Difference between revisions of "JAN 23"

From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search
m
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
==3: JAN 23. ==
+
==4: JAN 23. ==
  
 
===Assigned===
 
===Assigned===
  
:*Sapolsky C10 “The Evolution of Behavior,” (360-373; 13). Key concepts: multi-level selection theory (MLS).  Cultural selection pressures? 
+
:*Hare and Woods – “Humans Evolved to be Friendly” – (1-19; 18) -- Key concepts: self-domestication, cooperative communication
:*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrvtOWEXDIQ Aristotle and Virtue Theory: PBS Crash Course in Philosophy #38] - Key concepts: The use of reason to school emotions.  Virtue as a mean between extremes.
 
  
 
===In-Class===
 
===In-Class===
  
:*Review Prisoner's Dilemma
+
:*Everyday Ethics: What kind of conversation is an ethical conversation
:*Details on how to submit your practice writing. 
+
:*Writing: Looking at Gossip writing.
:*Everyday Ethics: Thinking about virtue ethics in your own experience.
 
:*Writing: The drafting process -- when to start? The revision process - what to look for.
 
:*Lecture Segment: Some Preliminaries about Ethical theory and objectivity
 
  
===Sapolsky, Chapter 10: The Evolution of Human Behavior 354-374===
+
===Writing Workshop===
  
:*'''How can cooperation get started and become stable?''' 353-
+
====Some writing concepts - Review of first writing====
::*In other words, how does "tit for tat" survive among defectors? Coalitions, green beard effects.
 
::*Sometimes natural events 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'''
+
:*A general challenge of good writing -- '''Getting outside of your head''' -- looking at the writing as if you didn't write it.
::*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'''. Theorists might favor one or more levels as relatively more important than othersEach level involves possible selection pressure or adaptive value in meeting a pressure. The peacock’s plumage is both.
+
:*Here are a few good writing concepts to look for in the samples on the handout.
:::*1. Genetic traits. Single selfish genes use us to get into the next gen.
+
::*'''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 themSometime you will find a “hook” to start with. Something relevant to the topic that has high interest.
:::*2. Genome. The recipe is what’s passed on, so focus on that.
+
::*'''Flow''' -- How well does one sentence follow another?  Do you notice places where flow is interrupted? When you see good flow, try to notice how it is achieved, at the level of wording and sentence structure.
:::*3. Phenotypic trait. Individual expressed traits (potential to make money).  
+
::*'''Efficient writing''' -- Literally, how much you say with so many wordsAwkward phrasing and limited word choice reduce efficiency.
:::*4. PhenotypeIt’s the “whole package - whole person” that we choose.
 
  
:::*'''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).
+
:*Review of writing samples.
::::*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.
+
::*Get into your groups and read one of the two practice writing papers on the handout (not your section).  Give yourselves 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. Do the same with the second one. Does it do some things better or worse than the first? Then, if you have time, randomly pick one that wasn't on the "nominated list", read it and compare it to the first two.
:::*Positive (fitness benefits): zags helping zags, (but is that totally positive?).   
 
:::*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. 
+
===Hare and Woods – “Humans Evolved to be Friendly”===
  
:*Where do we fit in? AND US?
+
:*Homo is the genus — there were others, not just Neanderthals.  (Ok, let’s watch a Geico Caveman commercial [https://youtu.be/-Y7HDXBVbfc?si=LrENBU1_yP5foUGi]).
::*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 liftedNote 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.
 
  
 +
:*Not obvious that we were going to succeed.  Neanderthals were smart, had culture, fine motor skills (maybe speech).  Bigger, stronger.
  
 +
:*Major claim: Sapiens advantages may have include self-domestication and the changes that comes with that.
  
===Some Preliminaries about Objectivity in Ethics and Features of Ethical Discourse===
+
:*cooperative communication, shared intentionality, theory of mind. 
  
:*'''Where should we look for "moral goodness"?'''
+
:*morphology of skeletons and skulls is influenced by neurohormones.  Evidence trail. 
::*Intentions (Kantian),
 
::*Person (a virtuous person) (Aristotle),
 
::*Consequences (Mill, Singer - Utilitarian)
 
  
:*(The following is pretty standard, but was drawn from Peter Singer's classic, ''Practical Ethics'')
+
:*bonobos are “wild domesticates”. - dogs are the best example.  Also engage in cooperative communication.  And they typically love us! 
  
:*'''What does it mean to say "values vary by culture"? Is it always "bad relativism"?'''
+
:*dogs and wolves have common ancestor, the Ice Age wolf.  Domestication involve genomic change, not just about “taming a wild animal”.  Physical traits of domestication syndrome (3).  
  
:*Singer's arguments against cultural relativism:
+
:*Belyaev wolf breeding experiments in Siberia — 1959 — 50 generations foxes to domesticateGeneral story: relatively friendly member of wild species hang out near human garbage dump, reproductive advantage, interbredThen maybe we warmed up to them too. So maybe wolves were somewhat self-domesticated at first.  (In Food studies, also pigs.).
::*Cultural Relativism (the old discussion): Ethics varies by cultureSinger: This is true and false, same act under different conditions may have different value, but this is '''superficial relativism'''For example, existence of birth control led to a general change in sexual ethics. The moral principle in question here is: don't have kids that you're not ready to care for. That principle might remain the same and be objective, but the prohibition on casual sex might change.  (What dropped out was the idea that sex before marriage was sinful.)
 
  
::*Note: There is strong polling data on advisability of living together prior to marriage. Now, yes; 60 years ago, noSo cultural change itself doesn't tell you whether moral principles are changingThe consistent principle here?
+
:*14K to 40K y.ago.  Humans almost eradicate wild wolves300K wolves, 1 billion dogs.
  
:*'''What kind of conversation is an ethical conversation'''
+
:*And us?  Changes around 80K y.ago. Middle Pleistocene.  (5) read Human domesticate are “feminized” versions of earlier Homo Sapien. 
  
::*Subjectivist Relativism - This position may not be held by any thoughtful person, but it sounds like what some people say when they start studying values and becomes confused or cynical.   
+
:*Experimental corroboration - SSRI treated baby mice get globular head shape.  Neanderthals football shaped headsLower testosterone, higher serotonin, more oxytocinResearch links oxytocin to cooperative behaviors.
:::*The Position: "Wrong" means "I disapprove" or "my society disapproves")
 
:::*The Problems:
 
::::*If this sort of relativism is true, polls could determine ethicsBut they don't.
 
::::*Deep subjectivism can't making sense of disagreement. Ethics is a kind of conversation.
 
::::*There is just too much research suggesting that "I approve" isn't philosophical "rock bottom".
 
  
:*Singer: Ok to say the values aren't objective like physics (aren't facts about the world), but not sensible to deny the meaningfulness of moral disagreement and ethical reasoning.
+
:*Chimps, bonobos, humans on strangers: we have a category “intragroup stranger” (a stranger who we regard as a group member).  Chimps generally hostile to strangers, bonobos friendlier to bonobo strangers.  What did this do for us?  (6).
  
:*An evolutionist's twist: A society's ethical culture can produce positive, neutral, or negative outcomes for human flourishingIn this sense, values have objective consequences in meeting selection pressures (both natural and cultural). (Vax values, for example.)
+
:*Also about 80K y.ago we got more consistent in implementing the kind of culture that comes from cooperation.  Expanded social networks mean more information flows50K y.ago jewelry, cool 3d animal paintings.
  
::*The sorts of reasons that count as ethical: '''universalizable''' ones. Can't just appeal to one person or group's interest.  Note: most standard ethical theories satisfy this requirement, yet yield different analysis and adviceWe will look at the specific form of universalization in each theory we discuss, but you could say this is a kind of defining feature of ethical discourse.
+
:*7: But we are also an incredibly cruel species.   
  
===Philosophical Moral Theories: Virtue Ethics===
+
:*Oxytocin has another side.  “Mama bear hormone”. Hamster moms.  Social bonding and aggression to out groups go together. 
  
:*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrvtOWEXDIQ PBS Aristotle and Virtue Theory: Crash Course Philosophy #38]
+
:*What Wrangham calls “the Goodness Paradox” “Humans become more violent when those we evolved to live more intensely were threatened.
  
:*concepts from video...
+
:*Positive implications. We can expand the circle. Whites/Black schooled together have more cooperative behaviors in later life (ok with interracial marriage, have friends from other group…)
  
::*Virtue general idea of being an excellent person. Also, specific lists of virtues (vary by time and culture)
+
:*Very interesting comment Changing behavior changes attitudes.
  
:*A bit of Aristotle’s theory of virtue and human nature:  fixed nature, species eternal, '''proper function (telos),''' distinctive aspect of function: being rational and political.  (Note that modern virtue theorists aren't committed to some of A's false ideas.)
+
===Everyday Ethics: What kind of conversation is an ethical conversation===
  
::*Virtue is natural to us.  Like an acorn becoming a tree. Being virtuous is being the best of the kind of thing you are.  A deep intuition supports this developmental approach. (Pause to consider personal examples of the reality of moral development.)
+
:*Ethical conversations and analyses are about evaluating "values and expectations" - claims that we ought to adopt or reject some value(s) and the associated behavior motivated by those values.  
  
::*Theory of the Golden Mean: Virtue as mean between extremes of emotion: Ex. Courage (story of stopping the mugger), Honesty, Generosity. (Let's give our own examples.) Virtue as training of emotional response in relation to knowledge of circumstances and the good.
+
:*So what are some of the unwritten, but widely acknowledged rules for having an ethical conversation? What are the legitimate "moves" you can make in an ethical conversation?  What moves would earn you a yellow or red card.   
  
::*How do you acquire virtue? Experience. Practical Wisdom cultivated through habituation. Follow a moral exemplar (virtue coach). Good parenting and shaping by healthy family.  It's a training program in becoming the best human you can be based on your "telos".  
+
:*'''Illegitimate moves''':
 +
::*Appealing to only one person's or group's interests.  
 +
:::*"What's right is what serves my interests!" vs. "In this circumstance, it is morally permissible for everyone to pursue their interests"
 +
::*Denying the standing (need for consideration) of a person or group arbitrarily. "
 +
:::*"Everyone deserves human rights except group X"
 +
::*Most illicit appeals in informal logic (fallacies): ''ad hominems'' and appeals to pity, ignorance, etc.
  
::*What if we don’t want to become virtuous?  What is the motivation to virtue?  The pursuit of a happy life that “goes well”.  Eudaimonia.  Human flourishing.  Challenge and development of talents. Should be attractive. Connection between virtue and happiness not guaranteed for Aristotle, but could be tighter in other versions.
+
:*'''Legitimate moves:'''
 
+
::*Appealing to broadly held values about human life and human dignity.
:*Additional points:
+
::*Appealing to cultural and local norms that may be considered well justified.
 
+
::*Appealing to objective knowledge claims that may support or invalidate premises.   
::*centrality of virtues and practical wisdom. Is practical wisdom real?  
+
::*Calling into question these norms or their application, often by:
::*historic variability and list of virtues. Curiosity was a vice in Medieval Europe.  Check out virtue lists on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue Virtue Wiki].
+
:::*1. Conceptual analysis -- What does it mean to value human life? How will we know that we are guaranteeing human dignity?
 
+
:::*2. Advocacy for specific understanding of human nature or human needs.   
===Everyday Ethics: Thinking about Virtue in your own experience===
+
:::*3. Showing that some value proposition will or will not function to promote desirable outcomes.
 
 
:*Scroll through the Virtue wiki page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue Virtue Wiki]. Notice the various list of virtues.  Write down 5 that are important to you in your life right now and that you would say you are working onReport your results with [https://forms.gle/AfYEv7wQhQUA1BwL9 this form]
 
 
 
:*Then, in your group discussion, identify virtues that you have made alot of progress on and ones that you are still working on.  Record some of each to report back to the class.
 

Latest revision as of 19:21, 23 January 2025

4: JAN 23.

Assigned

  • Hare and Woods – “Humans Evolved to be Friendly” – (1-19; 18) -- Key concepts: self-domestication, cooperative communication

In-Class

  • Everyday Ethics: What kind of conversation is an ethical conversation
  • Writing: Looking at Gossip writing.

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. Sometime you will find a “hook” to start with. Something relevant to the topic that has high interest.
  • Flow -- How well does one sentence follow another? Do you notice places where flow is interrupted? When you see good flow, try to notice how it is achieved, at the level of wording and sentence structure.
  • 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 read one of the two practice writing papers on the handout (not your section). Give yourselves 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. Do the same with the second one. Does it do some things better or worse than the first? Then, if you have time, randomly pick one that wasn't on the "nominated list", read it and compare it to the first two.


Hare and Woods – “Humans Evolved to be Friendly”

  • Homo is the genus — there were others, not just Neanderthals. (Ok, let’s watch a Geico Caveman commercial [1]).
  • Not obvious that we were going to succeed. Neanderthals were smart, had culture, fine motor skills (maybe speech). Bigger, stronger.
  • Major claim: Sapiens advantages may have include self-domestication and the changes that comes with that.
  • cooperative communication, shared intentionality, theory of mind.
  • morphology of skeletons and skulls is influenced by neurohormones. Evidence trail.
  • bonobos are “wild domesticates”. - dogs are the best example. Also engage in cooperative communication. And they typically love us!
  • dogs and wolves have common ancestor, the Ice Age wolf. Domestication involve genomic change, not just about “taming a wild animal”. Physical traits of domestication syndrome (3).
  • Belyaev wolf breeding experiments in Siberia — 1959 — 50 generations foxes to domesticate. General story: relatively friendly member of wild species hang out near human garbage dump, reproductive advantage, interbred. Then maybe we warmed up to them too. So maybe wolves were somewhat self-domesticated at first. (In Food studies, also pigs.).
  • 14K to 40K y.ago. Humans almost eradicate wild wolves. 300K wolves, 1 billion dogs.
  • And us? Changes around 80K y.ago. Middle Pleistocene. (5) read Human domesticate are “feminized” versions of earlier Homo Sapien.
  • Experimental corroboration - SSRI treated baby mice get globular head shape. Neanderthals football shaped heads. Lower testosterone, higher serotonin, more oxytocin. Research links oxytocin to cooperative behaviors.
  • Chimps, bonobos, humans on strangers: we have a category “intragroup stranger” (a stranger who we regard as a group member). Chimps generally hostile to strangers, bonobos friendlier to bonobo strangers. What did this do for us? (6).
  • Also about 80K y.ago we got more consistent in implementing the kind of culture that comes from cooperation. Expanded social networks mean more information flows. 50K y.ago jewelry, cool 3d animal paintings.
  • 7: But we are also an incredibly cruel species.
  • Oxytocin has another side. “Mama bear hormone”. Hamster moms. Social bonding and aggression to out groups go together.
  • What Wrangham calls “the Goodness Paradox” “Humans become more violent when those we evolved to live more intensely were threatened.”
  • Positive implications. We can expand the circle. Whites/Black schooled together have more cooperative behaviors in later life (ok with interracial marriage, have friends from other group…)
  • Very interesting comment — Changing behavior changes attitudes.

Everyday Ethics: What kind of conversation is an ethical conversation

  • Ethical conversations and analyses are about evaluating "values and expectations" - claims that we ought to adopt or reject some value(s) and the associated behavior motivated by those values.
  • So what are some of the unwritten, but widely acknowledged rules for having an ethical conversation? What are the legitimate "moves" you can make in an ethical conversation? What moves would earn you a yellow or red card.
  • Illegitimate moves:
  • Appealing to only one person's or group's interests.
  • "What's right is what serves my interests!" vs. "In this circumstance, it is morally permissible for everyone to pursue their interests"
  • Denying the standing (need for consideration) of a person or group arbitrarily. "
  • "Everyone deserves human rights except group X"
  • Most illicit appeals in informal logic (fallacies): ad hominems and appeals to pity, ignorance, etc.
  • Legitimate moves:
  • Appealing to broadly held values about human life and human dignity.
  • Appealing to cultural and local norms that may be considered well justified.
  • Appealing to objective knowledge claims that may support or invalidate premises.
  • Calling into question these norms or their application, often by:
  • 1. Conceptual analysis -- What does it mean to value human life? How will we know that we are guaranteeing human dignity?
  • 2. Advocacy for specific understanding of human nature or human needs.
  • 3. Showing that some value proposition will or will not function to promote desirable outcomes.