Difference between revisions of "MAR 17"

From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "==16: MAR 17== ===Assigned=== :*Dennett, Daniel. Chapter 4: "A Hearing for Libertarianism" Freedom Evolves. (300) (63-97) ===Two arguments for resisting Dennett's view===...")
 
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
==16: MAR 17==
+
==18: MAR 17==
  
 
===Assigned===
 
===Assigned===
  
:*Dennett, Daniel. Chapter 4: "A Hearing for Libertarianism" Freedom Evolves. (300) (63-97)
+
:*Hibbing, John R., Kevin Smith, and John R. Alford, ''Predisposed'', Chapter 2, "Getting Into Bedrock with Politics". (26)
  
===Two arguments for resisting Dennett's view===
+
===In-class===
  
:*Push back on idea that the determinism of the actual world is about causal sufficiency.
+
:*Short debrief on fair contract case.
::*The possible worlds talk is all in your head.  The actual world is the only one we have and everything in it happens from necessity. But note that might not be his problem and might still be compatible with FW. 
 
:*Push back on idea that states of affairs (S(0) etc.) are not somehow causally related. Even if "state descriptions" aren't causal, it isn't false to say the each state of the universe produces the next.
 
  
===Dennett, Daniel. Chapter 4: "A Hearing for Libertarianism" Freedom Evolves.===
+
===Hibbing, et. al. ''Predisposed'' Chapter 2===
  
:*Characterizes the traditional argument motivating libertarianism:
+
:*Begins with allegations that universities are left-biased.  Points out counterexample in Russell.  Students can be more radical than even lefty faculty. City college story.  34ff: ironically its most lasting intellectual movement was neoconservatism.
::*If Det true, no FW. If no FW, no MR.
+
::*If we think of states of affairs as causing other states of affairs (something he argued against in C2), then we need a break in the causal matrix, '''a GAP''', to own our action, saving FW and MR.
+
::*Point of story:
 +
:::*1) Colleges' political orientations have little predictable effect on their students. (Think about this in relationship to Gonzaga.)
 +
:::*2) Politics and political beliefs are fungible, change dep on time and place.  No discussions these days of Stalin-Trotskyism.  Or ADA, which conservatisms opposed. True, issues and labels change, but, acc to Hibbing et al, humans vary in orientation, politics is, at its core, dealing with a constant problem, invariable.  Found in "bedrock social dilemmas" (BSDs).
  
:*Mentions, but leaves aside "unrepentant dualists" (feel free to explore these), who try to give accounts of "agent causation" .  By contrast Kane is a naturalist like Dennett.   
+
:*Back to Aristotle
 +
::* "Man" is by nature political.  -- Politics deep in our nature. But A also speculated that town life, while natural, was not original.  An achievement of sorts, not wholly natural. 
 +
::*Evidence: GWAS (Gene wide association studies) studies suggest more influence from gene difference on political orientation than economic prefs.
 +
::*Politics and Mating: Political orientation is one of the top correlate predicting mate selection.  (39). We do look for diff personality traits in a partner, but not when it comes to pol orientation (or drinking behavior and religion!).  Considers two objections: mates become similar over time or the correlation is an effect of the selection pool "social homogamy" But no sign of convergence of orientation over time of relationship (but views on gender roles tend to diverge! ''Nota bene''!)Studies controlling for demographic factors undermine second objection.   
  
:*Kane's goal. To show that we can be the "ultimate creator and sustainer of our ends and purposes"
+
::*Politics is connected to willingness to punish political difference. (Which helps explain our sensitivity to "political prosecution".) 40-41. 
  
:*'''Where should we put the gap?
+
:*Differences Galore?
'''
+
::*Need to separate issues, labels, and bedrock social dilemmas.
::*i. desire
+
::*'''Issues''' arise naturally in the society, but can also be "promoted" by actors and parties. 
::*ii. rational will
+
::*'''Labels''' distinguish groups contesting issues.  They organize approaches to issues by orientation.  Practically, political parties do this, but also media.  Labels and parties shift over time, presumably as they compete for voters (or, "package them".
::*iii. striving will
+
::*”Labels are simply the vocabulary employed to describe the reasonably systematic orientations toward issues that float around a polity at a given time.” 41
 +
::*Label "liberal" - today means mildly libertarian, but liberal economic policy isn't libertarian at all (involves income transfer).  Mentions historical origin of Left/Right. Generally, liberals are more about equality and tolerance, but communists can be authoritarian.  Generally, conservatives focus on authority, hierarchy, and order (more than libs), but they often defend rights in ways that make common cause with liberals (protections from the gov't, free speech).
  
::*gap goes somewhere bt i and ii. Case of Business woman, two neural clouds around "stay" or "go".
+
::*Conclusion they are resisting: (43): political beliefs are so multidimensional and variable that left and right don't have any stable meaning. '''Ideology is fluid, but there are universals''' (regarding BSDs).  
  
::*105: a little background on chaosOld debate about AIAre "hardware neural networks" (in which the indeterminacy is modelled physically v. virtually) non-algorithmic? Yes, but this feature of hardware neural nets doesn't explain their powers since they can also be modelled in a computer, which is algorithmic (computational) at the physical level.   
+
:*Commonality Reigns! Political Universals
 +
::*Bedrock social dilemmas (BSD): "core preferences about the organization, structure, and conduct of mass social life" 44
 +
::*BSDS: leadership, decision-making, resource distribution, punishment, protection, and orientation to tradition vs change.
 +
::*Questions associated with BSDs: How should we make decisions? What rules to follow? What do we do with rule violators? Should we try something new or stick with tradition?
 +
::*Predispositions defined: political orientations that are biologically instantiated.  these differences are more stable than labels and issues.
 +
::*Example of conceptual framework at work: attitudes toward military interventiontells the story of changing conservative views of intervention, Lindbergh and the AFC. Late 20th century conservatives were interventionists (commie domino theory), but early century conservatives were isolationists.  These changes make sense in relation to the bedrock challenge of dealing with external threatsShifting analysis of threats can change policy 180 degrees.  48: Pearl Harbor!
 +
::*Example 2: Conservatives softening  on immigration after electoral defeats in 2012. Early politics leading to DACA?  Conservatives still consistently more suspicious of out groups.  (heightened threat detection)
 +
::*Note the possibilities: Same view of issue, different ideologies expressing different orientations (Vietnam).  Same orientation expressed in different ideologies and different positions on issues (Conservative isolationism before/after Pearl Harbor).   
  
::*Point: D is criticizing Kane for confusing chaos with indeterminismThe point about neural nets raises the question: Will the indeterminacy (non-computational moment) in Kane's theory really do any work?
+
::*Key point in the theory is that these "bedrock dilemmas" occur once cities become too large for people to know each otherInteresting point: We had to use principles to express ourselves about these BSDs because we couldn't influence each other directly.
  
:*'''Kane's Model of Indeterministic Decision-making
+
:*"Society works best when..."
'''
+
::*Bold thesis: looking for universality as: consistent differences across time and cultureExample: ''Optimates'' and ''populares'' in Ancient Greece.   
::*Basic model: If we can introduce a gap of quantum indeterminacy into your decision making than we can say about some of your acts that at some moment "t" ''you could have done otherwise''. Moreover, in the context of practical reasoning, it is plausible to think that these acts are "self-forming acts" and yours.
+
::*Left and right have deep associations.  left handed suspect.
 
+
::*History of research on connection between core preferences on leadership, defense, punishment of norm violators, devotion to traditional behavioral standards, distribution of resources. LaponceHaidt's MFT.   
::*108: Input-Output model: "striving will" is a kind of "resistance".  Look at cases.  Clarify notion of "clutch". weakness of the will.   
+
::*Look at the 4BSDs in relations to Haidt's MFT:  
 
+
:::*1. Adherence to tradition.  (Neophobia/philia)  
::*Do we put the clutch inside or outside?  Memory inside or outside? Randomizer inside or outside?  If these outside us, then the are part of the input (or after the output in the case of deciding right and not doing it) and 'determining' us.  If inside, then they don't determine us?  But we just moved the boundary.   
+
:::*2. Treatment of outgroups and rule breakers (cooperation, defection, threat(C, F, L)
 
+
:::*3. Role of group/individual (freeriding, self-interest, social commitment) (F, L)
::*You could "send out" for randomness, but that's like flipping a coin. Would that make it not "determining"you?
+
:::*4. Authority and Leadership (Legitimate authority and hierarchy) (A)
 
+
::*"Society works best Index" 2007 research "Predicted issue attitudes, ideological self-placement, and party identification with astonishing accuracy" .6 correlationPursuing international research with SWBNote this is "synchronous" researchA snapshot of both BSD and Issue orientation.   We will see similar empirical support for the MFT in Haidt, C8.
::*115: Kane's model is focused on deliberative choice, but D raises questions about how to draw that lineA habit can be acquired deliberately. Case of strangling the dentist.   
 
 
 
::*Kane allows for some determinism in his model, which helps account for the case of Martin Luther.
 
 
 
::*SFAs can enter into subsequent deterministic processes (such as one leading to Luther's statement) and still be "ours". (Note how far we are from Strawson at this point! Ultimate Responsibility is weaker here.)
 
 
 
::*Kane's principle of alternative possibilities. (AP) and discussion of "t"  118-121
 
 
 
::*Kane's ultimacy requirement. (U). You can only be MR for something, if you are MR for everything that was a sufficient condition for that.  SFAs satisfy U.  read at 122.  (I still don't have a clear way to say this.)
 
 
 
:*'''If you make yourself really small, you can externalize virtually everything.
 
'''
 
::*How do you get the indeterminacy to be "inside" us?  Echoes of idea of "Cartesan theater" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater#:~:text=%22Cartesian%20theater%22%20is%20a%20derisive,materialist%20theories%20of%20the%20mind. wiki note]from Consciousness Explained). Doesn't exist, but philosophers invoke it in discussion of consciousness.
 
 
 
::*Kane's solution: "plural rationality"  Imagine two sets of reasons around a decision, both of which you "own" or endorse.  (not sure about D's skepticism at 125).  K's intuition: in such cases we are working with potential choices that are "ours".  The indeterminancy doesn't imply that the outcome is a fluke. 
 
 
 
::*126: Big Criticism (made in next section): Kane's "incremental self-making" is a version of FW worth having, but you don't need indeterminacy to get it. 
 
 
 
:*'''Beware of Prime Mammals'''
 
 
 
::*Point of fallacy: result of a desire for a regress stopper, but that is only needed because you assume essentialism. Kane thinks SFAs are regress stoppers because the gap breaks the chain of causation to the past.  You could have done otherwise and it still would be you. 
 
 
 
::*D: SFAs are prime mammals. The key to stopping the regress, but not discernable or discoverable, possibly because there is no such thing127: no way to tell a real SFA from pseudoOppenheimer: like speication events, only discernable retrospectively. Luther1 and Luther2.
 
 
 
::*Kane's defense might be that it is a problem in the world that it is hard to discernBut then: Why should metaphysically unknowable features count more than discernable ones (upbringing, abuse, etc.)? 
 
 
 
::*As in the prime mammal fallacy, events in the distant past are not up to me, but events in the recent past might be and this gives me room to extend a self.  (This would apply to Strawson as well, I think.)
 

Latest revision as of 18:28, 17 March 2022

18: MAR 17

Assigned

  • Hibbing, John R., Kevin Smith, and John R. Alford, Predisposed, Chapter 2, "Getting Into Bedrock with Politics". (26)

In-class

  • Short debrief on fair contract case.

Hibbing, et. al. Predisposed Chapter 2

  • Begins with allegations that universities are left-biased. Points out counterexample in Russell. Students can be more radical than even lefty faculty. City college story. 34ff: ironically its most lasting intellectual movement was neoconservatism.
  • Point of story:
  • 1) Colleges' political orientations have little predictable effect on their students. (Think about this in relationship to Gonzaga.)
  • 2) Politics and political beliefs are fungible, change dep on time and place. No discussions these days of Stalin-Trotskyism. Or ADA, which conservatisms opposed. True, issues and labels change, but, acc to Hibbing et al, humans vary in orientation, politics is, at its core, dealing with a constant problem, invariable. Found in "bedrock social dilemmas" (BSDs).
  • Back to Aristotle
  • "Man" is by nature political. -- Politics deep in our nature. But A also speculated that town life, while natural, was not original. An achievement of sorts, not wholly natural.
  • Evidence: GWAS (Gene wide association studies) studies suggest more influence from gene difference on political orientation than economic prefs.
  • Politics and Mating: Political orientation is one of the top correlate predicting mate selection. (39). We do look for diff personality traits in a partner, but not when it comes to pol orientation (or drinking behavior and religion!). Considers two objections: mates become similar over time or the correlation is an effect of the selection pool "social homogamy" But no sign of convergence of orientation over time of relationship (but views on gender roles tend to diverge! Nota bene!). Studies controlling for demographic factors undermine second objection.
  • Politics is connected to willingness to punish political difference. (Which helps explain our sensitivity to "political prosecution".) 40-41.
  • Differences Galore?
  • Need to separate issues, labels, and bedrock social dilemmas.
  • Issues arise naturally in the society, but can also be "promoted" by actors and parties.
  • Labels distinguish groups contesting issues. They organize approaches to issues by orientation. Practically, political parties do this, but also media. Labels and parties shift over time, presumably as they compete for voters (or, "package them".)
  • ”Labels are simply the vocabulary employed to describe the reasonably systematic orientations toward issues that float around a polity at a given time.” 41
  • Label "liberal" - today means mildly libertarian, but liberal economic policy isn't libertarian at all (involves income transfer). Mentions historical origin of Left/Right. Generally, liberals are more about equality and tolerance, but communists can be authoritarian. Generally, conservatives focus on authority, hierarchy, and order (more than libs), but they often defend rights in ways that make common cause with liberals (protections from the gov't, free speech).
  • Conclusion they are resisting: (43): political beliefs are so multidimensional and variable that left and right don't have any stable meaning. Ideology is fluid, but there are universals (regarding BSDs).
  • Commonality Reigns! Political Universals
  • Bedrock social dilemmas (BSD): "core preferences about the organization, structure, and conduct of mass social life" 44
  • BSDS: leadership, decision-making, resource distribution, punishment, protection, and orientation to tradition vs change.
  • Questions associated with BSDs: How should we make decisions? What rules to follow? What do we do with rule violators? Should we try something new or stick with tradition?
  • Predispositions defined: political orientations that are biologically instantiated. these differences are more stable than labels and issues.
  • Example of conceptual framework at work: attitudes toward military intervention. tells the story of changing conservative views of intervention, Lindbergh and the AFC. Late 20th century conservatives were interventionists (commie domino theory), but early century conservatives were isolationists. These changes make sense in relation to the bedrock challenge of dealing with external threats. Shifting analysis of threats can change policy 180 degrees. 48: Pearl Harbor!
  • Example 2: Conservatives softening on immigration after electoral defeats in 2012. Early politics leading to DACA? Conservatives still consistently more suspicious of out groups. (heightened threat detection)
  • Note the possibilities: Same view of issue, different ideologies expressing different orientations (Vietnam). Same orientation expressed in different ideologies and different positions on issues (Conservative isolationism before/after Pearl Harbor).
  • Key point in the theory is that these "bedrock dilemmas" occur once cities become too large for people to know each other. Interesting point: We had to use principles to express ourselves about these BSDs because we couldn't influence each other directly.
  • "Society works best when..."
  • Bold thesis: looking for universality as: consistent differences across time and culture. Example: Optimates and populares in Ancient Greece.
  • Left and right have deep associations. left handed suspect.
  • History of research on connection between core preferences on leadership, defense, punishment of norm violators, devotion to traditional behavioral standards, distribution of resources. Laponce. Haidt's MFT.
  • Look at the 4BSDs in relations to Haidt's MFT:
  • 1. Adherence to tradition. (Neophobia/philia)
  • 2. Treatment of outgroups and rule breakers (cooperation, defection, threat) (C, F, L)
  • 3. Role of group/individual (freeriding, self-interest, social commitment) (F, L)
  • 4. Authority and Leadership (Legitimate authority and hierarchy) (A)
  • "Society works best Index" 2007 research "Predicted issue attitudes, ideological self-placement, and party identification with astonishing accuracy" .6 correlation. Pursuing international research with SWB. Note this is "synchronous" research. A snapshot of both BSD and Issue orientation. We will see similar empirical support for the MFT in Haidt, C8.