Difference between revisions of "MAR 2"

From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "==13: MAR 2== ===Assigned=== *Sapolsky, Chapter 13, "Culture, context, public goods games, religion" (493-509) (16) *Sandel, "The Case for Equality" p. 151-166 (25) *Rawls T...")
 
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
==13: MAR 2==
+
==13: MAR 2: Some Cultural Evolutionary Theory==
  
 
===Assigned===
 
===Assigned===
  
*Sapolsky, Chapter 13, "Culture, context, public goods games, religion" (493-509) (16)
+
:*Henrich, Joe. Prelude and Chapter 1, "WEIRD Psychology" from ''The WEIRDEST People in the World'' (21-58)
*Sandel, "The Case for Equality" p. 151-166 (25)
+
 
*Rawls Theory of Justice  
+
:*Rawls' Theory of Justice  
 
::*16 minute video focsued on Rawls: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6k08C699zI&feature=youtu.be].  
 
::*16 minute video focsued on Rawls: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6k08C699zI&feature=youtu.be].  
 
::*6 minute video, PBS series: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0CTHVCkm90&feature=youtu.be]
 
::*6 minute video, PBS series: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0CTHVCkm90&feature=youtu.be]
  
===Rawls' Theory of Justice===
+
===In-class===
  
:*Original Social Contract tradition.  Another Enlightenment philosophical product!  See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract Social Contract wiki].
+
:*Rawls' Theory of Justice
:*Rawls' basic method: Principles of justice should be chosen by following a kind of thought experiment in which you imagine yourself not knowing specific things about your identity and social circumstances.  Adopting this special stance is what Rawls calls the "original position" (parallel in Social Contract tradition)
+
:*Take home personal survey: What's your Justice Number?
:*Original Position in Rawls' thought: Choosing principles of justice under a "veil of ignorance" (simple intuition about fairness: How do you divide the last piece of cake?
 
::*Note how this realizes a basic condition of moral thought: neutrality, universalization, fairness.
 
  
::*In the original position:
+
===Henrich, "WEIRD Psychology," from The Weirdest People on Earth"===
:::*You still know: human psychology, human history, economics, the general types of possible situations in which humans can find themselves.
 
:::*You don't know: your place in society, your class, social status, for tu in in natural assets and abilities, sex, race, physical handicaps, generation, social class of our parents, whether you are part of a discriminated group, etc.
 
  
::*Note Rawls' argument for choosing things you don't know.  He considers them "morally arbitrary."  You don't deserve to be treated better or worse for your ethnicity, talents, health status, orientation, etc.  Recall historically arbitrary differences like noble birth that we used to treat as morally significant. 
+
:*'''Prelude: Your Brain has been modified by culture'''
::*A conservative theorist might object.  If a health person can earn more money and the freedom to earn money is a matter of moral consequence, then maybe health isn't morally arbitrary?  On the other hand, you might be hard pressed to claim that you “deserve” more money because you had healthier genes.  For Rawls, it might still be just for you to earn more, but we need to develop his theory to see why.
 
  
:*So, what principles would it be rational to choose?
+
::*Example of how reading alters brains.  "Literacy thus provides an example of how culture can change people biologically independent of any genetic differences."
::*Maybe equality? But what if that (paradoxically) made you worse off? Knowing what you know about people, motivations, talents, etc. . . .  
+
::*The ‘letterbox’ in your brain
 +
::*Literacy in Western Europe - a “cultural package” that includes abilities, but also attitudes toward education, technologies of literacy like printing. 
 +
::*Note how a “culture of literacy” can cut across other cultures.  Right hemisphere bias in facial recognition common to university students across cultures. 
 +
::*1517: Protestantism requires literacy.  "sola scriptura"
 +
::*Showing causal relationship with "quasi-experimental" method "For every 100 km traveled from Wittenberg, percentage of Protestants dropped 10%. Like a "dosage".  Also drove female literacy and public education. 
 +
::*Also seen in literacy rates of Catholic and Prot missionaries to Africa: Protestant missions produce more literacy. 
 +
::*Point of his book, “The WEIRDEST People in the World,”: WEIRD psychology is the result of a set of cultural adaptations promoted by the Catholic church.
 +
::*The movement of “sola scriptura” led to an explosion of literacy, which had numerous cultural effects, but the bigger story of how we became WEIRD starts with the Catholic Churches’ “Marriage and Family Plan” (Chapter 1).
  
::*Rawls claims we would choose the following two principles
+
:*'''Chapter 1: WEIRD Psychology'''
::*1) '''Principle of Equal Liberty''': Each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all. (Egalitarian.)
 
::*2) '''Difference Principle''': Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of equality of opportunity.
 
  
:*Note other possible principles.  
+
::*WEIRD: individualistic, self-obsessed, control-oriented, nonconformist, and analytical.  Tends to look for universal categories, analytic.  patient, takes plesure in hard work, sticks to imparial rules or principles, guilt vs. shame
  
:*Questions for understanding Difference Principle "a": Are the least advantaged better off in a society with economic inequality?  Do improvements in the society's wealth improve the situation of the least advantaged? Do decreases in wealth unfairly worsen the condition of the least advantaged?
+
::*Major Claim: WEIRD psychology is a product of 600-1000 years of the Catholic Church's modification of our psychology through its "Marriage and Family Plan". 
  
:*Rawl's theory is mostly a way of justifying two principles of justice, but you can also think of these principles as guiding policyExample of policy implications of the Difference PrincipleChanges at the margins should satisfy the Diff Principle(Mention California covid reopening mandate to mitigate effects on least advantagedRelated evidence of disproportionate effects of Covid by SES (Social and Economic Standing).
+
:*'''Really, who are you?'''
 +
::*"Who Am I? task by culture
 +
::*Mapping the Individualism Complex vs. Kin-based institutions
 +
:::*Might be ''obligated'' to avenge a murder,
 +
:::*''Prohibited'' from marrying a stranger / ''privileged'' to marry mother’s brother’s daughters.
 +
:::*''Responsible'' to carry out expensive ancestor rituals.
 +
:::*''Liable'' for family members crimes.
 +
:::*Note the italicized moral terms.  Moral culture changes with sociocentrism/individualism, as in Haidt.   
 +
::*Contrast on p. 28In the Industrial World "everyone is shopping for better relationships." Read specific contrasts.   
 +
::*Hofstede's scale for measuring individualism/sociocentrism -
 +
::*Economic prosperity and Individualism may be in two way causal relationship.
 +
::*Note caveats to this research on p. 311. As with physio-politics, '''not''' say one cultural package is objectively better than another. [Arguably, individualism and markets got us to the crisi of climate change.] 2. As with physio-politics, the categories mask numerous continuous differences.
  
:*The core intuition behind Rawls' approach is that some things are "morally arbitrary". The veil is an attempt to exclude them.
+
:*'''Cultivating the WEIRD self'''
 +
::*Research showing individualists cultivate "consistency across relationships" vs. kin-based "consistency within relationships”.
 +
::*Dispositionalism - seeing people's behavior as anchored impersonal traits that influence actions across contexts. The Fundamental Attribution Error (33) is a bias of WEIRD people, not a universal cognitive bias.  WEIRD people suffer more from cognitive dissonance because of the type of consistency valued in WEIRD culture.
 +
::*Guilt vs. Shame
 +
::*Conformity - Solom Asch's experiments in which confederates give incorrect answers to test conformity.  WEIRD cultures show lowest conformity. 37-38.
  
===SW2: Review and Small Group Discussion===
+
:*'''Marshmallows Come to Those Who Wait'''
 +
::*"Discounting" as a measure of '''patience''' - "temporal discounting" widely researched through "choice" studies: "Would you rather X now or X+Y later?"  Patience correlated with better socio-economic outcomes.  Larger construct: "self-control" "self-regulation - Marshmallow studies.  [https://youtu.be/QX_oy9614HQ]
 +
::*'''Impersonal Honesty''' --
 +
:::*UN Diplomats' parking violations research.  Natural experiment on existing parking violations.  Volume of tickets correlates with country's standing on "corruption index". 
 +
:::*Impersonal Honesty Game, like the Matrix research from Ariely, normed against probability of each die roll. Also correlates with corruption index. (results at p. 44).  "quintessentially WEIRD experiment as there is no person affected by the dishonesty.  In some cultures, you would be criticized for not taking advantage of the experiment to help your family.
 +
::*'''Universalism and Non-relationalism''' -- Research using the "Passengers Dilemma" -- does your friend have a right to expect you to lie to help him evade a parking fine?  related results: willingness to give insider information, lie about medical exam to lower insurance rates, write a fake review of a friend's restaurant. Measures also importance of '''impartial rules'''
 +
::*'''Trusting Strangers''' - "Generalized Trust Question" (GTQ) survey instrument.  measures impersonal trust vs. trust in relationship based networks.  Norway: 70% Trinidad 4-5% Interesting variation in the US.  Northern Italy 49% Sicily 26%.  [Interesting discussion of forms of trust.  Countries can report high trust on the GTQ, but it may not be impersonal trust.  To get at that you have to ask specifically about trusting strangers.]
 +
::*'''Impersonal Prosociality'''  roughly, "how we feel toward a person who is not tied into our social network" - correlated with national wealth, better government, less corruption, faster innovation. 
 +
::*'''Obsessed with intentions''' -- Bob/Rob and Andy vignette research.  The "Bob" condition involves intent.  Barrett and Laurence research.  Focus on intentional dishonesty correlates with WEIRD culture.  Independent research on Japanese (less focused on intentions), suggests that other factors about Japan's culture affect outcomes.
 +
::*'''Analytic vs. Holistic thinking'''.  Triad Task.  (read 53) Abstract rule-based vs. Functional relationship.  Analytics focus on rules, types, continuity. Example: Would you match "rabbit" with "carrot" or "cat"? Possible that even some of the Mapuche's "analytic" answers had holistic reasoning.  pig/dog pig/husks.  Also, attention and memory studies: East Asians remember background/context better that WEIRD people.  Americans track the center of attention. 
 +
::*WEIRD also have great '''endowment effect, overestimate our talents, self-enhance, enjoy making choices'''.
 +
::*Summary table on p. 56. 
  
:*Review of concepts and principles for fair contract writing
+
:*Henrich's larger argument:
 +
::*The Catholic Church, through it "Marriage and Family Plan" (started around 600 a.d.), started the process that made us WEIRD.  See Henrich, C14, "The Dark Matter of History" for summary of the book's argument.  (In shared folder.)
 +
::*Movement from kin and clan based European culture, to "voluntary associations (guilds, charter towns, universities) drove the expansion of impersonal markets, and spurred the rapid growth of cities.
 +
::*Key elements of the Church's "Marriage and Family Plan"
 +
:::*Monogamous marriages only
 +
:::*No kin marriage
 +
:::*No arranged marriage
 +
:::*Neolocal residence (married couples move out of parents' house)
 +
:::*Inheritance by testament
 +
:::*Individual property
 +
:::*No adoption
  
:*Conditions for entering contracts: non-coercion, equal standing (understanding and knowledge)
+
====Rawls Theory of Justice ====
:*Values in contract interpretation:
 
::*reciprocity (quid pro quo)
 
::*fairness,
 
::*respect for autonomy,
 
::*consent (agreement).
 
::*reliance
 
  
:*Challenges of settling contract disputes: all of these values can be prioritized differently and applied differently.
+
::*16 minute video focsued on Rawls: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6k08C699zI&feature=youtu.be].
 +
::*6 minute video, PBS series: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0CTHVCkm90&feature=youtu.be]
  
:*Breakout rooms
+
:*PBS short video on Rawls
 +
:*Justice as fairness - Ancient Greeks: harmony. Range of goals: liberty, caring for needs, etc.
 +
:*Justice is about distribution of goods.  “Distributive justice”. Examples: equality, needs, merit (getting what you deserve), Rawls- Justice is fairness.  Response to natural inequalities.  This is a form of needs based justice.  Life is unfair, justice is a remedy for that.
 +
:*Nozick (Libertarian) objects: Wilt Chamberlain thought experiment.  Unjust not to even out the playing field.  As long as we don’t get our stuff by unjust means. 
 +
:*Negative rights v positive rights.  “Freedom from interference” v “Right to some goods”
 +
:*We see this in theories of punishment — getting what you deserve (tit for tat) v. Public welfare approaches (rehab and self-protection).
  
:*Questions on assignment
+
:*”Then and Now” video
 +
::*Rawls’ Theory of Justice 1972
 +
::*Responding to utilitarian views of justice.  Criticism of utilitarianism.  Might not protect rights sufficiently.  Slavery example. 
 +
::*Rawls want to mix a rights view with distributive justice.  Rights are not directly utilitarian (though possibly indirectly)
  
===Sapolsky, Chapter 13,"Culture, context, public goods games, religion" (493-520)===
+
:*Original Social Contract tradition.  Another Enlightenment philosophical product!  See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract Social Contract wiki].
 +
::*Social contract tradition.  Original position.  '''What rules and principles would it be rational to choose?'''
 +
:*Rawls' basic method: Principles of justice should be chosen by following a kind of thought experiment in which you imagine yourself not knowing specific things about your identity and social circumstances.  Adopting this special stance is what Rawls calls the "veil of ignorance" (parallel in Social Contract tradition)
 +
:*Original Position in Rawls' thought: Choosing principles of justice under a "veil of ignorance" (simple intuition about fairness: How do you divide the last piece of cake?
 +
::*Note how this realizes a basic condition of moral thought: neutrality, universalization, fairness.
  
:*'''Context, Culture, and Moral Universals'''
+
::*In the original position:
:*given all of the ways our moral judgements can be altered by context and culture, are there universals?  Some forms of murder, theft, and sexual misbehavior.  The Golden Rule is nearly universal.
+
:::*You still know: human psychology, human history, economics, the general types of possible situations in which humans can find themselves.
 +
:::*You don't know: your place in society, your class, social status, for tu in in natural assets and abilities, sex, race, physical handicaps, generation, social class of our parents, whether you are part of a discriminated group, etc.
  
:*Schwederautonomy,community, divinity
+
::*Note Rawls' argument for choosing things you don't knowHe considers them "morally arbitrary."  You don't deserve to be treated better or worse for your ethnicity, talents, health status, orientation, etc.  Recall historically arbitrary differences like noble birth that we used to treat as morally significant. 
:*Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory (coming to you Thursday)
+
::*A conservative theorist might object.  If a healthy person can earn more money and the freedom to earn money is a matter of moral consequence, then maybe health isn't morally arbitrary?  On the other hand, you might be hard pressed to claim that you “deserve” more money because you had healthier genes.  For Rawls, it might still be just for you to earn more, but you should also acknowledge that you are benefiting from “morally arbitrary” features of your existence while others are suffering from morally arbitrary deficits.
  
:*'''Cooperation and Competition'''
+
:*So, what principles would it be rational to choose?
::*'''Public goods game research''' - review experimental model p. 495. Rational choice theory predicts zero contribution to public good. But, research documents consistent prosociality, with some variation by culture.
 
:::*Simple version, pay to punish deadbeats version.
 
:::*Robust results: 1) Everyone is prosocial.  In no culture do people just not contribute. 2) In all cultures, people punish low contributors.  ('''Prosocial or altruistic Punishment''')
 
  
::*Interesting recent result: '''Anti-social punishment''' is also universal, though it's strength variesInterestingly, the lower the social capital in a country, the higher the rates of antisocial punishment.  (I would question Sapolsky's interpretation of this result. - Alfino)
+
:*Rawls claims we would choose the following two principles
 +
::*1) '''Principle of Equal Liberty''': Each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all.
 +
::*Basic liberties 11:46. Play.  Freedom from: right to vote, speech, assembly, freedom of thought, property, from arbitrary arrest, from discriminationPositive: Opportunities, basic education.  (Egalitarian about rights.)
 +
::*2) '''Difference Principle''': Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of equality of opportunity. (Welfare principle for distribution of goods.). “Maximin” strategy maximizing the minimum possible positionBased on a risk calculation. (Note: people have different risk tolerance.  Could be a criticism.)
  
::*research by Joseph Henrich, U BC, subjects from wide range of cultures play three simulation games: The Dictator and two versions of the Ultimatum Game.  Variables that predict prosocial patterns of play: market integration, community size, religion. 498.
+
:*The core intuition behind Rawls' approach is that some things are "morally arbitrary".  The veil is an attempt to exclude them.
:*Henrich's research on fairness: Testing 1. fairness without consequence, 2. fairness as measured by strength of 2nd party punishment (Ultimatum game), and 3. fairness as measured by 3rd party punishment.
 
 
 
:*Social Capital (early draft of Henrich book I think): market integration, community size, religion.
 
:*'''World Religions and Moralizing Gods'''
 
:*What is the connection between participation in world religion and prosocial play?  499: When groups get large enough to interact with strangers, they invent moralizing gods (research from Chapter 9).  The large global religions all have moralizing gods who engage in third party punishment. So we do.  Still.  Think about that.
 
 
 
:*Bottom of 499: Two hypotheses: 1) Our sense of fairness is an extension of a deep past in which sociality was based on kin and near kin. (don't forget monkey fairness) or, 2) Fairness is a cultural artifact (product of culture) that comes from reasoning about the implications of larger groups size. 
 
 
 
:*Note theoretical puzzle on p. 500: You might expect small kin-based communities to have higher offers in PG games, punishing unfairnes, but "impersonal prosociality" and "impersonal fairness" are really part of a different "cooperative toolkit".
 
 
 
:*the chapter's survey and quest for cultural moral universals continues.....
 
 
 
:*'''Honor and Revenge''' - (mention Mediterranean hypothesis - Italian honor culture & research on southerners....)
 
 
 
:*'''Collectivists''' -- diffs from Individualistsnote 501.
 
::*more likely to sacrifice welfare of one for group.  use as means to end.  focus of moral imperatives on social roles and duties vs. rights.
 
::*uses shames vs. guilt.  read 502.  shame cultures viewed as primitive, but contemporary advocates of shaming.  thoughts?....examples p. 503.
 
::*gossip as tool of shaming -- as much as 2/3 of conversation and mostly negative. 
 
 
 
:*Fools Rush In -- Reason and Intuition p. 504
 
::*How do we use insights from research to improve behavior?
 
::*Which moral theory is best? (trick question).  In this section, he's
 
 
 
:*Virtue theory looks outdated, but maybe more relevant than we think. 
 
:*reviews the point from trolley research about the utilitarian answer from the dlPFC and the nonutilitariain from the vmPFC.  Why would we be automatically non-utilitarian?  One answer: nature isn't trying to make us happy, it's try to get our genes into the next generation.
 
:*'''Moral heterogeneity'''  - new data: 30% deontologist and 30% utilitarian in both conditions.  40% swing vote, context sensitive.  theorize about that.
 
:*Major criticism of utilitarian - most rational, but not practical unless you don't have a vmPFC. "I kinda like my liver".  Triggers concerns that you might be sacrificed for the greater happiness. 
 
 
 
:*Sapolsky claims that '''optimal decisions involve integration of reason and intuition'''.  508:"Our moral intuitions are neither primordial nor reflexively primitive....[but] cognitive conclusions from experience.  '''morality is a dual process,''' partitioned between structures for reasoning and intuition. (Note that both processes are cognitive. Intuition sometimes called "automatic inference" in both how they emerge and are applied.  Saying "thank you".)
 
 
 
:*Slow vs. Fast
 
 
 
:*More Josh Greene research.  Old problem: '''tragedy of the commons''' -- how do you jumpstart cooperation.  It's a "me vs us" problem. But there's an "us versus them" version when there are two groups (cultures) with competing models for thriving.
 
 
 
:*Tragedy of Commonsense Morality (a group version of what I call The Paradox of Moral Experience).  It's really hard not to conclude that your way of doing something isn't just culturally contingent, but really true.
 
 
 
:*Example of Tragedy of commonsense morality using Dog meat. -- used as example of how you could induce us vs. them response. 
 
 
 
:*Example of framing: Samuel Bowles example of switching people's mind set in the case of the school responding to late parents. 
 
 
 
:*'''Veracity and Mendacity''' 
 
 
 
:*interesting book [https://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/folly-of-fools-robert-trivers/1101005127/2660910235107?st=PLA&sid=BNB_New+Marketplace+Shopping+Textbooks&sourceId=PLAGoNA&dpid=tdtve346c&2sid=Google_c&gclid=CjwKCAiA_P3jBRAqEiwAZyWWaOAbekguajqRIUBS4fWBHK3VfA8JPh9RBP9MjIhoGoHPctN4OQ5xDhoCT-sQAvD_BwE] on deception in nature.
 
 
 
::*note range of questions 512. Truth telling not a simple policy matter.  
 
::*primate duplicity -- capuchin monkeys will distract a higher ranking member to take food, but not a lower one. 
 
::*male gelada baboons know when to hold off on the "copulation call"
 
::*differences with humans: we feel bad or morally soiled about lying and we can believe our own lies.
 
 
 
::*human resources for lying -- poker face, finesse, dlPFC comes in with both struggle to resist lying and execution of strategic lie.
 
::*516: neuroplasticity in white and gray matter in habitual liars. 
 
::*517: Swiss research (Baumgartner et al) -- playing a trust game allowing for deception, a pattern of brain activation predicted promise breaking.  Think of a time when you broke a promise..... Did it feel like what S is describing?  A noisy brain cut off by a decision.  (Good example of cognitive dissonance. )
 
 
 
::*Subjects who don't cheat.  will vs. grace. grace wins.  "I don't know; I just don't cheat."
 

Latest revision as of 20:03, 2 March 2023

13: MAR 2: Some Cultural Evolutionary Theory

Assigned

  • Henrich, Joe. Prelude and Chapter 1, "WEIRD Psychology" from The WEIRDEST People in the World (21-58)
  • Rawls' Theory of Justice
  • 16 minute video focsued on Rawls: [1].
  • 6 minute video, PBS series: [2]

In-class

  • Rawls' Theory of Justice
  • Take home personal survey: What's your Justice Number?

Henrich, "WEIRD Psychology," from The Weirdest People on Earth"

  • Prelude: Your Brain has been modified by culture
  • Example of how reading alters brains. "Literacy thus provides an example of how culture can change people biologically independent of any genetic differences."
  • The ‘letterbox’ in your brain
  • Literacy in Western Europe - a “cultural package” that includes abilities, but also attitudes toward education, technologies of literacy like printing.
  • Note how a “culture of literacy” can cut across other cultures. Right hemisphere bias in facial recognition common to university students across cultures.
  • 1517: Protestantism requires literacy. "sola scriptura"
  • Showing causal relationship with "quasi-experimental" method "For every 100 km traveled from Wittenberg, percentage of Protestants dropped 10%. Like a "dosage". Also drove female literacy and public education.
  • Also seen in literacy rates of Catholic and Prot missionaries to Africa: Protestant missions produce more literacy.
  • Point of his book, “The WEIRDEST People in the World,”: WEIRD psychology is the result of a set of cultural adaptations promoted by the Catholic church.
  • The movement of “sola scriptura” led to an explosion of literacy, which had numerous cultural effects, but the bigger story of how we became WEIRD starts with the Catholic Churches’ “Marriage and Family Plan” (Chapter 1).
  • Chapter 1: WEIRD Psychology
  • WEIRD: individualistic, self-obsessed, control-oriented, nonconformist, and analytical. Tends to look for universal categories, analytic. patient, takes plesure in hard work, sticks to imparial rules or principles, guilt vs. shame
  • Major Claim: WEIRD psychology is a product of 600-1000 years of the Catholic Church's modification of our psychology through its "Marriage and Family Plan".
  • Really, who are you?
  • "Who Am I? task by culture
  • Mapping the Individualism Complex vs. Kin-based institutions
  • Might be obligated to avenge a murder,
  • Prohibited from marrying a stranger / privileged to marry mother’s brother’s daughters.
  • Responsible to carry out expensive ancestor rituals.
  • Liable for family members crimes.
  • Note the italicized moral terms. Moral culture changes with sociocentrism/individualism, as in Haidt.
  • Contrast on p. 28. In the Industrial World "everyone is shopping for better relationships." Read specific contrasts.
  • Hofstede's scale for measuring individualism/sociocentrism -
  • Economic prosperity and Individualism may be in two way causal relationship.
  • Note caveats to this research on p. 31. 1. As with physio-politics, not say one cultural package is objectively better than another. [Arguably, individualism and markets got us to the crisi of climate change.] 2. As with physio-politics, the categories mask numerous continuous differences.
  • Cultivating the WEIRD self
  • Research showing individualists cultivate "consistency across relationships" vs. kin-based "consistency within relationships”.
  • Dispositionalism - seeing people's behavior as anchored impersonal traits that influence actions across contexts. The Fundamental Attribution Error (33) is a bias of WEIRD people, not a universal cognitive bias. WEIRD people suffer more from cognitive dissonance because of the type of consistency valued in WEIRD culture.
  • Guilt vs. Shame
  • Conformity - Solom Asch's experiments in which confederates give incorrect answers to test conformity. WEIRD cultures show lowest conformity. 37-38.
  • Marshmallows Come to Those Who Wait
  • "Discounting" as a measure of patience - "temporal discounting" widely researched through "choice" studies: "Would you rather X now or X+Y later?" Patience correlated with better socio-economic outcomes. Larger construct: "self-control" "self-regulation - Marshmallow studies. [3]
  • Impersonal Honesty --
  • UN Diplomats' parking violations research. Natural experiment on existing parking violations. Volume of tickets correlates with country's standing on "corruption index".
  • Impersonal Honesty Game, like the Matrix research from Ariely, normed against probability of each die roll. Also correlates with corruption index. (results at p. 44). "quintessentially WEIRD experiment as there is no person affected by the dishonesty. In some cultures, you would be criticized for not taking advantage of the experiment to help your family.
  • Universalism and Non-relationalism -- Research using the "Passengers Dilemma" -- does your friend have a right to expect you to lie to help him evade a parking fine? related results: willingness to give insider information, lie about medical exam to lower insurance rates, write a fake review of a friend's restaurant. Measures also importance of impartial rules
  • Trusting Strangers - "Generalized Trust Question" (GTQ) survey instrument. measures impersonal trust vs. trust in relationship based networks. Norway: 70% Trinidad 4-5% Interesting variation in the US. Northern Italy 49% Sicily 26%. [Interesting discussion of forms of trust. Countries can report high trust on the GTQ, but it may not be impersonal trust. To get at that you have to ask specifically about trusting strangers.]
  • Impersonal Prosociality roughly, "how we feel toward a person who is not tied into our social network" - correlated with national wealth, better government, less corruption, faster innovation.
  • Obsessed with intentions -- Bob/Rob and Andy vignette research. The "Bob" condition involves intent. Barrett and Laurence research. Focus on intentional dishonesty correlates with WEIRD culture. Independent research on Japanese (less focused on intentions), suggests that other factors about Japan's culture affect outcomes.
  • Analytic vs. Holistic thinking. Triad Task. (read 53) Abstract rule-based vs. Functional relationship. Analytics focus on rules, types, continuity. Example: Would you match "rabbit" with "carrot" or "cat"? Possible that even some of the Mapuche's "analytic" answers had holistic reasoning. pig/dog pig/husks. Also, attention and memory studies: East Asians remember background/context better that WEIRD people. Americans track the center of attention.
  • WEIRD also have great endowment effect, overestimate our talents, self-enhance, enjoy making choices.
  • Summary table on p. 56.
  • Henrich's larger argument:
  • The Catholic Church, through it "Marriage and Family Plan" (started around 600 a.d.), started the process that made us WEIRD. See Henrich, C14, "The Dark Matter of History" for summary of the book's argument. (In shared folder.)
  • Movement from kin and clan based European culture, to "voluntary associations (guilds, charter towns, universities) drove the expansion of impersonal markets, and spurred the rapid growth of cities.
  • Key elements of the Church's "Marriage and Family Plan"
  • Monogamous marriages only
  • No kin marriage
  • No arranged marriage
  • Neolocal residence (married couples move out of parents' house)
  • Inheritance by testament
  • Individual property
  • No adoption

Rawls Theory of Justice

  • 16 minute video focsued on Rawls: [4].
  • 6 minute video, PBS series: [5]
  • PBS short video on Rawls
  • Justice as fairness - Ancient Greeks: harmony. Range of goals: liberty, caring for needs, etc.
  • Justice is about distribution of goods. “Distributive justice”. Examples: equality, needs, merit (getting what you deserve), Rawls- Justice is fairness. Response to natural inequalities. This is a form of needs based justice. Life is unfair, justice is a remedy for that.
  • Nozick (Libertarian) objects: Wilt Chamberlain thought experiment. Unjust not to even out the playing field. As long as we don’t get our stuff by unjust means.
  • Negative rights v positive rights. “Freedom from interference” v “Right to some goods”
  • We see this in theories of punishment — getting what you deserve (tit for tat) v. Public welfare approaches (rehab and self-protection).
  • ”Then and Now” video
  • Rawls’ Theory of Justice 1972
  • Responding to utilitarian views of justice. Criticism of utilitarianism. Might not protect rights sufficiently. Slavery example.
  • Rawls want to mix a rights view with distributive justice. Rights are not directly utilitarian (though possibly indirectly)
  • Original Social Contract tradition. Another Enlightenment philosophical product! See Social Contract wiki.
  • Social contract tradition. Original position. What rules and principles would it be rational to choose?
  • Rawls' basic method: Principles of justice should be chosen by following a kind of thought experiment in which you imagine yourself not knowing specific things about your identity and social circumstances. Adopting this special stance is what Rawls calls the "veil of ignorance" (parallel in Social Contract tradition)
  • Original Position in Rawls' thought: Choosing principles of justice under a "veil of ignorance" (simple intuition about fairness: How do you divide the last piece of cake?
  • Note how this realizes a basic condition of moral thought: neutrality, universalization, fairness.
  • In the original position:
  • You still know: human psychology, human history, economics, the general types of possible situations in which humans can find themselves.
  • You don't know: your place in society, your class, social status, for tu in in natural assets and abilities, sex, race, physical handicaps, generation, social class of our parents, whether you are part of a discriminated group, etc.
  • Note Rawls' argument for choosing things you don't know. He considers them "morally arbitrary." You don't deserve to be treated better or worse for your ethnicity, talents, health status, orientation, etc. Recall historically arbitrary differences like noble birth that we used to treat as morally significant.
  • A conservative theorist might object. If a healthy person can earn more money and the freedom to earn money is a matter of moral consequence, then maybe health isn't morally arbitrary? On the other hand, you might be hard pressed to claim that you “deserve” more money because you had healthier genes. For Rawls, it might still be just for you to earn more, but you should also acknowledge that you are benefiting from “morally arbitrary” features of your existence while others are suffering from morally arbitrary deficits.
  • So, what principles would it be rational to choose?
  • Rawls claims we would choose the following two principles
  • 1) Principle of Equal Liberty: Each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all.
  • Basic liberties 11:46. Play. Freedom from: right to vote, speech, assembly, freedom of thought, property, from arbitrary arrest, from discrimination. Positive: Opportunities, basic education. (Egalitarian about rights.)
  • 2) Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of equality of opportunity. (Welfare principle for distribution of goods.). “Maximin” strategy maximizing the minimum possible position. Based on a risk calculation. (Note: people have different risk tolerance. Could be a criticism.)
  • The core intuition behind Rawls' approach is that some things are "morally arbitrary". The veil is an attempt to exclude them.