among defectors? Coalitions, green beard effects.
−
::*Enzymes in small intestine (from pancreas), bile from gallblader, bile emulsifies fat, increasing surface area for enzymes to act.  Pancreatic enzymes also enter the small intestine.  
+
::*Sometimes natural event cut a group off.  Inbreeding promotes stronger kin bonds. That group may outperform others once they out migrate.  (Give example from Henrich of Inuits with meat sharing behaviors.  A better "cooperative package".) 
−
::*Frying foods at high temperatures makes digestion harder and compounds can break down into carcinogens. (Recall Lancet article.)
+
::*Effects of ind. selection, kin selection, and reciprocal altruism:
−
 
+
:::*Tournament vs. Pair bonding - lots of traits and behaviors follow from sexual dimorphism.  This also happens in degrees.
−
:*'''Recommendations'''
+
:::*Parent-Offspring competition - in spite of kin selection, there are some "zero sum" situations bt parents and offspring.  parent-offspring weaning conflict and mother-fetus conflict. Over insulin. Dad even has a vote through paternal "imprinted genes," which promote fetal growth at expense of mom.  (Intersexual Genetic Conflict)
−
::*US overconsumption of sat. fats.  should have less than 7% of calories from sat&trans fat combined.  Some progress: US eaters went from 13 to 11%.
 
−
::*Very low fat and fat free diets are dangerous to health (p. 43). Essential fatty acid deficiency. 
 
−
::*DRIs: 20-30% of calories from fat.  DRI for linoleic acids at 17 g. alpha linolenic acid 1.1 g/day.  Not something a person on a plant based diet needs to track.  (notion of "can't miss" diet).
 
−
::*Note recommendations on p. 44. 
 
  
−
:*'''Some more "Fat" Details'''
+
:*Multilevel Selection MLS
 +
::*Remember the "bad" group selection from the beginning of the chapter?  Group selection returns in the last few decades.  (Tell story of visits with Bio prof friends over the years.)
 +
::*Genotypic and Phenotypic levels of explanation - unibrows.
 +
::*Organism (expressed individual) is a vehicle of the genome, but the genome has alot to say about how the organism turns out.  .
 +
::*Big debate in Biology. Three positions: 1. Dawkins took the "selfish gene" view that the best level of explanation is individual genes. 2. Others say the genome - "a chicken is an egg's way of making another egg" (It's the whole genome travelling through evolutionary "space".); finally, 3. Others like Gould take the phenotype.  After all, it's visible to the world.  Selection could operate on a single phenotypic trait or the whole individual.  Dawkins cake metaphor. 362.  (So that's really four levels of selection.)
 +
::*'''Four levels and counting'''. 
 +
:::*Fifth level: neo-group selection - the idea that some heritable traits are maladaptive for the individual, but increase the group's fitness (note difference from the bad old group selection).
 +
::::*Examples:
 +
:::::*Encouraging patriotism might lead you to enlist, taking a fitness risk that we benefit from.
 +
:::::*Jailing someone for their reproductive life is a serious fitness hit, but we're better off with murderers locked up.
 +
:::::*
  
−
::*Your fat budget: 2000 calories, 20-35% from fat, 9 grams/calorie, 44-72 grams per day. Going Below 22 grams, or less than 10% incompatible with health.  Recommended less than 7% from saturated fat (15 grams).
+
::*Neo-group selection happens when groups impose fitness costs or benefits on members or sub-groups.  
 +
:::*Postive (fitness benefits): zags helping zags, .   
 +
:::*Negative for some, positive for others(fitness costs): Slavery, racism, class bias, criminal punishment, patriotism, heroism, priests.  
  
−
::*Tracking O6 / O3: The two ''essential'' fatty acids (ones we need and can't make).
+
:*Some scientists agree that neo-group selection can occur, but think it's rare. Sapolsky points out that it is not rare in humans, due to Green Beard effects.
−
:::*Old nutrition news focused on reduction of saturated fat, which is still important, but new research is focused on proportion of O6/O3.
 
−
:::*[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12442909 Ratio of O-6 to O-3 NIH on fat ratios]; [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4808858/ Nutrition science on fat ratios and obesity]
 
  
−
:::*[https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/chapter-1/a-closer-look-inside-healthy-eating-patterns/#callout-dietary-fats Fatty Acid Profiles of Common Fats & Oils from US Dietary Guidelines]
+
:*Remember "Green Beard" effects from p. 341 -- a thought experiment in extending/recognizing kin.  With neo-group, we go further, and hypothesize that we can form groups around almost anything (sport teams in an imaginary baseball league).  Human mind does not limit partiality or commitment to kin or even social group. 
  
−
::*Looking at foods and food products in terms of fat profiles:
+
:*Where do we fit in? AND US?
 +
::*We're bit of chimp and a bit of bonobo.  Men 10% larger, 20% heavier than women.  Slight dimorphism. Not quite pair-bonding, not quite tournament
 +
::*'''US and Individual Selection''': Example of divorce: natural experiment when cultural taboos are lifted.  Note that increased divorce rates are confined to the same percentage of population.  Lift culture and you get to see who the "less pair-bonding" people are!  Likewise with historically powerful (and not very romantic) rulers.  Point: with absolute power, tyrants often adopt extreme reproductive behaviors with many hundreds of women, if possible.
 +
::*'''US and Kin selection''': Still very powerful, most feuds are clan based, but we can go to war against kin, and we give to strangers. We can be disgusted by people who betray their families: Story of Pavlik Morozov, 368.  368: study about preferring dog to x, y, z.  vmPFC involved. 
 +
::*Why do humans deviate from kin selection so much.  Biologists also want to find '''mechanisms'''.  Animals recognize kin by MHC or imprinted genes.  We do it cognitively. Much more flexibility.
  
−
::*Grass fed cows produce more favorable 06/03 ratios: [https://extension.umn.edu/pasture-based-dairy/grass-fed-cows-produce-healthier-milk fatty acid profiles in milk].
+
===Haidt, Chapter 2, "The Intuitive Dog and Its Rational Tail"===
  
−
::*Compare various Trader Joe's packaged and prepared foods with your fat budget.  TJ's trades on its healthy image, but some of its product are very high in saturated fat.
+
:*'''Some complaints about philosophers'''
−
::*Example: [https://www.calorieking.com/us/en/foods/f/calories-in-frozen-meals-chicken-mandarin-orange/qMOpXwVoSPOmy1WU9bRvpw Trader Joe's Orange Chicken]
+
::*Philosophy's "rationalist delusion" ex. from Timaeus.  but also in rationalist psych. -- Assuming reason is our perfection.  Desire is a necessary evil for mortals.  Desire is a slave to reason. 
 +
::*Three models for the relation of reason to desire:
 +
:::*Plato - Reason ought to be the master of emotions. (Timaeus myth of the body - 2nd soul(emotional)), but also image of human as charioteer holding the reigns on desire (the horses). The "ultimate rationalist fantasy" is to believe that passions only serve reason, which controls them.
 +
:::*Hume (Reason is slave of passions) Examples: Reason comes in to justify emotion. Inner lawyer.
 +
:::*Jefferson (The Head and The Heart model. Nature has made a "division of labor" - Haidt thinks Jefferson got it right.). Jefferson’s racy trip to Paris.
  
−
:*Individual and Small Group moment: Take a few minutes to look up fat values for some of your favorite foods.  Compare notes with each other.
+
:*'''The troubled history of applying evolution to social processes'''
 +
::*A brief history of attempts to apply Darwinian thinking to social life (and morality).
 +
::*Darwin - a nativist - thought nature selected for moral emotions like sympathy and concern about reputation.  '''First wave''': Late 19th century: “Social Darwinism” (not Darwin’s conviction). (Note that it violates Sapolsky’s warning about evolution being prospective.)
 +
::*'''Second wave''' 60s (hippie/boomer) ideology suggesting that we can liberate ourselves from our biology and traditional morality (as contraception appeared to). Resists idea, for example, that men and women might have different evo strategies. Resists culture and authority as oppressive.
 +
::*Example: Resistance to E. O. Wilson’s ''Sociobiology''. Wilson advanced the claim we saw in Sapolsky: Evolution shapes behavior. But he dared to apply it to humans.
 +
::*Wilson also suspected that our rational justifications might be confabulations to support our intuitions.  Roughly, we are disgusted by torture so we believe in rights. Read at 32: “Do people believe…?
  
−
===Giving Peer Criticism===
+
:*'''The emotional nineties (Third Wave)'''
 +
::*Even though Wilson was shouted down and “de-platformed”, history proves him right.
 +
::*de Waal, primatologist, who studied moral behavior in primates. Monkey fairness.
 +
::*Damasio's research on vmPFC disabled patients. They could watch gruesome images without feeling, but had trouble planning. (Phineas Gage) Lesions shut down the "valence" (flashes of positive neg emotions) encoded in memory.  (Quick examples.)
 +
::*Point: '''Reasoning about practical matters requires feeling.'''
  
−
:*Some thoughts on helpful peer commenting:
+
:*'''Why Atheists Won’t Sell Their Souls'''
 +
:*Evolutionary Psychology in moral psychology: Dual Processing model. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory#System_1] 
 +
::*Do we make moral decisions under controlled or automatic processing?  No problem making moral decisions under cognitive load.  Suggests automatic processing.  Note this also suggests that we shouldn't think of our "principles" as causal.   
 +
::*Can we see automatic processing when reasons are missing? 
 +
:::*Roach-juice
 +
:::*Soul selling
 +
:::*Incest story (Harmless taboo violation). Note how interviewer pushes toward dumbfounding.
  
−
:*You are only asked to write two or three sentences of comments, so choose wisely!
+
:*'''How to explain dumbfounding: Pattern matching v. Reasoning''' 
 +
::*Margolis: seeing that (pattern matching - automatic) vs. reasoning why (controlled thought); we have bias toward confirmation, which is seen in the mistake people make on the Wasson Card test.  "Judgement and justification are separate processes."  At least sometimes, it appears the justification is ex post facto. (Reason a slave to the passions.)
  
−
:*Giving criticism someone would want to consider.
+
:*'''Rider and Elephant''' (System 2 (reason) and System 1 (passions; emotions)
 +
::*Important to see Elephant as making judgements (Emotions are epistemic), not just "feeling" (Hard for traditional philosophers to do.)  (Pause for examples of "intelligent emotions")
 +
::*45: Elephant and Rider defined. Emotions are a kind of information processing, part of the cognitive process. Not just “gut feeling”. Intuition and reasoning are both cognitive.
 +
::*Values of the rider: seeing into future, treating like cases like; post hoc explanation, but "expensive" in terms of attention and time. (Like education itself!)
 +
::*Values of the elephant: automatic, valuative, ego-maintaining, opens us to influence from others.
 +
::*Note Carnegie's advice -- fits with Haidt's model.  If you want to persuade people, talk to the elephant.  (Note: If the elephant is very afraid and powerless, this can lead to bad outcomes.)
  
−
::*Give gentle criticisms that focus on your experience as a reader:
+
:*'''Social Intuitionist Model'''
−
:::*"I'm having trouble understanding this sentence" vs. "This sentence makes no sense!"  
+
::*How does Rider and Elephant interact socially? Examples from everyday life: Who do you take advice and criticism from? People who’s elephants you like and like you.
−
:::*"I think more attention could have been paid to X vs. "You totally ignored the prompt!
 
  
−
::*Wrap a criticism with an affirmation or positive comment
+
:*Bring up Repligate issue. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-nature-nurture-nietzsche-blog/201509/quick-guide-the-replication-crisis-in-psychology]
−
:::*"You cover the prompt pretty well, but you might have said more about x (or, I found y a bit of a digression)"
 
−
:::*"Some interesting discussion here, esp about x, but you didn't address the prompt very completely ...."
 
−
 
 
−
::*General and specific -- Ok to identify general problem with the writing, but giving examples of the problem or potential solutions.
 
−
:::*I found some of your sentences hard to follow.  E.g. "I think that the main ...." was a bit redundant.
 
−
:::*I thought the flow was generally good, but in paragraph 2 the second and third sentence seem to go in different directions.
 
−
 
 
−
===Norming Rubric Scores===
 
−
 
 
−
:*We'll take a look at the [[Assignment Rubric]] scores in order to clarify their meanings.  This should help you with your peer review.
 
−
 
 
−
===The Lancet on Meat, and Am Acad of Nutrition on Vegetarian diets===
 
−
 
 
−
:*'''The Lancet -- "Carcinogenicity of Consumption of Red and Processed Meat"'''
 
−
::*Major conclusions, evidence, authoritativeness
 
−
:::*curing, frying, grilling and barbequing produce carcinogenic chemical
 
−
:::*17% increase risk of colon cancer at 100/grams of red meat and 18% for 50 grams of processed meats.
 
−
::*Note mechanistic evidence for red meat strong, for processed meat moderate.
 
−
::*What are the specific thresholds and risk factors by consumption?
 
−
:::*Many hundreds of studies across many countries. less certainty about the red meat conclusion from epidemiological data, though mechanistic evidence seemed stronger for red meat. Note studies on second page.  More on HAA and PHA, which are chemicals formed at high heats that we often cook meat. 
 
−
 
 
−
:*'''American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Position on Vegetarian Diets'''
 
−
::*What is the overall assessment of the Academy of the healthiness vegetarian and vegan diets?
 
−
:::*bio availablity of iron lower for vegs, but not all bad.  No longer higher DRI for iron due to new evidence 
 
−
::*What are the major recommendations for dietary supplementation or monitoring?
 
−
:::*Vit D, B12, maybe calcium, (but these are common supplements for non-vegs as well)
 
−
:::*To what degree do low and no-meat diets reduce your risk of Western Dietary Diseases?  12ff: long list of health benefits. Please read through this part especially.
 
−
 
 
−
:*Note: effect of both the Lancet and Academy articles:  most of benefits from veg diet available to low-meat diet, most of hazards of high meat diet concentrated on red & processed meat.
 

Latest revision as of 19:01, 2 February 2023

5: FEB 2

Assigned

  • Haidt, Chapter 2, "The Intuitive Dog and It's Rational Tail" (25)
  • Sapolsky, Chapter 10: The Evolution of Human Behavior 328-387 (59). For this class read only pages 354-374.

In-class topics

  • Note from last class
  • Small group: Haidt’s social intuitionist model
  • ”Why do we take advice more easily from friends?”
  • Second look: What does the prisoners' dilemma show about the problem of reciprocal altruism and the emergence of cooperation?

Closer Look: What does the prisoners' dilemma show us about the problem of reciprocal altruism and the emergence of cooperation?

  • Reciprocal altruism emerges in our species when we use our big brains to decide when it is rational to incur a fitness cost to help others in expectation of a fitness benefit from their future cooperation. It is rational for us to try to optimize our fitness by benefiting from cooperative relationships. The big questions here is: When and with whom should I cooperate?
  • In the Prisoner's Dilemma, there is a discrepancy between the "rational" outcome (defect, rat the other guy out) and the optimal outcome (both stay quiet). The discrepancy is caused by uncertainty about the other person's behavior. Will they cooperate? Will they make me a "sucker"?
  • Resolving this uncertainty is an ethical problem (a problem that can be addressed by values). Values like promising, sincerity, reputation, accountability, punishment (talking stink about defectors) are all means by which we try to realize the benefits of cooperation.

Sapolsky, Chapter 10: The Evolution of Human Behavior 354-374

  • How can cooperation get started and become stable? 353-
  • In other words, how does "tit for tat" survive among defectors? Coalitions, green beard effects.
  • Sometimes natural event cut a group off. Inbreeding promotes stronger kin bonds. That group may outperform others once they out migrate. (Give example from Henrich of Inuits with meat sharing behaviors. A better "cooperative package".)
  • Effects of ind. selection, kin selection, and reciprocal altruism:
  • Tournament vs. Pair bonding - lots of traits and behaviors follow from sexual dimorphism. This also happens in degrees.
  • Parent-Offspring competition - in spite of kin selection, there are some "zero sum" situations bt parents and offspring. parent-offspring weaning conflict and mother-fetus conflict. Over insulin. Dad even has a vote through paternal "imprinted genes," which promote fetal growth at expense of mom. (Intersexual Genetic Conflict)
  • Multilevel Selection MLS
  • Remember the "bad" group selection from the beginning of the chapter? Group selection returns in the last few decades. (Tell story of visits with Bio prof friends over the years.)
  • Genotypic and Phenotypic levels of explanation - unibrows.
  • Organism (expressed individual) is a vehicle of the genome, but the genome has alot to say about how the organism turns out. .
  • Big debate in Biology. Three positions: 1. Dawkins took the "selfish gene" view that the best level of explanation is individual genes. 2. Others say the genome - "a chicken is an egg's way of making another egg" (It's the whole genome travelling through evolutionary "space".); finally, 3. Others like Gould take the phenotype. After all, it's visible to the world. Selection could operate on a single phenotypic trait or the whole individual. Dawkins cake metaphor. 362. (So that's really four levels of selection.)
  • Four levels and counting.
  • Fifth level: neo-group selection - the idea that some heritable traits are maladaptive for the individual, but increase the group's fitness (note difference from the bad old group selection).
  • Examples:
  • Encouraging patriotism might lead you to enlist, taking a fitness risk that we benefit from.
  • Jailing someone for their reproductive life is a serious fitness hit, but we're better off with murderers locked up.
  • Neo-group selection happens when groups impose fitness costs or benefits on members or sub-groups.
  • Postive (fitness benefits): zags helping zags, .
  • Negative for some, positive for others(fitness costs): Slavery, racism, class bias, criminal punishment, patriotism, heroism, priests.
  • Some scientists agree that neo-group selection can occur, but think it's rare. Sapolsky points out that it is not rare in humans, due to Green Beard effects.
  • Remember "Green Beard" effects from p. 341 -- a thought experiment in extending/recognizing kin. With neo-group, we go further, and hypothesize that we can form groups around almost anything (sport teams in an imaginary baseball league). Human mind does not limit partiality or commitment to kin or even social group.
  • Where do we fit in? AND US?
  • We're bit of chimp and a bit of bonobo. Men 10% larger, 20% heavier than women. Slight dimorphism. Not quite pair-bonding, not quite tournament
  • US and Individual Selection: Example of divorce: natural experiment when cultural taboos are lifted. Note that increased divorce rates are confined to the same percentage of population. Lift culture and you get to see who the "less pair-bonding" people are! Likewise with historically powerful (and not very romantic) rulers. Point: with absolute power, tyrants often adopt extreme reproductive behaviors with many hundreds of women, if possible.
  • US and Kin selection: Still very powerful, most feuds are clan based, but we can go to war against kin, and we give to strangers. We can be disgusted by people who betray their families: Story of Pavlik Morozov, 368. 368: study about preferring dog to x, y, z. vmPFC involved.
  • Why do humans deviate from kin selection so much. Biologists also want to find mechanisms. Animals recognize kin by MHC or imprinted genes. We do it cognitively. Much more flexibility.

Haidt, Chapter 2, "The Intuitive Dog and Its Rational Tail"

  • Some complaints about philosophers
  • Philosophy's "rationalist delusion" ex. from Timaeus. but also in rationalist psych. -- Assuming reason is our perfection. Desire is a necessary evil for mortals. Desire is a slave to reason.
  • Three models for the relation of reason to desire:
  • Plato - Reason ought to be the master of emotions. (Timaeus myth of the body - 2nd soul(emotional)), but also image of human as charioteer holding the reigns on desire (the horses). The "ultimate rationalist fantasy" is to believe that passions only serve reason, which controls them.
  • Hume (Reason is slave of passions) Examples: Reason comes in to justify emotion. Inner lawyer.
  • Jefferson (The Head and The Heart model. Nature has made a "division of labor" - Haidt thinks Jefferson got it right.). Jefferson’s racy trip to Paris.
  • The troubled history of applying evolution to social processes
  • A brief history of attempts to apply Darwinian thinking to social life (and morality).
  • Darwin - a nativist - thought nature selected for moral emotions like sympathy and concern about reputation. First wave: Late 19th century: “Social Darwinism” (not Darwin’s conviction). (Note that it violates Sapolsky’s warning about evolution being prospective.)
  • Second wave 60s (hippie/boomer) ideology suggesting that we can liberate ourselves from our biology and traditional morality (as contraception appeared to). Resists idea, for example, that men and women might have different evo strategies. Resists culture and authority as oppressive.
  • Example: Resistance to E. O. Wilson’s Sociobiology. Wilson advanced the claim we saw in Sapolsky: Evolution shapes behavior. But he dared to apply it to humans.
  • Wilson also suspected that our rational justifications might be confabulations to support our intuitions. Roughly, we are disgusted by torture so we believe in rights. Read at 32: “Do people believe…?
  • The emotional nineties (Third Wave)
  • Even though Wilson was shouted down and “de-platformed”, history proves him right.
  • de Waal, primatologist, who studied moral behavior in primates. Monkey fairness.
  • Damasio's research on vmPFC disabled patients. They could watch gruesome images without feeling, but had trouble planning. (Phineas Gage) Lesions shut down the "valence" (flashes of positive neg emotions) encoded in memory. (Quick examples.)
  • Point: Reasoning about practical matters requires feeling.
  • Why Atheists Won’t Sell Their Souls
  • Evolutionary Psychology in moral psychology: Dual Processing model. [1]
  • Do we make moral decisions under controlled or automatic processing? No problem making moral decisions under cognitive load. Suggests automatic processing. Note this also suggests that we shouldn't think of our "principles" as causal.
  • Can we see automatic processing when reasons are missing?
  • Roach-juice
  • Soul selling
  • Incest story (Harmless taboo violation). Note how interviewer pushes toward dumbfounding.
  • How to explain dumbfounding: Pattern matching v. Reasoning
  • Margolis: seeing that (pattern matching - automatic) vs. reasoning why (controlled thought); we have bias toward confirmation, which is seen in the mistake people make on the Wasson Card test. "Judgement and justification are separate processes." At least sometimes, it appears the justification is ex post facto. (Reason a slave to the passions.)
  • Rider and Elephant (System 2 (reason) and System 1 (passions; emotions)
  • Important to see Elephant as making judgements (Emotions are epistemic), not just "feeling" (Hard for traditional philosophers to do.) (Pause for examples of "intelligent emotions")
  • 45: Elephant and Rider defined. Emotions are a kind of information processing, part of the cognitive process. Not just “gut feeling”. Intuition and reasoning are both cognitive.
  • Values of the rider: seeing into future, treating like cases like; post hoc explanation, but "expensive" in terms of attention and time. (Like education itself!)
  • Values of the elephant: automatic, valuative, ego-maintaining, opens us to influence from others.
  • Note Carnegie's advice -- fits with Haidt's model. If you want to persuade people, talk to the elephant. (Note: If the elephant is very afraid and powerless, this can lead to bad outcomes.)
  • Social Intuitionist Model
  • How does Rider and Elephant interact socially? Examples from everyday life: Who do you take advice and criticism from? People who’s elephants you like and like you.
  • Bring up Repligate issue. [2]
Retrieved from "http://wiki.gonzaga.edu/alfino/index.php?title=FEB_2&oldid=26344"