|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ==15: OCT 18: Unit 2: Living in the Matrix / Working with Political Difference 1== | + | ==14: OCT 18== |
| | | | |
| | ===Assigned=== | | ===Assigned=== |
| | | | |
| − | :*Haidt, Chapter 12, "Can't We all Disagree More Constructively?" (189-221) (32) | + | :*Haybron, C5, “The Sources of Happiness” (24) |
| | + | :*Csiksentmihalyi, C2, “The Content of Experience’ (17) |
| | | | |
| | ===In-class=== | | ===In-class=== |
| | | | |
| − | :*Summarizing Theories of Political Difference | + | :*Background on Cskisentmihalyi |
| − | :*Small Group discussion
| |
| − | :*Assign SW2: Understanding Political Difference
| |
| | | | |
| − | ===Summarizing Theories of Political Difference=== | + | ===Haybron, “The Sources of Happiness”=== |
| | | | |
| − | :*[[Image:Synthesizing Research on Political and Moral Difference.jpg|600px]] | + | :*Acknowledges cultural relativity of what counts as happiness. (Note universality of happiness itself.) |
| | + | :*Focusing on things we don’t adapt to. But also that we can change. |
| | + | :*Haybron’s list (expanding from Ryan Deci’s theory of basic needs) |
| | + | ::*1. Security - |
| | + | :::*material, social, project, time. Rational approach to risk. |
| | + | ::*2. Outlook - |
| | + | :::*the “internal strategy” -external H-makers vs internal H-making skills. |
| | + | :::*positivity (savoring, gratitude, pos focus) and acceptance (not passivity or low ambition) |
| | + | :::*caring for others. -volunteering next to dancing in joy. (But maybe not for you?) |
| | + | :::*extrinsic vs intrinsic motivation. |
| | + | ::*3. Autonomy - general human desire for self-determination. |
| | + | :::*Option freedom v autonomy. (Paradox of Choice - still current) |
| | + | :::*Makes a case for autonomy as universal - takes diff shape in kin-culture. |
| | + | ::*4. Relationships |
| | + | :::*Component h-makers: understanding, validation, caring, trust (also a security item) |
| | + | ::*5. Skilled and meaningful activity. |
| | + | :::*development of skills, meaningful activity (work or not), appreciative engagement. |
| | | | |
| − | :*'''Issues''' | + | :*Money — |
| − | ::*Issues have lifespans that can range from months to years. Some issues get settled (e.g. gay marriage) while other remain contested (abortion). Since issues can get people to vote, political parties sometimes keep issues alive even when polling tells us that most people have moved on (again abortion, gun rights). Some issues are “live” but untouched by the major political parties (health care, penal reform), sometimes because advocacy would promote more opposing votes than supporting votes. | + | ::*shows an Easterlin graph. |
| − | :*'''Labels'''
| + | ::*income affects H-l more. |
| − | ::*Labels can apply to parties and people. Democrats were “centrists” when Clinton was president, but now there are more progressive voices. Parties manage labels to avoid losing adherents, but parties can also be “taken over.” Some would says Republicans have been taken over by right wind authoritarianism. Dems are less centrist now. Polarization rules. | |
| − | :*'''Political Parties'''
| |
| − | ::*In a two party system, political parties have to reach 51% to win. They do this by trying to map labels onto people. If you are cynical, you might say they “manage” opinion by tracking trends and testing out issues to see “what sells”.
| |
| − | :*'''People'''
| |
| − | ::*People are obviously at the heart of moral life. We have our own “moral matrix” and beliefs about “basic social dilemmas” (how society works best). We have to figure out who to ally with, who to tolerate, and who to avoid. Sometimes we actively oppose others’ views by protesting or contributing to causes.
| |
| − | :*'''Culture'''
| |
| − | ::*Culture is a vector for transmitting moral views, so it shapes us, but we also shape it by the way we live our lives. This happens intentionally, but also passively through imitation.
| |
| − | :*'''Orientations''' - Evolved Psychology
| |
| − | ::*This is the level at which Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) and responses to basic social dilemmas describe our relatively stable “values orientation”.
| |
| − | :*'''Nature''' - Evolutionary Challenges - Ancestral to Contemporary
| |
| − | ::*Evolutionary challenges are well known: how to behave, whom to trust, how to raise kids, when to go along with things, and when to resist others’ values and actions. Any existential problem that can be addressed by values is an evolutionary challenge, from avoiding disease to responding to aggression to facing climate change.
| |
| | | | |
| − | ===Haidt, Ch 12, "Can't We All Disagree More Constructively?"=== | + | ===Csiksentmihalyi, Finding Flow, Chapter 2 === |
| | | | |
| − | :*Evidence of polarization in American politics; changes in political culture. compromise less valued.
| + | ====The Content of Experience==== |
| − | :*Looking for a '''theory of ideologies''', which might be thought to drive political identity formation.
| |
| − | ::*Two senses:
| |
| − | :::*1. Fixing orientation (all of the "big" theories we've studied have focused on evidence of persistent traits, especially in adults.
| |
| − | :::*2. Fixing the specific fusion of issue-position and label acceptance.
| |
| − | :*"right" and "left", simplifications, but basis of study and comparative to Europe in some ways, historical origins in French Assembly of 1789, basis in heritable traits - twins studies. L/R don't map wealth exclusively.
| |
| − | :*Old answers: people choose ideologies based on interests. blank-state theories.
| |
| | | | |
| − | :*One more time through the modern genetic/epigenetic/phenotype explanation pattern (note what's at stake: if you misunderstand the determinism here, you'll misunderstand the whole theory): | + | :*Theoretical position, p. 21: In story of woman with two jobs: looking for patterns of human commitment to a life. Wants to ask less for self-reports of happiness and more about the moods and affect that might be functionally related to happiness. |
| − | ::*1: Genes make brains - Australian study: diff responses to new experiences: threat and fear for conservative, dopamine for liberal. (recall first draft metaphor)
| |
| − | ::*2: Dispositional traits lead to different experiences, which lead to "characteristic adaptations" (story about how we differentiate ourselves through our first person experience. mention feedback loops). (Lots of parents would corroborate this.) Does the story of the twins seem plausible? | |
| − | ::*3: Life narratives; McAdams study using Moral Foundations Theory to analyze narratives, found MFs in stories people tell about religious experience. Thesis: different paths to religious faith. We "map" our moral foundations onto our faith commitment to some extent. | |
| − | :*So, an '''ideology''' can be thought of as the political version of a narrative that fits with a personal narrative you tell about your experience. Note the complexity here. You can tailor your narrative to you.
| |
| | | | |
| − | :*Political narratives of Republicans and Democrats. | + | ::*Two big points: |
| − | ::*Haidt, Graham, and Nosek study: Liberals worse at predicting conservatives responses. Interesting point: the distortion of seeing things as a liberal makes liberals more likely to believe that conservatives really don't care about harm. But conservatives may be better at understanding (predicting) liberal responses because they use all of the foundations. (File this with Hibbing Chs. 5 and 6) | + | :::*1. Happiness is positive emotion that might be driven by behavior. And, |
| | + | :::*2. It may be especially evident in a life of commitments and goals which reduce "psychic entropy." (Negative emotions are “entropic” for C.) |
| | | | |
| − | :*Muller on difference bt conservative and orthodox. Post-enlightenment conservatives: want to critique liberalism from Enlightenment premise of promoting human well being. follow conservative description of human nature. 290. - humans imperfect, need accountability, reasoning has flaws so we might do well to give weight to past experience, institutions are social facts that need to be respected, even sacralized. (Consider countries in which judges are abducted or blown up.) | + | :*Discussion of emotions, goals, and thoughts in terms of the organization of "psychic entropy", 22 roughly, the cognitive / emotive state of order in my mind at a particular moment or during an activity. |
| − | :*Moral and Social Capital -- moral capital: resources that sustain a moral community (including those that promote accountability and authority.). moral capital not always straightforward good (293), also, less trusting places, like cities, can be more interesting. Social capital more about the ties we have through our social networks which maintain trust and cooperation relationships. | + | :*Intentions and goals inform and order our psychic energy. Most prefer intrinsic motivation, next extrinsic, finally least productive of positive affect is no goal state. :*William James: self-esteem is a ratio of expectation (goals) to success. Set goals too high, lowers success and self-esteem. |
| | | | |
| − | :*Liberals | + | :*Note distinction between Eastern philosophical suspicion of origin of goals and "superficial reading" that suggests it counsels renunciation of goals. |
| − | ::*Blindspot: not valuing moral capital, social capital, tends to over reach, change too many things too quickly. Bertrand Russell: tension between ossification and dissolution..
| |
| − | ::*Strength: 1) regulating super-organisms (mention theory of "regulatory capture"); 2)solving soluble problems (getting the lead out - might have had big effect on well-being. note this was a bipartisan push back against a Reagan reversal of Carter's policy).
| |
| | | | |
| − | :*Libertarians. Today's political libertarian started out as a "classic liberal" prioritizing limited gov and limited church influence of government. | + | :*Three contents of consciousness: emotions, intentions, and thoughts. Their integration allows for flow. Concentration is necessary for flow, but can be impaired by lack of motivation and emotion. |
| − | ::*Note research suggesting how libertarians diverge from liberals and conservatives on the MFs.
| |
| − | ::*Libertarian wisdom: 1) markets are powerful -- track details -- often self-organizing, self-policing, entrepreneurial)
| |
| | | | |
| − | :*Social Conservatives | + | :*FLOW, p. 29ff. (What a quiet mind is getting ready for.) |
| − | ::*wisdom: understanding threats to social capital (can't help bees if you destroy the hive)
| + | ::*effortless action, being in the zone, altered time consciousness. |
| − | | + | ::*clear set of goals, focusing attention. |
| − | :*Putnam's research on diversity and social capital : bridging and bonding capital both decline with diversity. sometimes well intentioned efforts to promote ethnic identity and respect can exacerbate this.
| + | ::*often at limits of skill and challenge level. |
| − | | + | ::*absorption in task, dynamic feedback. "All in." |
| − | ===Small Group Discussion: How do we talk about each other when ideology is at stake?===
| + | :*Theoretical Problem about the Relation of Flow to Happiness: |
| − | | + | ::*"It is the full involvement of flow, rather than happiness, that makes for excellence in life. When we are in flow, we are not happy, because to experience happiness we must focus on our inner states, and that would take away attention from the task at hand." [Theoretical note: choice of "rather than happiness". Also could be "causes LS" or savoring model.] Think about place of flow in hierarchy of daily goals. Intensity of flow varies widely from extreme to mundane activity. Note related states. |
| − | :*Let's try to personalize Haidt's discussion at the end of of the chapter, by finding more detailed examples of "blindspots" and "wisdom" across the political spectrum. Use the "I have a friend who talks about liberals/conservatives this way…" strategy (or “I've been in conversations where people say...") to find examples of harmful or unproductive ways of talking about '''political difference'''.
| + | ::*Data on frequency of flow experiences, p. 33. About 20% yes, often. 15% no, never. (Again, you need to ask how much flow you want or need. Might depend upon how you feel when challenged. Ok, to live life staying “inside your game”.) |
| − | | |
| − | :*Use these negative examples to think about more productive ways of taking political difference into account without triggering polarization.
| |
| − | ::*What ''positive attributes'' should we include in our narratives of our political "others" (people who don't share our political orientation)?
| |
| − | ::*What ''specific strategies'' can you think of for maintaining common purpose and common cause in spite of differences of orientation and issue commitment?
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | ===Disciplinary Knowledge and Social Media Political Polarization, Conflict, and Partisanship===
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::*Examples of current research found on Ethics wiki page from Fall 2020 students. [[Ethics_Research_on_Politics,_Conflict,_and_Partisanship]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Note on "Social Epistemology"===
| |
| − | | |
| − | :*'''Philosophical Method point:''' The following line of thought is also example of philosophical speculation. We are venturing a bit beyond the research itself to extract significance and insight. | |
| − | | |
| − | :*"Social Epistemology" means a variety of things in philosophy. Here, the idea is that some traits relevant to group problem solving are distributed in a population (call this a "demographic epistemic trait" AND that this variation might play a role in optimizing group decision-making. In other words, we are not all seeing the same social reality due to our different orientations and experiences. These differences might be persistent, not something we can talk each other out of. But making constructive use of differences might product better decisions. | |
| − | | |
| − | :*Think about evidence from Haidt and Hibbing about divergences in cognitive style, problem solving (BeanFest!), perception, and moral matrices. Evidence from Haidt on MFs. | |
| − | | |
| − | :*Speculative questions about such traits (I am not aware of a theory about this yet): Are there are DETs? Would human populations with some optimal variation in DETs do better than ones with more or less than an optimal range? There is a research literature on diversity of perspective in workgroups. It is often a benefit. | |
| − | | |
| − | :*Related literature: Wisdom of Crowds [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds] and research on group decision making under conditions of cognitive diversity.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | ===SW2: Understanding Political Difference (600 words)===
| |
| − | | |
| − | :*'''Stage 1''': Please write an 600 word maximum answer to the following question by '''Saturday, October 22, 2022 11:59pm.'''
| |
| − | ::*Topic: We have been discussing political orientation from political science (Hibbing et al) and moral psychology (Haidt) perspectives. We have also noted the extreme polarization that exists in our political culture. Drawing on these resources, give your theory of political difference. Then, in the last 200-250 words of your answer, draw some practical inferences and practical advice about how to approach moral and political discussion in ways that respect identity and avoid polarized and non-cooperative outcomes. | |
| − | | |
| − | :*'''Advice about collaboration''': 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. 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, '''verbally'''. Collaboration is also a great way to make sure that a high average level of learning and development occurs in the class. 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. '''You will lose points''' if you do not follow these instructions:
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::# To assure anonymity, you must remove your name from the the "author name" that you may have provided when you set up your word processing application. For instructions on removing your name from an Word or Google document, [[https://wiki.gonzaga.edu/alfino/index.php/Removing_your_name_from_a_Word_file click here]].
| |
| − | ::# Format your answer in double spaced text, in a typical 12 point font, and using normal margins. Do not add spaces between paragraphs and indent the first line of each paragraph.
| |
| − | ::# '''Do not put your name in the file or filename'''. You may put your student ID number in the file. Always put a word count in the file. Save your file for this assignment with the name: '''PoliticalDifference'''. | |
| − | ::# To turn in your assignment, log into courses.alfino.org, click on the '''"1 Points - SW2"''' dropbox.
| |
| − | ::# If you cannot meet a deadline, you must email me about your circumstances (unless you are having an emergency) '''before''' the deadline or you will lose points.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :*'''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 '''Friday, October 28, 2022 11:59pm.'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::*To determine the papers you need to peer review, open the file called "#Key.xls" in the shared folder. You will see a worksheet with saint names in alphabetically order, along with animal names. Find your saint name and review the next four (4) animals' work below your animal name. If you get to the bottom of the list before reaching 4 animals, go to the top of the list and continue.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::*Use [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSca2C-a7XJpi09qCt3wAd1jmi5gPJ2vR-6I3L8ZQDNQ4ZOQwA/viewform?usp=sf_link this Google Form] to evaluate '''four''' peer papers. Submit the form once for each review. | |
| − | | |
| − | ::*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 back to the key and review the next animal's paper, continuing until you get four reviews. Do not review more than four papers.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :*'''Stage 3''': I will grade and briefly comment on your writing using the peer scores as an initial ranking. Assuming the process works normally, most of my scores probably be within 1-2 points of the peer scores, plus or minus.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :*'''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/e/1FAIpQLSdgKCYITDTSOOHcvC3TAVNK-EZDsP4jiiyPj-7jdpRoNUsLPA/viewform?usp=sf_link]. '''Fill out the form for each reviewer, but not Alfino.''' '''You must do the back evaluation to receive credit for the whole assignment.''' Failing to give back-evaluations unfairly affects other classmates.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::*Back evaluations are due '''TBD, 2022, 11:59pm'''.
| |
