Difference between revisions of "NOV 7"
From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search (Created page with "==18: NOV 7== ===Assigned=== :*Dennett, Daniel. Chapter 6: "The Evolution of Open Minds" Freedom Evolves. (300) (170-193) (Dionicio/Kennedy) :*Henrich, Joe. "The Dark Matte...") |
m |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | == | + | ==22: NOV 7. == |
===Assigned=== | ===Assigned=== | ||
− | :* | + | :*Henrich C6 – “Psychological Differences, Families, and the Church” – (193-230; 37) – psychology of kin based institutions, impersonal prosociality, out-group trust, public goods game research, impersonal punishment and revenge. |
− | |||
− | === | + | ===In-Class=== |
− | :* | + | :*Recap of problem of decline of religious culture in light of it's effects. |
+ | ::*Benefits and problems of religious culture. | ||
+ | ::*Evolutionary challenges to cooperation: mass shootings, homelessness, climate & environment | ||
+ | ::*Evolution of religions toward universalism | ||
+ | ::*Evolution of secular humanistic attitudes | ||
+ | ::*The challenge of globalism. - loss of sovereignty Behind all of this — the power of individual and kin selection. | ||
− | :* | + | :*Church’s Marriage and Family Plan - chart from C14 |
− | :* | + | :*Comment on the "weirdness" of culture as a determinant of our thinking. |
+ | ::*The idea of culture as a determinant of our thinking. | ||
+ | ::*We have pretty good evidence that many aspects of our thinking are influenced by culture. Recall the paradox of moral experience. When we study culture objectively, like Henrich et al do, it is apparent that culture “causally determines” psychology, beliefs, and attitudes. But when we ask our selves about our subjective beliefs, we think of them as our own. This is paradoxical. Which is it? | ||
+ | ::*Creates the possibility of “critical distance” from our culture (Also happens when we travel.). | ||
− | + | ===Henrich C6 – “Psychological Differences, Families, and the Church=== | |
− | :* | + | :*Establishing the connection between “strength of kinship / prevalence of cousin marriage” and leading psychological features of WEIRD culture. KII used to rank countries, then correlation of measures of KII/cousin marriage with various WEIRD psych features. |
− | :* | + | :*WEIRD Psychology: |
+ | ::*Tightness of norms and norm enforcement | ||
+ | ::*Conformity | ||
+ | ::*Individualism | ||
+ | ::*Out-In-Group Trust | ||
+ | ::*Universalism/Loyalty - measured by Passenger’s Dilemma (note Haidt’s MFQ data here) | ||
+ | ::*Prosociality - measured by PGG, blood donations | ||
+ | ::*Impersonal honesty - measured by Impersonal Honesty Game, diplomat’s parking tickets | ||
+ | ::*Impersonal Punishment and revenge - PGG with punishment (217) note diff effects | ||
+ | ::*Intentions | ||
+ | ::*Analytic Thinking | ||
− | :* | + | :*Why think the Catholic Church has anything to do with this? |
− | ::* | + | ::*Timeline of Church’s MFP in C5 - |
+ | ::*”Duration of exposure model” for Church’s influence (224-230) Exposure to Church explains 40-60% of variation in KII. | ||
− | + | ===Critical Assessment of WEIRD culture=== | |
− | + | :*What does WEIRD culture allow us to do that we might agree is good? | |
+ | ::# Live in cities with lots of strangers. | ||
+ | ::# More willing to invest in public goods. | ||
+ | ::# Increased support for universal rules that apply to everyone | ||
+ | ::# Be less conformist | ||
+ | ::# Internalize standards - guilt over shame | ||
+ | ::# Live autonomously - less dependent on kinship obligations | ||
+ | ::# Engage in market behavior due to impersonal trust, imp prosociality, imp honesty | ||
− | :* | + | :*How might WEIRD culture limit us or lead to negative (maladaptive) consequences? |
+ | ::# Decreases the power of religion (mixed - less authoritarian norm enforcement but less norm enforcement) | ||
+ | ::# Decreases loyalty to family (at least as measured by passenger’s dilemma). Family member’s suffering less likely to be addressed by kin. (Mixed since kin-based society have more corruption, unjust partiality.) | ||
+ | ::# Decreases “tightness” of norm enforcement. (“No shame.”) (Mixed - good to end shaming, but norm enforcement is still important) | ||
+ | ::# Increases personal isolation (WEIRD cultures are lonelier.) | ||
+ | ::# Normalizing self-interest may normalize lack of concern for others. | ||
− | :* | + | :*Possible general criticisms of WEIRD culture and its other. |
+ | ::# Atomism: We are less bonded with kin, but not really bonded to each other. | ||
+ | ::# Both kin-based and WEIRD cultures are having trouble meeting challenges that transcend groups and borders, like climate change, global environmental degradation, absolute poverty. | ||
− | :* | + | :*What can we do about this? We do get a “vote” in evolution. Once we have a cultural evolution explanation for a dysfunctional cultural problem, we are in a good position to make a cultural argument for change. (Go back to the Paradox to see why) Examples: |
− | + | ::*Mass shootings. | |
− | + | ::*Lack of solutions for homelessness | |
− | + | ::*High incarceration rates and recidivism rates for criminal conduct. | |
− | + | ::*High rates of suicide and death from addiction. | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | : | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | ::* | ||
− | ::* | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |
Latest revision as of 18:37, 7 November 2024
Contents
22: NOV 7.
Assigned
- Henrich C6 – “Psychological Differences, Families, and the Church” – (193-230; 37) – psychology of kin based institutions, impersonal prosociality, out-group trust, public goods game research, impersonal punishment and revenge.
In-Class
- Recap of problem of decline of religious culture in light of it's effects.
- Benefits and problems of religious culture.
- Evolutionary challenges to cooperation: mass shootings, homelessness, climate & environment
- Evolution of religions toward universalism
- Evolution of secular humanistic attitudes
- The challenge of globalism. - loss of sovereignty Behind all of this — the power of individual and kin selection.
- Church’s Marriage and Family Plan - chart from C14
- Comment on the "weirdness" of culture as a determinant of our thinking.
- The idea of culture as a determinant of our thinking.
- We have pretty good evidence that many aspects of our thinking are influenced by culture. Recall the paradox of moral experience. When we study culture objectively, like Henrich et al do, it is apparent that culture “causally determines” psychology, beliefs, and attitudes. But when we ask our selves about our subjective beliefs, we think of them as our own. This is paradoxical. Which is it?
- Creates the possibility of “critical distance” from our culture (Also happens when we travel.).
Henrich C6 – “Psychological Differences, Families, and the Church
- Establishing the connection between “strength of kinship / prevalence of cousin marriage” and leading psychological features of WEIRD culture. KII used to rank countries, then correlation of measures of KII/cousin marriage with various WEIRD psych features.
- WEIRD Psychology:
- Tightness of norms and norm enforcement
- Conformity
- Individualism
- Out-In-Group Trust
- Universalism/Loyalty - measured by Passenger’s Dilemma (note Haidt’s MFQ data here)
- Prosociality - measured by PGG, blood donations
- Impersonal honesty - measured by Impersonal Honesty Game, diplomat’s parking tickets
- Impersonal Punishment and revenge - PGG with punishment (217) note diff effects
- Intentions
- Analytic Thinking
- Why think the Catholic Church has anything to do with this?
- Timeline of Church’s MFP in C5 -
- ”Duration of exposure model” for Church’s influence (224-230) Exposure to Church explains 40-60% of variation in KII.
Critical Assessment of WEIRD culture
- What does WEIRD culture allow us to do that we might agree is good?
- Live in cities with lots of strangers.
- More willing to invest in public goods.
- Increased support for universal rules that apply to everyone
- Be less conformist
- Internalize standards - guilt over shame
- Live autonomously - less dependent on kinship obligations
- Engage in market behavior due to impersonal trust, imp prosociality, imp honesty
- How might WEIRD culture limit us or lead to negative (maladaptive) consequences?
- Decreases the power of religion (mixed - less authoritarian norm enforcement but less norm enforcement)
- Decreases loyalty to family (at least as measured by passenger’s dilemma). Family member’s suffering less likely to be addressed by kin. (Mixed since kin-based society have more corruption, unjust partiality.)
- Decreases “tightness” of norm enforcement. (“No shame.”) (Mixed - good to end shaming, but norm enforcement is still important)
- Increases personal isolation (WEIRD cultures are lonelier.)
- Normalizing self-interest may normalize lack of concern for others.
- Possible general criticisms of WEIRD culture and its other.
- Atomism: We are less bonded with kin, but not really bonded to each other.
- Both kin-based and WEIRD cultures are having trouble meeting challenges that transcend groups and borders, like climate change, global environmental degradation, absolute poverty.
- What can we do about this? We do get a “vote” in evolution. Once we have a cultural evolution explanation for a dysfunctional cultural problem, we are in a good position to make a cultural argument for change. (Go back to the Paradox to see why) Examples:
- Mass shootings.
- Lack of solutions for homelessness
- High incarceration rates and recidivism rates for criminal conduct.
- High rates of suicide and death from addiction.