The next time you have to make a difficult moral decision, you might think twice about mulling it over in the bath or shower. New research in Psychological Science has found that the physical notion of cleanliness significantly reduces the severity of moral judgments showing that intuition, rather than deliberate reasoning, can influence our perception of what is right and wrong.
November 2008 Archives
The next time you have to make a difficult moral decision, you might think twice about mulling it over in the bath or shower. New research in Psychological Science has found that the physical notion of cleanliness significantly reduces the severity of moral judgments showing that intuition, rather than deliberate reasoning, can influence our perception of what is right and wrong.
There's no real evidence to suggest that religion is hardwired - it's just wishful thinking on the part of religious academics
Justin Barrett, a Christian and member of the centre's research team (whether it is research or propaganda is the moot question here) says with his colleagues on the centre's website:
Why is belief in supernatural beings so common? Because of the design of human minds. Human minds, under normal developmental conditions, have a strong receptivity to belief in gods, in the afterlife, in moral absolutes, and in other ideas commonly associated with 'religion' ... In a real sense, religiousness is the natural state of affairs. Unbelief is relatively unusual and unnatural.
I don't know any field of argument where the line between Christian and secular reasoning is so sharp as in embryo research. What I mean here is that the scientist proceeds from what can be done to reasoning about the nature of the things it can be done to: the Christian starts with an intuition about the nature of the subject, and then decides what may be done to it.
Last year, a team of researchers at Harvard made headlines with an experiment testing unconscious bias at hospitals. Doctors were shown the picture of a 50-year-old man -- sometimes black, sometimes white -- and asked how they would treat him if he arrived at the emergency room with chest pains indicating a possible heart attack. Then the doctors took a computer test intended to reveal unconscious racial bias.
- Do not overstate the power of your argument. One's sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.
- Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.
- Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one's own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.
- Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.
- Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.
Love in the Time of Darwinism Kay S. Hymowitz, City Journal Autumn 2008
Take a look here at Hymowitz's original essay Child-Man in the Promised Land
Not so long ago, the average mid-twentysomething had achieved most of adulthood's milestones--high school degree, financial independence, marriage, and children. These days, he lingers--happily--in a new hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance. Decades in unfolding, this limbo may not seem like news to many, but in fact it is to the early twenty-first century what adolescence was to the early twentieth: a momentous sociological development of profound economic and cultural import...
Playboy's philosophy may not have been Aristotle, but it was an attempt, of sorts, to define the good life. The Maxim reader prefers lists, which make up in brevity what they lose in thought: "Ten Greatest Video Game Heroes of All Time," "The Five Unsexiest Women Alive," "Sixteen People Who Look Like They Absolutely Reek," and so on.
If group violence has been around for a long time in human society then we ought to have evolved psychological adaptations to a warlike lifestyle. Several participants presented the strongest evidence yet that males - whose larger and more muscular bodies make them better suited for fighting - have evolved a tendency towards aggression outside the group but cooperation within it. "There is something ineluctably male about coalitional aggression - men bonding with men to engage in aggression against other men," says Rose McDermott, a political scientist at Stanford University in California.
Aggression in women, she notes, tends to take the form of verbal rather than physical violence, and is mostly one on one. Gang instincts may have evolved in women too, but to a much lesser extent, says John Tooby, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of California at Santa Barbara. This is partly because of our evolutionary history, in which men are often much stronger than women and therefore better suited for physical violence. This could explain why female gangs only tend to form in same-sex environments such as prison or high school. But women also have more to lose from aggression, Tooby points out, since they bear most of the effort of child-rearing.
Link here to the TED site to access the original video and join in discussion.
Joseph Epstein recently contributed to The Weekly Standard. "My mother never read to me, and my father took me to no ballgames," Epstein writes. They took no photographs, avowed no love, of him. This, he says, was the general approach to child-rearing in the nineteen-forties and fifties, when he grew up, and children benefitted: they developed into regular people, "going about the world's business." As for the steamy devotion shown by later generations of parents, what it has produced are snotty little brats filled with "anger at such abstract enemies as The System," and intellectual lightweights, certain (because their parents told them so) that their every thought is of great consequence. Epstein says that, when he was teaching, he was often tempted to write on his students' papers: "D-. Too much love in the home." As his essay suggests, critics of overparenting have political concerns as well as moral ones. The politics go both ways, however. The conservatives are afraid that we're turning our children into pampered ninnies (that is, Democrats); the liberals that we're producing selfish, authoritarian robots (Republicans).
Why do some of us always do the right thing while others only seem to be out for themselves? Research by the universities of Exeter and Bristol offers a new explanation as to why such a wide range of personality traits has evolved in humans and other social species.
'Game theory' is used to predict the behaviour of individuals when making choices that depend on the choices of others. First developed as a tool for understanding economic behaviour, game theory is increasingly used in many diverse fields, ranging from biology and psychology to sociology and philosophy.
Just as sneezing may well be a successful manipulation of "us" (Homo sapiens) by "them" (viruses), what about altruism as another successful manipulation of "us," this time by our own "altruism genes"? Admirable as altruism may be, it is therefore, in a sense, yet another form of manipulation. After all, just as the brainworm gains by orchestrating the actions of an ant, altruism genes stand to gain when we are nice to Cousin Sarah, never mind that such niceness is costly to that entity we unthinkingly call "ourselves."
Many Americans doubt the morality of atheists. According to a 2007 Gallup poll, a majority of Americans say that they would not vote for an otherwise qualified atheist as president, meaning a nonbeliever would have a harder time getting elected than a Muslim, a homosexual, or a Jew. Many would go further and agree with conservative commentator Laura Schlessinger that morality requires a belief in God--otherwise, all we have is our selfish desires.
There may be some truth to the notion that bullies make other people feel bad to make themselves feel better. A new study published in the journal Biological Psychology used fMRI scans to compare brain activity in eight unusually aggressive 16- to 18-year-old males to those of eight normal adolescent males while they watched videos of people getting hurt. While both groups showed activity in the brain's pain centers, the brains of aggressive males, those with conduct disorder, also showed activity in the brain's pleasure centers, suggesting that they may have been enjoying what they were seeing. Normal males showed no such activity. "It just dumbfounded us," said Dr. Benjamin Lahey, co-author of the study and professor of epidemiology and psychiatry at the University of Chicago.
[V]irtually all major religions and cultures believe in the same law of reciprocity, or "treat others as you would like to be treated." Regardless of culture, race or religion, all of the world's greatest philosophers and religious figures have taught the same "golden rule", though stated in slightly different ways such as:
-
"When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." -- Torah Leviticus 19:33-34
- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." -- Jesus (c. 5 BC - AD 32 ) in the Gospels, Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, Luke 10:27
- "This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others what you would not have them do unto you." -- Mahabharata (5:15:17) (c. 500 BC)
- "What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." -- Confucius (ca. 551 - 479 BC)
- "None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself." -- Muhammad (c. AD 571 - 632) in a Hadith.
In this case at least, religion and neuroscience agree. Obeying the "golden rule" is likely to make one happy.
"The human being is by nature a social animal," Aristotle wrote in his treatise on politics. The proof, he believed, lay in the fact that "the human being alone among the animals has speech." Bees buzz; sheep bleat; if humans speak, they must be even more gregarious. So integral are groups to human nature, Aristotle believed, that a person who tries to go it alone must be something other than human - "either a beast or a god."
Alas, by Aristotle's definition, more and more people are abandoning their humanity every year. Industrialization brings material comforts, and representative democracy brings political power, and as soon as people have these goods they seem to use them to procure privacy and independence - and, inadvertently, social isolation.
Like most rationalists, Dawkins tends to invoke people's innate intelligence, and attribute their flawed ways of thinking to ignorance rather than stupidity. "But I don't have any evidence," he concedes. "I could be wrong. It's a kind of ideal. It's a sort of bending over backwards." People might just be stupid, I suggest. "They might be, yes," he agrees cautiously. "But at least my saying that ignorance is no crime is my defence against the charge of arrogance. Because if you tell people they're stupid, that certainly isn't the way to win friends and influence people."
What is going on in the brain when people mull over these different scenarios? Thinking through cases like the Trolley Problem--what Greene calls an impersonal moral dilemma as it involves no direct violence against another person--increases activity in brain regions located in the prefrontal cortex that are associated with deliberative reasoning and cognitive control (so-called executive functions). This pattern of activity suggests that impersonal moral dilemmas such as the Trolley Problem are treated as straightforward rational problems: how to maximise the number of lives saved. By contrast, brain imaging of the Footbridge Problem--a personal dilemma that invokes up-close and personal violence--tells a rather different story. Along with the brain regions activated in the Trolley Problem, areas known to process negative emotional responses also crank up their activity. In these more difficult dilemmas, people take much longer to make a decision and their brains show patterns of activity indicating increased emotional and cognitive conflict within the brain as the two appalling options are weighed up.
Nature 455, 1038-1039 (23 October 2008) | doi:10.1038/4551038a; Published online 22 October 2008
Atheism will always be a harder sell than religion, Pascal Boyer explains, because a slew of cognitive traits predispose us to faith. Is religion a product of our evolution? The very question makes many people, religious or otherwise, cringe, although for different reasons. Some people of faith fear that an understanding of the processes underlying belief could undermine it. Others worry that what is shown to be part of our evolutionary heritage will be interpreted as good, true, necessary or inevitable. Still others, many scientists included, simply dismiss the whole issue, seeing religion as childish, dangerous nonsense.
