Difference between revisions of "OCT 12"

From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "==11: OCT 12== ===Assigned Reading=== :*Soler, Jean. "The Semiotics of Food in the Bible" (55-66) ===Practical Eating Series, "Practical Kitchen and Mindful Cooking (Sacred...")
 
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
==11: OCT 12==
+
==13: OCT 12==
  
===Assigned Reading===
+
===Assigned===
  
:*Soler, Jean. "The Semiotics of Food in the Bible" (55-66)
+
*Sapolsky, Chapter 13, "Culture, context, public goods games, religion" (493-503) (10)
 +
*Sandel, "The Case for Equality" p. 151-166 (15)
 +
*Rawls Theory of Justice
 +
::*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]
  
===Practical Eating Series, "Practical Kitchen and Mindful Cooking (Sacred Eating)"===
+
===In-class===
:*Recall N S P model.  Examples of interactions: N & S, S & P
 
:*Objective aspects of the kitchen as workspace. Cutting boards, knives, cooking and storage equipt., machines (or not). Light.
 
:*Subjective aspects of kitchen space.  Separation of time, marking separation from out of house activities, as in other important activities. Cleaning. Ambiance: Music, news, etc.  Happy hour and appetizers as prelude to cooking.
 
::*Mentality and Cooking: variables social/alone, sacred/utilitarian, chore/pleasure.  If you are religious, start meal prep with a moment...
 
::*If you tend to see eating and meal prep as a chore, how to you change that?
 
::*Reflection of importance of food helps, but skill and knowledge do as well:
 
:::*Importance of cutting skills to enjoy cooking space, later we'll consider the more obvious connection bt skills and gastronomy: flavor and satisfaction. 
 
:::*Importance of confidence in basic cooking procedures, (again the main connection here is to taste and satisfaction (gastronomy).
 
  
:*Importance of repetition in learning and practicality. Finding flow in food preparation.
+
:*Practice Fair Contract skills on Old Case: [[Fair Contract Case]].
  
===Soler, Jean. "The Semiotics of Food in the Bible"===
+
===Fair Contract Skills: Small Group Discussion===
  
:*How do we explain the dietary rules of Hebrews? (and by extension, JCI tradition)
+
:*Let's practice looking for fairness and justice in an individual contract dispute. We'll use this old (and imperfect) case study for SW2 from Fall 2020.
  
:*Background thesis: link between diet and view of the world. "a relationship between the idea he has formed of specific items of food and the image he has of himself and his place in the universe."  (note: this was partly at issue in SW2 this term.)  Some theoretical nods to Levi-Strauss (see his work, "The Raw and the Cooked").
+
:*[[Fair Contract Case]].
  
:*Soler gives a detailed account of the transitions through "three plates" of Judaism:
+
:*Then, in groups, try to assess the fairness and justice of different resolutions given the facts of the case and the concepts we have introduced.  Try to give reasons for your resolution.  Some of those reasons should engage our fair contract concepts.
::*1st plate: Biblical vegetarianism p. 56. -- God gave us plants and seeds to eat.  (soul not immortal till 2nd cent bc, external concept)  Paradise was vegetarian.
+
::*Autonomy - respect for persons as rational agents, reason giving.  
:::*Creation in the image of God, yet not GodNeed to maintain boundary. Note the transgression found in duality of "tree of life/tree of knowledge" Elohim expresses concern that, having violated God's prohibition regarding tree of life, man might seek to usurp GodLikewise, to eat an animal with a soul would be a usurpation of God's power to take and give life. Diff bt man and God in the food.
+
::*Reciprocity - the "quid pro quo" of a contractBenefits and Obligations.
 +
::*Background assumptions about the kind of contract and cultural assumptions about dispute resolution and negotiation (tell Italian renovation story)
 +
::*Ambiguities, failures of clarification, but also implicit understandings.
 +
::*Background understandings of "reasonableness" (note connections to our work with Sapolsky on cultural mental adaptations.)
 +
::*Duties that attach to each parties' roles.
 +
::*Obligations can also be affected by the relative knowledge and power of the parties.
  
::*2nd plate: Post-flood, covenant with Noah: eat anything but not "flesh with its life"
+
===Rawls' Theory of Justice===
:::*Still, meat has negative connotation, concession to imperfection in man.  The flood was a response to murder, mayhem, and corruption of man. 
 
:::*Blood is theorized as the prohibited part.  Often part of sacrifice. 
 
  
::*3rd plate: Post exile covenant with Moses: adds distinction between clean and unclean animalsStill, meat allowed as concession to man's moral imperfection.
+
:*Original Social Contract tradition.  Another Enlightenment philosophical product!  See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract Social Contract wiki].
:::*Note: This covenant is only with the tribes of Israel.  Food as cultural and cosmic separator.  (Note contemporary analogues. Intentional diets, diets that maintain ethnicity.
+
:*'''Rawls' basic intuition''': Principles of justice should be chosen by following a kind of thought experiment in which you imagine yourself not knowing specific things (see list) about your identity and social circumstancesAdopting this special stance is what Rawls calls the "original position" (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 Numbers, reports of Hebrews rebelling (wanting to eat their flocks, which would presumably be for dairy?). Miracle of the quails p. 59.  Hebrews ultimately tolerate meat eating, with focus on prohibition of blood and attention to slaughter methods, sacrifice.
+
::*'''List of things you know or don't know 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, fortune in natural assets, abilities, and talents, sex, race, physical handicaps, generation, social class of our parents, whether you are part of a discriminated group, etc.
  
::*Passover meal getting back to food origins. 61-62.
+
::*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 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.  As we will see, Rawls shows us one way of striking a balance between these two intuitions: It might still be just for you to earn more, but not if it makes me worse off.
  
:*'''Moral Order and Food Order'''
+
::*Rawls claims we would choose the following two principles
::*Notion of moral order also applied to "mixed" marriages, prohibition of homosexuality, even to having an ox and an ass ploughing together.
+
::*1) '''Principle of Equal Liberty''': Each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all. (Egalitarian.)
::*"hoofed foot" "cloven foot" "chews the cud" -- effort to excluding carnivorous animals.  (carnivorous animals out, fish with legs out, winged insects are freaks, Eating deformed animals excluded.  Priest can't have crushed testicles (!).  Similar reasoning.  (more at 63) - excluding mollusks, birds that don't fly, snakes...
+
::*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.
  
:*Clean or pure eating involves going back to origins and God's original intent for creation ).  Hence exclusion of "blemished" or "unnatural" animals. Note that generally carnivorous animals are not part of the creation plan and Hebrew dietary guidelines try to isolate herbivores.  
+
:*Note other possible principles.  
  
:*But Hebrews didn't go back to original vegetarianism, rather to nomad hunter/gatherer diet.  Passover meal "bitter herbs and meat" no agricultural products, no leavening for bread (back to grain pastes!), nothing fermented. food of the patriarchs. Food of the origins is taken to be '''sacred eating'''. 
+
:*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?
  
:*Sacrifice not just about sorting God's share from ours, but atoning for taking the life of the animal.  (Meat retains some negative meanings.)
+
:*Rawl's theory is mostly a way of justifying two principles of justice, but you can also think of these principles as guiding policy.  Example of policy implications of the Difference Principle.  Changes at the margins should satisfy the Diff Principle.  (Mention California covid reopening mandate to mitigate effects on least advantaged. Related evidence of disproportionate effects of Covid by SES (Social and Economic Standing).
  
:*Christianity comes in as an evangelical religion, so it must break with dietary laws of the Jews.  Christ declares all food clean (Mark 7:19).  "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man" (Matthew 15:11)Peter's vision of being commanded to eat clean and unclean animals.   Goes with a theology of Christ, fusion of man/god.  Also, an evangelizing religion cannot really focus on dietary exclusions.  Consuming the blood and flesh of God become part of a sacrament. (That pretty much brings things around to a full circle!)
+
:*The core intuition behind Rawls' approach is that some things are "morally arbitrary".  The veil is an attempt to exclude them.
  
:*This recent NPR story about the book ''Fish on Fridays'' tells the story of the Catholic medieval promotion of fishing-fasting days and the later decline in the fish market with Anglican church politics.  [http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/04/05/150061991/lust-lies-and-empire-the-fishy-tale-behind-eating-fish-on-friday]
+
===Sapolsky, Chapter 13,"Culture, context, public goods games, religion" (493-520)===
  
:*Discussion directions:
+
:*'''Context, Culture, and Moral Universals'''
 +
:*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.  (Note that it is a basic fairness doctrine and that it’s “indexed” to a view of human nature.  Consider again the passenger’s dilemma.)
  
::*To what extent does "sustainability" provide a criterion of "trophic eating" similar to Hebrew food theology?
+
:*Schweder.  autonomy,community, divinity
 +
:*Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory (coming to you Thursday). (A “matrix” is already a way of thinking about “general variables”.)
  
::*Does the choice between industrial and organic eating comprise choices in contemporary "culinary cosmos"? 
+
:*'''Cooperation and Competition''' in Public Goods Game research
  
::*Does the Christian decision to "eat God" have implications for contemporary Christian's culinary cosmos?
+
::*'''Public goods game research''' - review experimental model p. 495. Important 2008 research result: Rational choice theory predicts zero contribution to public good. But, research documents consistent prosociality, with some variation by culture.
 +
:::*Simple version: sucker's payoff reduces cooperation to zero
 +
:::*Punishment 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''')
  
::*Slaughterhouse question:
+
::*Interesting recent result: '''Anti-social punishment''' is also universal, though it's strength varies.  Interestingly, the lower the social capital in a country, the higher the rates of antisocial punishment.  (Another way to theorize this result - We lose “face” or experience hierarchy in the presence of overly generous people.  Not a problem in individualist cultures so much.)
  
===Writing Assignment: Assessing the US Industrial Food System (short writing, peer review, Points)===
+
::*research by Joseph Henrich, U BC, subjects from wide range of cultures play three simulation games:
 +
:::*The Dictator Game (a simple measure of fairness)  
 +
:::*Two versions of the Ultimatum Game.  One with “pay to punish” option.  One with 3rd party punish option.
  
:*'''Stage 1''': Please write an 500 word maximum answer to the following question by '''October 16, 2020 11:59pm.'''
+
::::*Results: Variables that predict prosocial patterns of play: market integration predicts more pro social behavior (higher offers in Dictator and Ultimatum), community size (more 2nd and 3rd party punishment), religion (predicts great 2nd and 3rd party punishment). 498.
::*Topic:
 
:::*Since about September 16 we have been acquiring information and research on the industrial food system in the US and the dietary diseases that result from it.  Reviewing that information, identify the principle difficulties that have led to these adverse results.  Be sure to acknowledge what the industrial food system does well, be focus on problems in this answer. Use the readings and the "Taxonomy" to remind yourself of the types of problems we have been considering. Which do you consider the most serious problems and why?
 
  
:*'''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 readings, 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.
+
:*Social Capital (early draft of Henrich book I think): market integration, community size, religion.
  
:*Prepare your answer and submit it in the following way:
+
:*'''World Religions and Moralizing Gods'''
::# '''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.
+
:*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. StillThink about that.
::# 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 "AssessingIFS".
 
::# Log in to courses.alfino.orgUpload 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 only be using the Flow and Content areas of the rubric for this assignment.  We will tie specific elements of the prompt to the content assessment, so be sure to consider that in composing your answer!''' Complete your evaluations and scoring by '''TBD.''' 
+
:*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. Looks more plausible now to say both.
::*Use [https://goo.gl/forms/xmcavup2FZ4QYWW42 this Google Form] to evaluate four peer papers. The papers will be on the Sharepoint site under Student Writing, but please do not edit these files or add comments directly on them. 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 rankingAssuming the process works normally, I will give you the higher of the two grades.  Up to 14 points in Points.
+
:*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".  In a way, the “market toolkit” is much simpler that a small group situation“You give me this now, and I pay you now.
  
:*'''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://goo.gl/forms/cqLWi07kzo9WSpPf2]. '''Fill out the form for each reviewer, but not Alfino.'''  Up to 10 points, in Q&W.
+
:*'''Honor and Revenge''' - (mention Mediterranean hypothesis - Italian honor culture & research on southerners....)
  
::*Back evaluations are due '''TBD, 11:59pm'''.
+
:*'''Collectivists''' -- diffs from Individualists.  note 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 20:15, 12 October 2021

13: OCT 12

Assigned

  • Sapolsky, Chapter 13, "Culture, context, public goods games, religion" (493-503) (10)
  • Sandel, "The Case for Equality" p. 151-166 (15)
  • Rawls Theory of Justice
  • 16 minute video focsued on Rawls: [1].
  • 6 minute video, PBS series: [2]

In-class

Fair Contract Skills: Small Group Discussion

  • Let's practice looking for fairness and justice in an individual contract dispute. We'll use this old (and imperfect) case study for SW2 from Fall 2020.
  • Then, in groups, try to assess the fairness and justice of different resolutions given the facts of the case and the concepts we have introduced. Try to give reasons for your resolution. Some of those reasons should engage our fair contract concepts.
  • Autonomy - respect for persons as rational agents, reason giving.
  • Reciprocity - the "quid pro quo" of a contract. Benefits and Obligations.
  • Background assumptions about the kind of contract and cultural assumptions about dispute resolution and negotiation (tell Italian renovation story)
  • Ambiguities, failures of clarification, but also implicit understandings.
  • Background understandings of "reasonableness" (note connections to our work with Sapolsky on cultural mental adaptations.)
  • Duties that attach to each parties' roles.
  • Obligations can also be affected by the relative knowledge and power of the parties.

Rawls' Theory of Justice

  • Original Social Contract tradition. Another Enlightenment philosophical product! See Social Contract wiki.
  • Rawls' basic intuition: Principles of justice should be chosen by following a kind of thought experiment in which you imagine yourself not knowing specific things (see list) about your identity and social circumstances. Adopting this special stance is what Rawls calls the "original position" (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.
  • List of things you know or don't know 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, fortune in natural assets, abilities, and talents, 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 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. As we will see, Rawls shows us one way of striking a balance between these two intuitions: It might still be just for you to earn more, but not if it makes me worse off.
  • 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. (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.
  • 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?
  • Rawl's theory is mostly a way of justifying two principles of justice, but you can also think of these principles as guiding policy. Example of policy implications of the Difference Principle. Changes at the margins should satisfy the Diff Principle. (Mention California covid reopening mandate to mitigate effects on least advantaged. Related evidence of disproportionate effects of Covid by SES (Social and Economic Standing).
  • The core intuition behind Rawls' approach is that some things are "morally arbitrary". The veil is an attempt to exclude them.

Sapolsky, Chapter 13,"Culture, context, public goods games, religion" (493-520)

  • Context, Culture, and Moral Universals
  • 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. (Note that it is a basic fairness doctrine and that it’s “indexed” to a view of human nature. Consider again the passenger’s dilemma.)
  • Schweder. autonomy,community, divinity
  • Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory (coming to you Thursday). (A “matrix” is already a way of thinking about “general variables”.)
  • Cooperation and Competition in Public Goods Game research
  • Public goods game research - review experimental model p. 495. Important 2008 research result: Rational choice theory predicts zero contribution to public good. But, research documents consistent prosociality, with some variation by culture.
  • Simple version: sucker's payoff reduces cooperation to zero
  • Punishment 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 varies. Interestingly, the lower the social capital in a country, the higher the rates of antisocial punishment. (Another way to theorize this result - We lose “face” or experience hierarchy in the presence of overly generous people. Not a problem in individualist cultures so much.)
  • research by Joseph Henrich, U BC, subjects from wide range of cultures play three simulation games:
  • The Dictator Game (a simple measure of fairness)
  • Two versions of the Ultimatum Game. One with “pay to punish” option. One with 3rd party punish option.
  • Results: Variables that predict prosocial patterns of play: market integration predicts more pro social behavior (higher offers in Dictator and Ultimatum), community size (more 2nd and 3rd party punishment), religion (predicts great 2nd and 3rd party punishment). 498.
  • 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. Looks more plausible now to say both.
  • 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". In a way, the “market toolkit” is much simpler that a small group situation. “You give me this now, and I pay you now.”
  • Honor and Revenge - (mention Mediterranean hypothesis - Italian honor culture & research on southerners....)
  • Collectivists -- diffs from Individualists. note 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 [3] 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."