Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

How Well We See Each Other, or Don't. The Righteous Mind -Why Good People Are Divided by P

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Re: How Well We See Each Other, or Don't. The Righteous Mind -Why Good People Are Divided

    Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
    I've seen something like this before, all I had to do was read the first paragraph and the chart. It is one of many explanations that suggest Human Bahavior really being about various avenues of predisposition. They make compelling arguments I agree.
    Please read The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler. He points out how math and science are actually culturally specific. In our degenerate culture, we now use "science" to undermine the very existence of Free Will, the very existence of the capacity to choose, the very existence of morality, the very existence of justice.

    Think about the immorality of a system of justice, a system of laws IF people cannot chose the behavior that has been outlawed?

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #92
      Re: How Well We See Each Other, or Don't. The Righteous Mind -Why Good People Are Divided

      Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
      Originally posted by Mahasattva View Post
      All valid claims, but the moralities of Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity are considered binding moralities which are the cement that holds communities together.
      Binding morality according to who, Libertarians?
      Binding morality according to the empirical research carried out by Haidt and his colleagues, and the research of several other scientists working to understand similar problems about human nature from different angles.

      Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
      Originally posted by Mahasattva View Post
      Loyalty to one’s own conscious doesn’t bind you to your fellow countrymen.
      As a Libertarian, I do not want to be bound to anyone except as my own conscious may dictate.
      Well you are bound on several levels. As an English speaker your language binds you to your fellow English speakers. As an educated Westerner in an industrialized secular democratic society you are bound to fellow Westerners living in an industrialized secular democratic society. As an individual who relies on reason as your guide you are bound through the rules of logic with others who are also guided by reason. Each of us are embedded within numerous social and cultural ties that hold us together. An example of the differences of how our minds work that has been very well established through empirical research is the tendency of Westerners who tend to focus and are aware of objects as separate entities, while Asians are more aware of the dynamic field and the contextual relationship between objects/entities. Westerners tend to see objects as separate and unique entities, Asians tend to see the relationship between objects/entities as a dynamic field.

      This does not mean that you cannot transcend the restrictions of your linguistic/cultural/social/group boundaries, it just means you must first become aware of these boundaries and seek to mitigate their effects.

      tashi deleks,

      M

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #93
        Re: How Well We See Each Other, or Don't. The Righteous Mind -Why Good People Are Divided

        Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
        Originally posted by Mahasattva View Post
        As I wrote before, Haidt’s research reveals that all of us respond intuitively (emotionally) to moral questions,
        This is nonsensical. In college, my ethics professor specifically used the working definition of morals as "when you allow a previously made decision to over-ride your present emotions." Therefore, morality and emotions are mutually exclusive.
        Or your ethics professor was simply incorrect, though from the point of view of logic and in teaching ethics his “working definition” makes sense. Haidt’s research shows that the human mind does not work in this manner. Even more, research done by neuroscientists with fMRIs show that upon viewing a moral dilemma or moral invoking images it is first our emotional centers that light up in the brain and our moral decision is made and then it is only after that, that the rational areas of the brain light up when we attempt to explain (rationalize) our moral decision. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. If we had to think through every moral decision by the time we arrived at that decision we could likely be dead, scammed out of our life’s savings, betrayed or our community could be threatened with conquest, genocide or internal dissolution.

        Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
        To say a study reveals a contradiction, itself reveals a flaw in the premise of the study as contradictions do not exist in reality.
        There is no contradiction John. As I replied to Dan when he brought this point up:
        Originally posted by Mahasattva View Post
        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
        Personally I thing that Conservatives think more about things and Liberals feel more about things.
        Well, actually it’s a bit more nuanced then that. Haidt’s research reveals that our morals rest on intuitions or a gut sense and that our cognitive efforts occur after that intuition to give reasons or rationalizations to support that intuition. The metaphor he uses is, “ the mind is divided, like a rider on an elephant, and the rider’s job is to serve the elephant. The rider is our conscious reasoning -- the stream of words and images of which we are fully aware. The elephant is the other 99 percent of mental processes -- the ones that occur outside of awareness but actually govern most of our behavior. 8”

        This does not mean that rational thought does not influence our beliefs, or that we cannot rationally work through and toward our beliefs. Its just that most of us don’t and most often our rational arguments are post ad hoc constructions to support our moral judgments which are generally based on our intuition (emotion) regarding a specific issue or event. Liberals, since they focus of the Care foundation are able to present emotional “arguments.” Conservatives, in the modern American sense, since they recognize all six moral foundations, and the other side is tone deaf to three of them, have been forced to present better and clearer arguments and reasons for them AND th[is] creates a feedback loop where conservatives have refined not only their arguments but also their own understanding. Which is why many of the beliefs that were once considered core defining principles have gone by the wayside.
        Also please note that your quote of mine above was incomplete. I continued with, which echoes what I wrote replying to Dan:
        Originally posted by Mahasattva View Post
        As I wrote before, Haidt’s research reveals that all of us respond intuitively (emotionally) to moral questions, and then come up with reasons to support that intuitive sense of rightness or wrongness. I think the differences between Liberal-progressives and conservatives and libertarians is what Thomas Sowell called a self-congratulatory belief system, a vision of the anointed, which blinds them to the effects of their social policies. The Vision of the Anointed Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy - Thomas Sowell - Google Books Haidt points to the fact that our moral proclivities not only bind us to our group (even those who assert to belong to no group) but also blinds us the moral understandings of outsiders. But we are not stuck in our moral reasonings if we are open to the natural feedback of reality. A self-congratulatory belief system closes that off, blinding us further to the effects of our beliefs and the policies that spring from them.
        tashi deleks,

        M

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #94
          Re: How Well We See Each Other, or Don't. The Righteous Mind -Why Good People Are Divided

          Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
          Originally posted by Mahasattva View Post
          Haidt points to the fact that our moral proclivities not only bind us to our group (even those who assert to belong to no group)
          See what I mean about contradictions. The premise is one is bound to a group. Denying this is denigrated as a mere assertion that violates the circular reasoning of the premise.
          There is no contradiction, nor am I or Haidt denigrating anyone. Again, your quote of mine above is incomplete. I continued with, and this time I have corrected my minor grammatical error:
          Originally posted by Mahasattva View Post
          but also blinds us [to] the moral understandings of outsiders. But we are not stuck in our moral reasonings if we are open to the natural feedback of reality. A self-congratulatory belief system closes that off, blinding us further to the effects of our beliefs and the policies that spring from them.
          You do not suffer from “a self-congratulatory belief system” that closes off a natural feedback loop to the reality and the effects of your decisions. This is what enables you to, in a sense, “allow a previously made decision to over-ride your present emotions." Much of those emotions or intuitions are unconscious, but openness to the natural feedback loop to the effects of your moral decisions allows you to “over-ride your present emotions.” Since you are familiar with his principles I remind you of Dale’s advice “on how to keep a disagreement from becoming an argument” -- “Distrust your first instinctive impression. Our first natural reaction in a disagreeable situation is to be defensive.” More about Dale later when I reply to your comment regarding him.

          tashi deleks,

          M

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #95
            Re: How Well We See Each Other, or Don't. The Righteous Mind -Why Good People Are Divided

            Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
            Originally posted by Mahasattva View Post
            I am rereading Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People after Haidt asserted that Carnegie “was in fact a brilliant moral psychologist who grasped one of the deepest truths about conflict. He used a quote from Henry Ford to express it: ‘If there is any one secret of success it lies in the ability to get the other person’s point of view and see things from their angle as well as their own.’”
            What this quote says about the deepest truths about conflict is unclear.
            Remember my quote to Dan above? The relevant portion:
            Originally posted by Mahasattva View Post
            Haidt’s research reveals that our morals rest on intuitions or a gut sense and that our cognitive efforts occur after that intuition to give reasons or rationalizations to support that intuition. The metaphor he uses is, “ the mind is divided, like a rider on an elephant, and the rider’s job is to serve the elephant. The rider is our conscious reasoning -- the stream of words and images of which we are fully aware. The elephant is the other 99 percent of mental processes -- the ones that occur outside of awareness but actually govern most of our behavior. 8”
            Haidt, with a wink and a nod to the Dog Whisperer Cesar Millan, complimented Dale by calling him an elephant whisperer. A very interesting take on what is special about Cesar Millan is found in Malcolm Gladwell’s What the Dog Saw: and other adventures To paraphrase Dale’s quote of Ford, in the context of a Dog Whisperer, “If there is any one secret of success [with dogs] it lies in the ability to get the [dog’s] point of view and see things from their angle -- as well as their own.”

            You have to talk to the elephant first and then you can reason with the rider.

            Having put Carnegie's principles into practice over the last 20+ years I believe his genius is stated in Chapter 1. I spent an entire Saturday morning teaching a Leadership Training class with my direct subordinates. "Do not criticize, condemn or complain" seems totally at odds with Haidt’s research as he demands each participant criticize people who are not of the same political mind. Do you not see the irony here?
            There is no irony, but its my fault that you think so. Reread Dale’s Part Three “How to Win People to Your Way of Thinking” especially chapter 1 “You can’t win an argument.” I blame myself for your impression that Haidt’s research “demands each participant criticize people who are not of the same political mind.” Haidt’s research does not make any such demand, the whole purpose of his research is to understand why we differ and that those differences are not as extreme as most of us think. Where there are differences his research is to explain why they are and how we can build bridges of understanding. Neither does Haidt recommend that we embrace the “acute angle” in political or religious discussions. The purpose he wrote the book was to give people the insight in how human beings make moral decisions and hopefully to give us the tools to discuss political and religious issues in a manner that minimizes our differences and elevates our similarities. It is his hope that we learn how to reason with the rider, without insulting the elephant..

            And as I admitted,
            Originally posted by Mahasattva View Post
            It is advice I should more often follow on the forum, though my posts tend to be too long already. I also lose patience with the willfully obtuse. I do follow it in the meat world, but I have to actually live with these people.
            tashi deleks,

            M

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #96
              Re: How Well We See Each Other, or Don't. The Righteous Mind -Why Good People Are Divided

              Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
              Please read The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler. He points out how math and science are actually culturally specific.
              Spengler has a point regarding the origin of the scientific method, but I think he was wrong to say that math and science in general are culturally specific. Mathematics as it is practiced today has elements that originated in India as well as Greece, and calculus was built upon those borrowings. The uniqueness of the West is how and what it applied mathematics toward, the betterment of our own lives and our societies. The two dominate economic/political worldviews originated in the West, capitalism and socialism. Socialism has proven itself a complete failure, while in spite of the neo-Marxists and other leftists efforts capitalism (especially when yoked to the political system of classical liberal democracy) has proven itself to be both the most effective and most reliable economic systems in alleviating poverty and rising the standard of living for the greatest number of people. Pi is Pi regardless of your cultural origins. Whether you have grown up in India, the Congo, or America the molecule for water is H2O. Piaget’s cognitive developmental stages have been shown to be universal regardless of the culture you have grown up within. The only exception is his last stage of formal logic-mathematical reasoning which appears to require a culture that supports its development.

              Niall Ferguson’s Civilization: The West and the Rest: Niall Ferguson: 9780143122067: Amazon.com: Books presents a strong case for the institutions that arose in the West, and nowhere else, that allowed it to dominate the rest of the world for 500 years, none of which are the usual neo-Marxist, Afro-centric, anti-colonial, postmodern silliness that is usually asserted. Ferguson points to “… the six killer apps -- that allowed a minority of mankind originating on the western edge of Eurasia to dominate the world for 500 years.”

              These Six Applications are:
              1. Competition - a decentralization of both political and economic life, which created the launch-pad for both nation-states and capitalism
              2. Science - a way of studying, understanding, ultimately changing the natural world, which gave the West (among other things) a major military advantage over the Rest
              3. Property rights - the rule of law as a means of protecting private owners and peacefully resolving disputes between them, which formed the basis for the most stable form of representative government
              4. Medicine - a branch of science that allowed a major improvement in health and life expectancy, beginning in Western societies, but also in their colonies
              5. The consumer society - a mode of material living in which the production and purchase of clothing and other consumer goods play a central economic role, without which the Industrial Revolution would have been unsustainable
              6. The work ethic - a moral framework and mode of activity derivable from (among other sources) Protestant Christianity, which provides the glue for the dynamic and potentially unstable society created by apps 1 to 5

              “The critical point is that the differential between the West and the Rest was institutional.”

              The problem the West faces today is that “the Rest” are now beginning to institutionalize the above six apps within their own cultures AND there is a segment of Western society (in academia, the media, politics, and law) which actively seeks to undermine the institutions that allowed both those individuals and Western culture to arise in the first place and maintain those institutions within our culture.

              In our degenerate culture, we now use "science" to undermine the very existence of Free Will, the very existence of the capacity to choose, the very existence of morality, the very existence of justice.
              Most of which is postmodern extremist silliness, though regarding “free will” I believe a developmental perspective leads to a better understanding. Some “wills” are freer than other “wills.” We all know some who are so wrapped up and embedded within their worldview that freedom of thought is unlikely, much less the freedom to act beyond their herd’s mentality. This understanding is not a threat to the rule of law, since at the very least it is the duty of those in power to safeguard society against the threat of criminals or the insane.

              Think about the immorality of a system of justice, a system of laws IF people cannot chose the behavior that has been outlawed?
              Thomas Sowell has dismantled the postmodern leftist progressive ideas about justice so well and so thoroughly.

              tashi deleks,

              M

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #97
                Re: How Well We See Each Other, or Don't. The Righteous Mind -Why Good People Are Divided

                Originally posted by Mahasattva View Post
                Or your ethics professor was simply incorrect, though from the point of view of logic and in teaching ethics his “working definition” makes sense. Haidt’s research shows that the human mind does not work in this manner. Even more, research done by neuroscientists with fMRIs show that upon viewing a moral dilemma or moral invoking images it is first our emotional centers that light up in the brain and our moral decision is made and then it is only after that, that the rational areas of the brain light up when we attempt to explain (rationalize) our moral decision. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. If we had to think through every moral decision by the time we arrived at that decision we could likely be dead, scammed out of our life’s savings, betrayed or our community could be threatened with conquest, genocide or internal dissolution.



                There is no contradiction John. As I replied to Dan when he brought this point up:


                Also please note that your quote of mine above was incomplete. I continued with, which echoes what I wrote replying to Dan:

                tashi deleks,

                M
                Have you read Jonathan Haidt's article on fairness? Conservatives define fairness much differently than liberals, but even when a situation reflects conservative fairness many liberals will respond in the same manner as the conservative. Issues addressed are Proportionality, Equality, Procedural Fairness.

                Some comments, since the 47% do not pay income taxes are they due benefits?
                Same in = same out? More in = more out?
                Can the playing field be reasonably leveled? Is it fair to those who give the most to society to be forced into equality of outcome with one who contributes little effort?

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #98
                  Re: How Well We See Each Other, or Don't. The Righteous Mind -Why Good People Are Divided

                  Originally posted by Mahasattva View Post
                  Binding morality according to the empirical research carried out by Haidt and his colleagues, and the research of several other scientists working to understand similar problems about human nature from different angles.
                  Research reveals an inherent binding morality, an inherent binding standards of choice making? I'm afraid Spengler was right, each culture creates its own math and science.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #99
                    Re: How Well We See Each Other, or Don't. The Righteous Mind -Why Good People Are Divided

                    Originally posted by Mahasattva View Post
                    Or your ethics professor was simply incorrect, though from the point of view of logic and in teaching ethics his “working definition” makes sense. ... If we had to think through every moral decision by the time we arrived at that decision we could likely be dead, scammed out of our life’s savings, betrayed or our community could be threatened with conquest, genocide or internal dissolution.
                    Hence the importance of definition, of concept formation. IF one does not think it through it is not a moral decision. Instincts maybe. Amoral living maybe. But not moral living. Naturally, if one changes what moral decision making is you'll discover by research things to support the epistemological shift.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Re: How Well We See Each Other, or Don't. The Righteous Mind -Why Good People Are Divided

                      Originally posted by Mahasattva View Post
                      Niall Ferguson’s Civilization: The West and the Rest: Niall Ferguson: 9780143122067: Amazon.com: Books presents a strong case for the institutions that arose in the West, and nowhere else, that allowed it to dominate the rest of the world for 500 years, none of which are the usual neo-Marxist, Afro-centric, anti-colonial, postmodern silliness that is usually asserted. Ferguson points to “… the six killer apps -- that allowed a minority of mankind originating on the western edge of Eurasia to dominate the world for 500 years.”

                      These Six Applications are:
                      1. Competition - a decentralization of both political and economic life, which created the launch-pad for both nation-states and capitalism
                      .
                      3. Property rights - the rule of law as a means of protecting private owners and peacefully resolving disputes between them, which formed the basis for the most stable form of representative government

                      “The critical point is that the differential between the West and the Rest was institutional.”

                      The problem the West faces today is that “the Rest” are now beginning to institutionalize the above six apps within their own cultures AND there is a segment of Western society (in academia, the media, politics, and law) which actively seeks to undermine the institutions that allowed both those individuals and Western culture to arise in the first place and maintain those institutions within our culture.
                      I somewhat agree but think the primary problem of the West is its culture, its spirit, is in inevitable decline, and as a consequence it has abandoned the very principles that made it great. See my signature. In particular, the West is rejecting competition, capitalism and property rights in favor of a perversion of equality, socialism and property rights in theory but decreasingly in practice. See Supreme Court case where private property was taken for private gain Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

                      Originally posted by Mahasattva View Post
                      5. The consumer society - a mode of material living in which the production and purchase of clothing and other consumer goods play a central economic role, without which the Industrial Revolution would have been unsustainable
                      Here is the app I disagree with. The consumer society is actually a modern vice not a centuries old virtue. As a friend of mine repeatedly points out, an over extension of a strength is a weakness. What is attributed to making the Industrial Revolution possible is the application of #1 competition and capitalism. We tend to make clothes rather than make them b/c of the economic benefit of specialization; the hours it takes us to make v buy.

                      The consumer society has virtually no savings, lives beyond its means and has a lower standard of living over time. Example: The hours the average family works today compared to the 1950's. Sure, we own more gadgets and things but both parents work and usually over 40 hours, leaving increasingly less idle time. Even more profound is over-promising future life styles. See $122T unfunded liabilities.


                      Originally posted by Mahasattva View Post
                      Some “wills” are freer than other “wills.” We all know some who are so wrapped up and embedded within their worldview that freedom of thought is unlikely, much less the freedom to act beyond their herd’s mentality.
                      Again, a sentiment too collectivist for this Libertarian. I have observed it is not the herd mentality but emotionalism that primarily prevents people from recognizing the power of their will. EXAMPLE: Divorce without traditional grounds, record children born out of wedlock @40.7%, and the federal government's inability to balance the budge for a century.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?

                      Working...
                      X