Difference between revisions of "Tem2"

From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "==2: SEP 3. Unit One: Primers and Background== ===Assigned=== :*Ariely, Why We Lie (6) :*Haidt, The Righteous Mind, Intro and Chapter 1 (24) :*Zimbardo Experiment -- view on...")
 
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==2: SEP 3. Unit One: Primers and Background==
+
===Short Writing Assignment #1: Evolution and Social Behavior (600 words)===
  
−
===Assigned===
+
:*'''Stage 1''': Please write an 600 word maximum answer to the following question by '''September 22, 2020 11:59pm.'''
 +
::*Topic: In "The Evolution of Social Behavior," Robert Sapolsky reviews the resources in evolutionary theory for explaining social behaviors like cooperation and group behavior.  In a 600 word essay, answer this question: "Drawing on resources from this chapter, how does an evolutionist explain how cooperation and other moral behaviors start and are sustained in a human community?"  Give examples of processes which promote or impede moral behaviors. Be sure to consider how humans both fit and do not fit evolutionary patterns which apply to other animals.  How does Sapolsky explain this? 
  
−
:*Ariely, Why We Lie (6)
+
:*'''Advice about collaboration''': I encourage you to collaborate with other students, but only up to the point of sharing ideas, references to class notes, and your own notes.  Collaboration is part of the academic process and the intellectual world that college courses are based on, so it is important to me that you have the possibility to collaborate.  It's a great way to make sure that a high average level of learning and development occurs.  The best way to avoid plagiarism is to NOT share text of draft answers or outlines of your answer.  Keep it verbal.  Generate your own examples.
−
:*Haidt, The Righteous Mind, Intro and Chapter 1 (24)
 
−
:*Zimbardo Experiment -- view one of the youtube videos about the experiment.  read the wiki page.
 
  
−
===Method===
+
:*Prepare your answer and submit it in the following way:
 +
::# '''Do not put your name in the file or filename'''.  You may put your student id number in the file.  Put a word count in the file.
 +
::# In Word, check "File" and "Options" to make sure your name does not appear as author.  You may want to change this to "anon" for this document.
 +
::# Format your answer in double spaced text in a 12 point font, using normal margins. 
 +
::# Save the file in the ".docx" file format using the file name "Sapolsky".
 +
::# Log in to courses.alfino.org.  Upload your file to the '''Points dropbox'''. 
  
−
====Tips on How to report study findings====
+
:*'''Stage 2''': Please evaluate '''four''' student answers and provide brief comments and a score. Review the [[Assignment Rubric]] for this exercise.  We will be using the Flow and Content areas of the rubric for this assignment. Complete your evaluations and scoring by '''TBD, 11:59pm.''' 
 +
::*Use [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf1_WeGn0XsNxLPgHixmA88gbNp4lLcYxvxIs0bSEVLgHvP8A/viewform?usp=sf_link this Google Form] to evaluate '''four''' peer papers.  The papers will be in our shared folder, but please '''do not''' edit or add comments to the papers directly.  This will compromise your anonymity.
  
−
*Philosophy makes use of a wide range of evidence and knowledge.  In this course you will encounter alot of psychological, anthropological and cultural studies.  You have to practice the way you represent studies (as opposed to theories) and how you make inferences from their conclusions.   
+
::*To determine the papers you need to peer review, I will send you a key with animal names in alphabetically order, along with saint names.  You will find your animal name and review the next four (4) animals' work.   
  
−
:*observational, survey, experimental
+
::*Some papers may arrive late.  If you are in line to review a missing paper, allow a day or two for it to show up.  If it does not show up, go ahead and review enough papers to get to four reviews.  This assures that you will get enough "back evaluations" of your work to get a good average for your peer review credit.  (You will also have an opportunity to challenge a back evaluation score of your reviewing that is out of line with the others.)
−
:*study setup: for observational: who were the test subjects, what were they asked to do; for survey: what instrument was used, to whom was it given?
 
−
:*what conditions were tested?
 
−
:*what was the immediate result?
 
−
:*what was the significance or inference to be made from the results?
 
  
−
===Ariely, Why We Lie===
+
:*'''Stage 3''': I will grade and briefly comment on your writing using the peer scores as an initial ranking.  Assuming the process works normally, I will give you the higher of the two grades.  Up to 14 points.
  
−
:*Assumptions: we think honesty is an all or nothing trait.
+
:*'''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/1kD1wkd1G0UuLIvtSPhEw4RUxZuJtLQJ31ZWkKA63WU4/edit].  '''Fill out the form for each reviewer, but not Alfino.'''  Up to 10 points, in Points.
−
:*Research on honesty with the "matrix task"
 
−
::*Shredder condition
 
−
::*Payment condition
 
−
::*Probability of getting caught condition
 
−
::*Distance of payment condition
 
−
::*Presence of a cheater condition
 
−
:*Priming with 10 commandments or signature on top of form
 
−
:*Implications: for current and possible new approaches to limit cheating.  
 
−
:*Philosophical Implications: What, if anything, does this tell us about the nature of ethics?
 
  
−
====Tips on Philosophical Methods and Method in Ethics====
+
::*Back evaluations are due '''TBD, 11:59pm'''.
−
 
 
−
:*In this interactive segment, we'll use the Kyle Rittenhouse case to demonstrate some key features of a philosophical response.  We can also see some things about method in ethics from this case.
 
−
::*Take 3-5 minutes to identify important specific and contextual facts about the situation that may be relevant to evaluating values at work.  Send in your items through voice or chat window.  We will also generate items in class.
 
−
::*What norms already govern situations like Kyle's?
 
−
::*Closing comments and discussion.  Basic ways that method helps us have more sophisticated and reflective views.  Yeah!
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
===Haidt, The Righteous Mind, Intro and Chapter 1===
 
−
 
 
−
*Intro
 
−
:*Note: starts with problem of "getting along" -- problem of ethics is settling conflict (recall contrast with more traditional goal of finding a method or theory to discover moral truth).
 
−
:*The "righteous" mind is at once moral and judgemental.  It makes possible group cooperation, tribes, nations, and societies.
 
−
 
 
−
:*Majors claims of each section:
 
−
::*Intuitions come first, reasoning second. ''The mind is divided, like a rider on an elephant, and the rider's job is to serve the elephant.''
 
−
::*There's more to morality than harm and fairness
 
−
::*Morality binds and blinds -- We are 90 percent chimp, 10% bee.
 
−
 
 
−
:::*Keep notes that help you tie content back to these claims.
 
−
 
 
−
:*'''Method Note''': This is explanatory writing.  Not philosophy directly.  Digression on difference between explanatory and justifactory writing.
 
−
 
 
−
:*Moral reasoning as a means of finding truth vs. furthering social agendas. '''Paradox of Moral Experience:''' We experience our morality the first way, but when we look objectively at groups, it's more like the second way. 
 
−
 
 
−
*Chapter 1
 
−
 
 
−
:*Harmless taboo violations: eating the dog / violating a dead chicken.
 
−
 
 
−
:*Brief background on developmental & moral psychology: p. 5
 
−
:::*nativists -- nature gives us capacities to distinguish right from wrong, possibly using moral emotions.
 
−
:::*empiricists -- we learn the difference between right and wrong from experience. tabula rasa. 
 
−
:::*rationalists -- circa '87 Piaget's alternative to nature/nurture -- there is both a natural developmental requirement and empirical requirement for understanding the world in the way we consider "rational" (folk physics, folk psychology). 
 
−
::*Piaget's rationalism: kids figure things out for themselves if they have normal brains and the right experiences. stages: example of conservation of volume of water (6)  "self-constructed" - alt to nature/nurture.  7: We grow into our rationality like caterpillars into butterflies.
 
−
 
 
−
::*Kohlberg's "Heinz story" - pre-conventional, conventional, post-conventional. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development#/media/File:Kohlberg_Model_of_Moral_Development.svg]
 
−
:::*note problems, p. 9. seems to support a liberal secular world view.  Egalitarianism, role playing, disinterestedness....  Is it obvious or suspicious that that's what rationalism leads to?  Haidt suspects something's been left out.
 
−
 
 
−
:::*Additional criticisms of Kohlberg (also at Haidt 9): seemed to diminish the importance of loyalty, authority, and tradition as less developed levels of moral response.
 
−
 
 
−
::*Turiel: note different method.  Probing to find contingencies in kids' thinking about rules.  kids don't treat all moral rules the same: very young kids distinguish "harms" from "social conventions".  Harm is "first on the scene" in the dev. of our moral foundations.  (Note: Still following the idea that moral development is a universal, culturally neutral process.)  (Note on method: we have, in Turiel's research, a '''discovery of an unsupported assumption'''.)
 
−
 
 
−
:*Haidt's puzzle about Turiel: other dimensions of moral experience, like "purity" and "pollution" seem operative at young ages and deep in culture (witches -- how do human minds create witches in similar ways in different places?). 11-13 examples. Found answers in Schweder's work.
 
−
 
 
−
:*In what ways is the concept of the self culturally variable?
 
−
 
 
−
::*Schweder: sociocentric vs. individualistic cultures.  Interview subjects in sociocentric societies don't make the moral/conventional distinction the same way we (westerns) do.  (Schweder is "saying" to Kohlberg and Turiel: your model is culturally specific.)  For example in the comparison of moral violations between Indians from Orissa and Americans from Chicago, it is important that these groups don't make the convention/harm distinction Turiel's theory would predict.  That's a distinction individualist cultures make.
 
−
 
−
:*Haidt's research:  Wrote vignettes to ask test subjects, including Turiel's uniform / swing pushing incident.  focus on vignettes is "harmless taboo violation"  (no victim /no harm), which pits intuitions about norms and conventions against intuitions about the morality of harm.  Study in three cities with two socio-economic groups.  Showed that Schweder was right.  ''The morality/convention distinction was itself culturally variable.''
 
−
::*Americans make big dist. between morality and convention.  upper-class Brazilians like Americans.  lower class groups tended to see smaller morality/convention difference. All morality. 
 
−
Turiel is right about how our culture makes the harm/convention distinction, but his theory doesn't travel well. Roughly, more sociocentric cultures put the morality(wrong even if no rule)/convention (wrong because there is a rule) marker more to the morality side.  almost no trace of social conventionalism in Orissa.
 
−
 
 
−
:*Identify, if possible, some practices and beliefs from either your personal views, your family, or your ethnic or cultural background which show a particular way of making the moral/conventional distinction.  (Example: For some families removing shoes at the door is right thing to do, whereas for others it is just experienced as a convention.  Would you eat a burrito in a public bathroom?  Tell story of dinner out with a vegan friend.)
 

Latest revision as of 16:27, 20 September 2020

Short Writing Assignment #1: Evolution and Social Behavior (600 words)

  • Stage 1: Please write an 600 word maximum answer to the following question by September 22, 2020 11:59pm.
  • Topic: In "The Evolution of Social Behavior," Robert Sapolsky reviews the resources in evolutionary theory for explaining social behaviors like cooperation and group behavior. In a 600 word essay, answer this question: "Drawing on resources from this chapter, how does an evolutionist explain how cooperation and other moral behaviors start and are sustained in a human community?" Give examples of processes which promote or impede moral behaviors. Be sure to consider how humans both fit and do not fit evolutionary patterns which apply to other animals. How does Sapolsky explain this?
  • Advice about collaboration: I encourage you to collaborate with other students, but only up to the point of sharing ideas, references to class notes, and your own notes. Collaboration is part of the academic process and the intellectual world that college courses are based on, so it is important to me that you have the possibility to collaborate. It's a great way to make sure that a high average level of learning and development occurs. The best way to avoid plagiarism is to NOT share text of draft answers or outlines of your answer. Keep it verbal. Generate your own examples.
  • Prepare your answer and submit it in the following way:
  1. Do not put your name in the file or filename. You may put your student id number in the file. Put a word count in the file.
  2. In Word, check "File" and "Options" to make sure your name does not appear as author. You may want to change this to "anon" for this document.
  3. Format your answer in double spaced text in a 12 point font, using normal margins.
  4. Save the file in the ".docx" file format using the file name "Sapolsky".
  5. Log in to courses.alfino.org. Upload your file to the Points dropbox.
  • Stage 2: Please evaluate four student answers and provide brief comments and a score. Review the Assignment Rubric for this exercise. We will be using the Flow and Content areas of the rubric for this assignment. Complete your evaluations and scoring by TBD, 11:59pm.
  • Use this Google Form to evaluate four peer papers. The papers will be in our shared folder, but please do not edit or add comments to the papers directly. This will compromise your anonymity.
  • To determine the papers you need to peer review, I will send you a key with animal names in alphabetically order, along with saint names. You will find your animal name and review the next four (4) animals' work.
  • Some papers may arrive late. If you are in line to review a missing paper, allow a day or two for it to show up. If it does not show up, go ahead and review enough papers to get to four reviews. This assures that you will get enough "back evaluations" of your work to get a good average for your peer review credit. (You will also have an opportunity to challenge a back evaluation score of your reviewing that is out of line with the others.)
  • Stage 3: I will grade and briefly comment on your writing using the peer scores as an initial ranking. Assuming the process works normally, I will give you the higher of the two grades. Up to 14 points.
  • 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 TBD, 11:59pm.
Retrieved from "http://wiki.gonzaga.edu/alfino/index.php?title=Tem2&oldid=22127"