Difference between revisions of "Tem"

From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search
m
m
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==9: SEP 29==
+
==11: OCT 6==
  
 
===Assigned===
 
===Assigned===
  
−
:*Robert Sapolsky, C 13, "Morality" pp. 483-493
+
:*Haidt, Chapter 5, "Beyond WEIRD Morality" (17)
−
:*Haidt, Chapter 4, "Vote for Me (Here's Why)" (23)
+
:*Writing exercise: How WEIRD is Morality?
  
−
===Point on Method===
+
===Brief Survey on Student Engagement in Hybrid course delivery===
  
−
:*A way of framing the research we are reviewing (and some we are not): Three Frames:
+
:*Please take the following anonymous [https://gonzaga.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3I98g1ecsTe59ZP survey].
−
::*1. Differences and Structures in our individual psychology for expression moral behaviors.(Evolved psychology.)
 
−
::*2. Differences that emerge from the interactions of individuals in a society or culture.  (Evolved social behaviors.)
 
−
::*3. Differences between cultures, including, for example the remarkable emergence of WEIRD culture. (Joe Henrich, The Weirdest People on Earth) -- mention relevance for happiness. (Culturally evolved cognition and behaviors.)
 
  
−
:*Now that we are piling on the more research results, we should make sure our research strategy in the course makes sense:  So far:
+
===Final Stage of Sapolsky Writing Assignment===
−
::*1. The evolution of social behavior takes us deep into the nature of morality, but it is incomplete for various reasons.  (big reasony brains make free moves (like "rights"!) much of the evo machinery needs to be "deployed" to work, no answers from evolution to today's problems.
 
−
::*2. Reason and intuition (rider and elephant) characterize our individual moral experience.  We are still filling in our picture of reasoning in morals.
 
−
::*3. There are important asymmetries in our moral experience: Paradox of Moral Experience, and, today, the Fundamental Attribution Error.  (These, and other research results in this unit, hold profound "practical lessons" for improving moral deliberation and avoiding moral polarization (in which groups not only disagree, but see each other as morally inferior).)
 
  
−
:*Please start tracking "Practical Lessons" in your notes.
+
:*'''Stage 4''': Back-evaluation: After you receive your peer comments and my evaluation, take a few minutes to fill out this quick "back evaluation" rating form: [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdgKCYITDTSOOHcvC3TAVNK-EZDsP4jiiyPj-7jdpRoNUsLPA/viewform?usp=sf_link].  '''Fill out the form for each reviewer, but not Alfino.'''  Up to 10 points, in Points.
  
−
===Sapolsky. Behave. C 13, 483-493===
+
::*Back evaluations are due '''Thursday, October 8, 11:59pm'''.
  
−
Rough topics:
+
===Some samples from Henrich's, "The Weirdest People on Earth"===
−
:*Origins of Social/Moral Intuitions in Babies and Monkeys and Chimps
 
−
::*infants track commission better than ommission, as in adults.
 
−
::*infants show signs of moral reasoning -- baby helper studies, baby sweets study - rewards helper, baby secondary friends study (484)
 
−
::*capuchin monkey study (deWaal) - monkey fairness. (demonstrated also with macaques monkeys, crows, ravens, and dogs), details on 485.  google "crows solving puzzles" or "elephants solving puzzles"  animals are much more intelligent than we have historically understood.
 
−
::*Chimp version of Ultimatum Game - in the deWaal version, chimps tend toward equity unless they can give the token directly to the grape dispensers. 486
 
−
::*also studies for fairness without loss of self-interest and "other regarding preferences", but not in chimps! Keep this in mind the next time you are in a position to get justice from a chimp.
 
−
::*in one inequity study the advantaged monkey (the one who gets grapes) stops working as well.  solidarity?
 
−
::*Interesting comment: '''human morality transcends species boundary'''. starts before us.
 
  
−
::*(Add in the Joseph Stalin reference from Ch. 10.  He said he couldn't trust a guy who would rat out his relatives.)
+
:*p. 25: "Who Am I?" task.  Show charts
−
:*Exemptions for testifying against relatives and vmPFC patients who will trade relatives in Trolley situations
+
:*p. 28: sociocentric vs. individualistic
−
::*vmPFC damaged patient will sacrifice a relative to save four non-relatives.
+
:*p. 34: guilt vs. shame
−
::*Interesting note about criminal law exemptions.
+
:*p. 44: impersonal honesty research (recall Ariely).
  
−
:*Neuroscience of the Trolley Problem and "Intuition discounting"
+
===Haidt, Chapter 5, "Beyond WEIRD Morality"===
−
::*dlPFC in level condition and vmPFC in bridge condition.
 
−
::*Greene's hypothesis: in level condition the killing of the one is a side-effect.  In bridge condition, its ''because'' of the killing.  Different kinds of intentionality.
 
−
::*Loop condition -- you know you have to kill the person on the side track, should be like bridge condition, but test subjects match level condition.
 
−
::*Hypothesis: Intuitions are local; heavily discounted for time and space.  (Think of other examples of this.)  Stories in which your reaction to something changes when you learn where it happens.
 
−
::*related point about proximity - leave money around vs. cokes.  Cokes disappear. One step from money and the rationalization is easier.  Singer's pool scenario vs. sending money for absolute poverty relief.
 
−
::*priming study on cheating involving bankers.  492 - shows "intuition discounting" when primed to think about work identity. 
 
  
−
:*Neuroscience of the Fundamental Attribution Error
+
====WEIRD Morality====
−
::*p. 492: "but this circumstance is different"  - neuro-evidence for the Fundamental Attribution Error [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error]
+
:*WEIRD morality is the morality of Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic cultures
−
::*we judge ourselves by internal motives and others by external actions. Our failings/successes elicit shame/pride others elicit anger or indignation and emulation (envy?).
+
::*just as likely to be bothered by taboo violations, but more likely to set aside feelings of disgust and allow violations
−
:*Study showing that putting people under stress causes more egoistic judgements, at least about personal moral issues.
+
::*only group with majority allowing chicken story violation.
−
::*Ariely: cheating not limited by risk but rationalization.
+
::*"the weirder you are the more likely you are to see the world in terms of separate objects, rather than relationships"  "sociocentric" moralities vs. individualistic moralities; Enlightenment moralities of Kant and Mill are rationalist, individualist, and universalist.
 +
::*survey data on East/West differences in sentence completion: "I am..."
 +
::*framed-line task 97
 +
:*Kantian and Millian ethical thought is rationalist, rule based, and universalist.  Just the ethical theory you would expect from the culture.
  
−
===Haidt, Chapter 4, "Vote for Me (Here's Why)"===
+
====A 3 channel moral matrix====
 +
:*Schweder's anthropology: ethics of autonomy, community, divinity 99-100 - gloss each...
 +
::*claims Schweder's theory predicts responses on taboo violation tests, is descriptively accurate.
 +
::*ethic of divinity: body as temple vs. playground
 +
::*vertical dimension to values.  explains reactions to flag desecration, piss Christ, thought exp: desecration of liberal icons.  (Note connection to contemporary conflicts, such as the Charlie Hebdot massacre.)  
  
−
:*Ring of Gyges    
+
====Making Sense of Moral/Cultural Difference====
−
:*Functionalism in psychology
+
:*'''Haidt's Bhubaneswar experience''': diverse (intense) continua of moral values related to purity. (opposite of disgust). Confusing at first, but notice that he started to like his hosts (elephant) and then started to think about how their values might work.  Stop and think about how a mind might create this.   Detail about airline passenger.
−
:*Reminder of big theoretical choice about ethics.  (74) Is function of ethics truth discovery or pursuit of socially strategic goals?
+
:*Theorizing with Paul Rozin on the right model for thinking about moral foundations: "Our theory, in brief" (103)
 +
:*American politics often about sense of "sacrilege", not just about defining rights (autonomy).  Not just harm, but types of moral disgust.
 +
:*'''Stepping out of the Matrix''':  H's metaphor for seeing his own cultural moral values as more "contingent" than before, when it felt like the natural advocacy of what seem true and right.  Reports growing self awareness of liberal orientation of intellectual culture in relation to Shweder's view.  Social conservatives made more sense to him after studying in India.
  
−
:*Tetlock: accountability research
+
===Small Group Discussion===
−
::*Exploratory vs. Confirmatory thought
+
:*Discussion questions:
−
::*Conditions promoting exploratory thought
+
::*Does it make sense to talk about "stepping out of a matrix"? Is this a temporary thing?  What value might it have in your experience?
−
:::*1) knowing ahead of time that you'll be called to account;
+
::*Do you have a parallel story to Haidt's? (Mention travel experiences.)
−
:::*2) not knowing what the audience thinks;
 
−
:::*3) believing that the audience is well informed and interested in truth or accuracy.
 
−
 
 
−
:*Section 1: Obsessed with polls
 
−
:*Leary's research on self-esteem importance-  "sociometer" -- non-conscious level mostly.
 
−
 
 
−
:*Section 2: Confirmation bias and exploratory thought
 
−
:*Confirmation bias
 
−
::*Wasson again -- number series
 
−
::*Deann Kuhn -- 80: We are horrible at theorizing (requiring exploratory thought)....
 
−
::*David Perkins research on reason giving
 
−
 
 
−
:*Section 3: We're really good at finding rationalizations for things.
 
−
:*more examples of people behaving as Glaucon would have predicted. Members of parliament, Ariely, ''Predictably Irrational'',
 
−
 
 
−
:*Section 4: Can I believe it vs. Must I believe it
 
−
:*more evidence of reason in the service of desire: Can I believe it?  vs. Must I believe it? We keep two different standards for belief-assent.
 
−
:*"motivated reasoning" - 84ff. 
 
−
 
 
−
:*Section 5: Application to political beliefs: Partisan Brains
 
−
::*Does self interest or group affiliation predict policy preferences?  Not so much self-interest.  We are groupish.
 
−
::*Drew Westen's fMRI research on strongly partisan individuals. We feel threat to dissonant information (like hypocrisy or lying) about our preferred leader, but no threat, or even pleasure, at the problems for the opponent. the partisan brain.  Difference in brain activation did not seem to be rational/cog (dlPFC).  bit of dopamine after threat passes.
 
−
::*Research suggests that ethicists are not more ethical than others. (89  Schwitzgebel)
 
−
::*Mercier and Sperber.  [https://www.dan.sperber.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/MercierSperberWhydohumansreason.pdf Why Do Humans Reason?]
 
−
::*Good thinking as an emergent property. individual neurons vs. networks.  analogy to social intelligence. 
 
−
::*Statement, 90, on H's view of political life in light of this way of theorizing. read and discuss.  introduce term "social epistemology"
 
−
 
 
−
===Small Group discussion===
 
−
 
 
−
::*We all have examples from social life of people who are more or less interested in exploratory thought and holding themselves accountable to external information and "their side" arguments.
 
−
::*Share examples of the verbal and non-verbal behaviors of people who are not very good at exploratory thought and inviting diversity of viewpoint in social settings (other people, of course). 
 
−
::*Then, try to consider or recall the behaviors of people who do the opposite.  What are some verbal or other behaviors that you can use to indicate to others' that you are open to having your views examined?  What have you noticed about the practices of people who are good at generating viewpoint diversity in social setting?
 

Latest revision as of 19:51, 6 October 2020

11: OCT 6

Assigned

  • Haidt, Chapter 5, "Beyond WEIRD Morality" (17)
  • Writing exercise: How WEIRD is Morality?

Brief Survey on Student Engagement in Hybrid course delivery

  • Please take the following anonymous survey.

Final Stage of Sapolsky Writing Assignment

  • Stage 4: Back-evaluation: After you receive your peer comments and my evaluation, take a few minutes to fill out this quick "back evaluation" rating form: [1]. Fill out the form for each reviewer, but not Alfino. Up to 10 points, in Points.
  • Back evaluations are due Thursday, October 8, 11:59pm.

Some samples from Henrich's, "The Weirdest People on Earth"

  • p. 25: "Who Am I?" task. Show charts
  • p. 28: sociocentric vs. individualistic
  • p. 34: guilt vs. shame
  • p. 44: impersonal honesty research (recall Ariely).

Haidt, Chapter 5, "Beyond WEIRD Morality"

WEIRD Morality

  • WEIRD morality is the morality of Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic cultures
  • just as likely to be bothered by taboo violations, but more likely to set aside feelings of disgust and allow violations
  • only group with majority allowing chicken story violation.
  • "the weirder you are the more likely you are to see the world in terms of separate objects, rather than relationships" "sociocentric" moralities vs. individualistic moralities; Enlightenment moralities of Kant and Mill are rationalist, individualist, and universalist.
  • survey data on East/West differences in sentence completion: "I am..."
  • framed-line task 97
  • Kantian and Millian ethical thought is rationalist, rule based, and universalist. Just the ethical theory you would expect from the culture.

A 3 channel moral matrix

  • Schweder's anthropology: ethics of autonomy, community, divinity 99-100 - gloss each...
  • claims Schweder's theory predicts responses on taboo violation tests, is descriptively accurate.
  • ethic of divinity: body as temple vs. playground
  • vertical dimension to values. explains reactions to flag desecration, piss Christ, thought exp: desecration of liberal icons. (Note connection to contemporary conflicts, such as the Charlie Hebdot massacre.)

Making Sense of Moral/Cultural Difference

  • Haidt's Bhubaneswar experience: diverse (intense) continua of moral values related to purity. (opposite of disgust). Confusing at first, but notice that he started to like his hosts (elephant) and then started to think about how their values might work. Stop and think about how a mind might create this. Detail about airline passenger.
  • Theorizing with Paul Rozin on the right model for thinking about moral foundations: "Our theory, in brief" (103)
  • American politics often about sense of "sacrilege", not just about defining rights (autonomy). Not just harm, but types of moral disgust.
  • Stepping out of the Matrix: H's metaphor for seeing his own cultural moral values as more "contingent" than before, when it felt like the natural advocacy of what seem true and right. Reports growing self awareness of liberal orientation of intellectual culture in relation to Shweder's view. Social conservatives made more sense to him after studying in India.

Small Group Discussion

  • Discussion questions:
  • Does it make sense to talk about "stepping out of a matrix"? Is this a temporary thing? What value might it have in your experience?
  • Do you have a parallel story to Haidt's? (Mention travel experiences.)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.gonzaga.edu/alfino/index.php?title=Tem&oldid=22223"