Source
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
From Toleration to Freedom of Expression by Prof. Onora O'Neill
The University of Edinburgh; Gifford Lecture 2013
While I was waiting to go in and lead a seminar last week, I picked up a pamphlet in the lobby or waiting room (I forget what it's called) but in this room was an advert/pamphlet for the Gifford Lecture by Prof. Onora O' Neill or Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve - I have never heard of her - and what caught my eye was the title of the lecture: 'From Toleration to Freedom of Expression'.
In the pamplet, was a little abstract:
"Communication has myriad purposes but two are ubiquitous. One is theoretical: we hope (and often need) to judge whether others' claims are true or false. The other is practical: we hope (and often need) to judge whether others' commitments are trustworthy or untrustworthy. Yet many contemporary discussions of speech rights and speech wrongs seem ambivalent or indifferent to norms that matter for judging truth and trustworthiness.
In the early modern period, arguments were put toward for tolerating others' speech, even if untrue or untrustworthy. These arguments often maintain that tolerating falsehood helps the discovery of truth. By contrast, contemporary views of speech rights stress various freedoms, in particular freedom of expression, yet seem to marginalise both the space for toleration, and the importance of truth and trustworthiness. If everyone has rights to free speech, or indeed to self-expression, toleration can come to be seen as a minimal matter, rather than as a demanding and epistemically important virtue. Has the contemporary focus on the speech rights of individuals distracted us from wider ethical and epistemic issues that bear on truth and trustworthiness, and on their communication?"
I would be curious what she has to say about context. "Truth" and "Trustworthiness" are contingent upon the context of who, when, and where something is being said and with those variables the significance of "truth" and "trustworthiness" will vary. And of course ethical and epistemic issues arise in delibertions of crime and justice, as well as in representative accounts of politics and international issues in the media. I wonder what her examples would be... i.e. who's falsehoods are you tolerating?
*Update (Nov. 5): Rowan Williams will also be delivering a series of Gifford Lectures on 'Language, reality and religion'. more info here
While I was waiting to go in and lead a seminar last week, I picked up a pamphlet in the lobby or waiting room (I forget what it's called) but in this room was an advert/pamphlet for the Gifford Lecture by Prof. Onora O' Neill or Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve - I have never heard of her - and what caught my eye was the title of the lecture: 'From Toleration to Freedom of Expression'.
In the pamplet, was a little abstract:
"Communication has myriad purposes but two are ubiquitous. One is theoretical: we hope (and often need) to judge whether others' claims are true or false. The other is practical: we hope (and often need) to judge whether others' commitments are trustworthy or untrustworthy. Yet many contemporary discussions of speech rights and speech wrongs seem ambivalent or indifferent to norms that matter for judging truth and trustworthiness.
In the early modern period, arguments were put toward for tolerating others' speech, even if untrue or untrustworthy. These arguments often maintain that tolerating falsehood helps the discovery of truth. By contrast, contemporary views of speech rights stress various freedoms, in particular freedom of expression, yet seem to marginalise both the space for toleration, and the importance of truth and trustworthiness. If everyone has rights to free speech, or indeed to self-expression, toleration can come to be seen as a minimal matter, rather than as a demanding and epistemically important virtue. Has the contemporary focus on the speech rights of individuals distracted us from wider ethical and epistemic issues that bear on truth and trustworthiness, and on their communication?"
I would be curious what she has to say about context. "Truth" and "Trustworthiness" are contingent upon the context of who, when, and where something is being said and with those variables the significance of "truth" and "trustworthiness" will vary. And of course ethical and epistemic issues arise in delibertions of crime and justice, as well as in representative accounts of politics and international issues in the media. I wonder what her examples would be... i.e. who's falsehoods are you tolerating?
*Update (Nov. 5): Rowan Williams will also be delivering a series of Gifford Lectures on 'Language, reality and religion'. more info here
Martha Nussbaum - Political emotions
Nussbaum has recenty published a book, 'Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice'
I'll just copy-paste the publisher's description, which I take from the Center of Law and Religion Forum at St. John's Univ. :
I'll just copy-paste the publisher's description, which I take from the Center of Law and Religion Forum at St. John's Univ. :
How can we achieve and sustain a “decent”
liberal society, one that aspires to justice and equal opportunity for
all and inspires individuals to sacrifice for the common good? In this
book, a continuation of her explorations of emotions and the nature of
social justice, Martha Nussbaum makes the case for love. Amid the fears,
resentments, and competitive concerns that are endemic even to good
societies, public emotions rooted in love—in intense attachments to
things outside our control—can foster commitment to shared goals and
keep at bay the forces of disgust and envy.
Great democratic leaders, including
Abraham Lincoln, Mohandas Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr., have
understood the importance of cultivating emotions. But people attached
to liberalism sometimes assume that a theory of public sentiments would
run afoul of commitments to freedom and autonomy. Calling into question
this perspective, Nussbaum investigates historical proposals for a
public “civil religion” or “religion of humanity” by Jean-Jacques
Rousseau, Auguste Comte, John Stuart Mill, and Rabindranath Tagore. She
offers an account of how a decent society can use resources inherent in
human psychology, while limiting the damage done by the darker side of
our personalities. And finally she explores the cultivation of emotions
that support justice in examples drawn from literature, song, political
rhetoric, festivals, memorials, and even the design of public parks.
“Love is what gives respect for humanity
its life,” Nussbaum writes, “making it more than a shell.” Political
Emotions is a challenging and ambitious contribution to political
philosophy.
Leonid Sirota - 'Religious Exemptions & the Rule of Law'
Abstract:
Exemptions from laws of general application for members of religious groups are controversial. One reason for this is an exemption seems to elevate those to whom it is granted above the ordinary law, and to make them a law unto themselves. This article examines the theoretical foundation for such claims: the conflict between religious exemptions and the ideal of the Rule of Law, influential accounts of which emphasize the requirement of legal generality. It inquires into the different meanings of legal generality and explains why religious exemptions are problematic from a Rule of Law perspective. It scrutinizes the usual defences of religious exemptions and points out their weaknesses. Nevertheless, it argues that because religious freedom, which exemptions help secure, and the Rule of Law are based on the same philosophical foundation, the dignity of the person as an autonomous moral agent, the relationship between religious exemptions and the Rule of Law is not purely antagonistic. The tension which the critics of exemptions expose is real, but some religious exemptions ought to be granted. The article outlines a framework for deciding when religious exemptions should be granted and when denied, and concludes with some observations on the institutions that can be entrusted with deciding whether to grant an exemption.
source
paper: here
Exemptions from laws of general application for members of religious groups are controversial. One reason for this is an exemption seems to elevate those to whom it is granted above the ordinary law, and to make them a law unto themselves. This article examines the theoretical foundation for such claims: the conflict between religious exemptions and the ideal of the Rule of Law, influential accounts of which emphasize the requirement of legal generality. It inquires into the different meanings of legal generality and explains why religious exemptions are problematic from a Rule of Law perspective. It scrutinizes the usual defences of religious exemptions and points out their weaknesses. Nevertheless, it argues that because religious freedom, which exemptions help secure, and the Rule of Law are based on the same philosophical foundation, the dignity of the person as an autonomous moral agent, the relationship between religious exemptions and the Rule of Law is not purely antagonistic. The tension which the critics of exemptions expose is real, but some religious exemptions ought to be granted. The article outlines a framework for deciding when religious exemptions should be granted and when denied, and concludes with some observations on the institutions that can be entrusted with deciding whether to grant an exemption.
source
paper: here
Monday, October 28, 2013
Snake Handling and the Drink of Death
In the U.S. there are Christian 'snake handling' Pentecostal groups that focus much of their practice on Mark 16: 15-18:
National Geographic has brought out a program ('Snake Salvation') to document a particular group in the Appalachia hills of Tennessee and this "over-100-year-old-tradition":
'Pastor Andrew Hamblin Tells How God Led Him to Pick up Serpents': here
'Pastor Says Serpent-Handling Movement Could Be as Mainstream as Southern Baptists': here
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
source
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
source
National Geographic has brought out a program ('Snake Salvation') to document a particular group in the Appalachia hills of Tennessee and this "over-100-year-old-tradition":
'Pastor Andrew Hamblin Tells How God Led Him to Pick up Serpents': here
'Pastor Says Serpent-Handling Movement Could Be as Mainstream as Southern Baptists': here
The importance of being "Christian" for the British (some statistics)
This report came out almost a year ago (Jan, 2013) but:
(emphasis mine)
(emphasis mine)
"[T]hink tank British Future looks at
what it means to be British. Among a wealth of fascinating data, the
poll conducted for the organisation finds that just 7% of Britons agree
that being Christian is an important attribute for being British.
This compares with 50% who say that Britishness equates
with respect for people’s right to free speech – even if you don’t agree
with them, 46% with respect for the law, 41% with speaking English, 38%
with treating men and women equally, 29% with respect for all ethnic
backgrounds, 26% with respect for all faiths, 26% with being born here,
and 21% with voting in elections. Only being white (6%) scores lower
than being Christian.
Demographically, the number citing being Christian peaks
among the over-45s (11%), those with no formal educational
qualifications (11%), and readers of right wing newspapers such as the
Daily Mail and Daily Express (12%).
In answer to another question, tensions between
different religions are (at 26%) the sixth most cited (of ten) causes of
division in British society, after tensions between immigrants and
people born in Britain (57%), between tax payers and welfare claimants
(47%), between rich and poor (35%), between different ethnicities (33%),
and between tax payers and tax avoiders (32%). However, tensions
between different religions are ranked lower (seventh, at 16%) as a
cause of division in the respondent’s local area. All percentages are
the sums of those ranking each cause in first, second or third position."
read the full report here (pdf)
*I'm not sure what credibility this think tank has nor am I motivated enough to look at the methodology, its sample, or its analysis but I figured I'ld post it here for whatever convenience.
There is a book, Church Growth in Britain: 1980 to the Present edited by David Goodhew (Durham) for which I had the opportunity to attend its lecture and booklaunch - last year I think. What I recall taking away from the lecture was that there was a dramatic decline beginning from the early 80s but in the 90s church growth began to occur (lumping all Christianities together) but particular to region (there are also areas of decline) as opposed to nationwide and that the primary source of such growth was due to immigrant and minority ethnic communities.
Selective Attention Test
This is the task Daniel Kahneman is referring to in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow on page 23-24
Kahneman states "Seeing and orienting are automatic functions of System 1, but they depend on the allocation of some attention to the relevant stimulus. The authros note that the most remarkable observation of their study is that people find its results very surprising. Indeed, the viewers who fail to see the gorilla are initially sure that it was not there - they cannot imagine missing such a striking event. The gorilla study illustrates two important facts about our minds: we can be blind to the obvious, and we are also blind to our blindness." (emphasis mine, p. 24)
Kahneman states "Seeing and orienting are automatic functions of System 1, but they depend on the allocation of some attention to the relevant stimulus. The authros note that the most remarkable observation of their study is that people find its results very surprising. Indeed, the viewers who fail to see the gorilla are initially sure that it was not there - they cannot imagine missing such a striking event. The gorilla study illustrates two important facts about our minds: we can be blind to the obvious, and we are also blind to our blindness." (emphasis mine, p. 24)
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Art and Religion XIV: "The purpose of art"
*I can't attest to the validity of this quote, whether it is attributable to Picasso, but thought it intriguing enough to warrant the post
Art and Religion XIII: Pearls Before Breakfast
Article: here
It's a somewhat long article, if you don't have time to read it watch the clip below. And if you're so inclined then go back and read the article.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Kramer on Law, Liberty, and Morality by H.L.A. Hart
Matthew Kramer's paper: 'Legal Responses to Consensual Sexuality between Adults: Through and Beyond the Harm Principle'
Abstract:
This paper, written for a forthcoming collection of essays on H.L.A. Hart and responsibility, revisits some of Hart's arguments in his 1963 book "Law, Liberty, and Morality." It seeks to reinforce and extend Hart's liberal positions by offering lines of reasoning that are quite different from his, and by highlighting the inadequacy of John Stuart Mill's harm principle for coming to grips with contemporary issues such as the introduction of same-sex marriage.
source
Abstract:
This paper, written for a forthcoming collection of essays on H.L.A. Hart and responsibility, revisits some of Hart's arguments in his 1963 book "Law, Liberty, and Morality." It seeks to reinforce and extend Hart's liberal positions by offering lines of reasoning that are quite different from his, and by highlighting the inadequacy of John Stuart Mill's harm principle for coming to grips with contemporary issues such as the introduction of same-sex marriage.
source
'Moral Tribes'
Robert Wright and Joshua Greene discuss Greene's new book 'Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them'
Greene also discusses this in the Biology and Psychology of Ethical Behavior presented by Fora with Robert Sapolsky and Susan Friske (which I definitely recommend; all three are renown scholars in their respective fields, and good speakers).
If you would like the abridged version of this talk, Robert Wright provides an overview here
If my understanding of Greene's argument, from his Fora talk, is correct he is not necessarily advocating for utilitarianism per se but rather some form of meta-morality - a principle that can engage reflective thought to discern moral dilemmas further. I'm a bit skeptical about this - on both a practical and a theoretical level - but I'll have to read the book when it comes out.
In the back of my mind, Isaac Berlin's essay: 'On the Originality of Machiavelli', is ringing.
Greene also discusses this in the Biology and Psychology of Ethical Behavior presented by Fora with Robert Sapolsky and Susan Friske (which I definitely recommend; all three are renown scholars in their respective fields, and good speakers).
If you would like the abridged version of this talk, Robert Wright provides an overview here
If my understanding of Greene's argument, from his Fora talk, is correct he is not necessarily advocating for utilitarianism per se but rather some form of meta-morality - a principle that can engage reflective thought to discern moral dilemmas further. I'm a bit skeptical about this - on both a practical and a theoretical level - but I'll have to read the book when it comes out.
In the back of my mind, Isaac Berlin's essay: 'On the Originality of Machiavelli', is ringing.
Aristotle v. Nietzsche and the divergent ways of thinking about virtue
"For Aristotle, man has a Telos, a built-in goal, a type of excellence
specific to man, which we’ll attain if given proper nurturing. We’re
very much like a plant or animal, except given our rational nature, we
need education in addition to good food and exercise. We are political
animals; we need other people and even institutions to help us grow, but
with some careful observation of how people in different conditions
grow, we could more or less develop a science of education and apply it
to produce individuals that, at least in most cases (we can’t rule out
the role of fortune) will produce maximally flourishing individuals.
Nietzsche also believes in human excellence, and would agree with Aristotle that there is a biological component to it and surely (though he would deny this on grumpy days) a social component: we are profoundly self-ignorant and do need other people to help us realize our virtue. However, his view of virtue is much more complex and (he would like to think, at least) rigorously empirical: what might seem a virtue in some respects ends up leading one into a rut. New ways of excellence are discovered over time (one can be out of synch with the times in an excellent way) or lost and rediscovered. Man is conflicted and often self-sabotaging in the ways Freud would later elaborate on, so flourishing is not something that can be scientifically engineered, though surely we can discover and institute rules of thumb in our educational practices: certainly there are practices (e.g. corporal punishment) that we can discover to be simply counterproductive and damaging in a way that will not yield to further dispute."
Continue reading here at Partially Examined Life
Nietzsche also believes in human excellence, and would agree with Aristotle that there is a biological component to it and surely (though he would deny this on grumpy days) a social component: we are profoundly self-ignorant and do need other people to help us realize our virtue. However, his view of virtue is much more complex and (he would like to think, at least) rigorously empirical: what might seem a virtue in some respects ends up leading one into a rut. New ways of excellence are discovered over time (one can be out of synch with the times in an excellent way) or lost and rediscovered. Man is conflicted and often self-sabotaging in the ways Freud would later elaborate on, so flourishing is not something that can be scientifically engineered, though surely we can discover and institute rules of thumb in our educational practices: certainly there are practices (e.g. corporal punishment) that we can discover to be simply counterproductive and damaging in a way that will not yield to further dispute."
Continue reading here at Partially Examined Life
Is Religious Belief Reasonable?
The specific question:
"should atheists consider religious belief to be reasonable (for well-informed agents)?"
Kevin Vallier says "yes"
Robert Chappell says "no"
Read here at Philosophy, et cetera
"should atheists consider religious belief to be reasonable (for well-informed agents)?"
Kevin Vallier says "yes"
Robert Chappell says "no"
Read here at Philosophy, et cetera
On 'The History of the Personality of Anthropology'
A.L. Kroeber's essay is re-introduced here at Savage Minds
An edited version of the essay with an introduction by Alex Golub can be found here
and a pdf of the original here
An edited version of the essay with an introduction by Alex Golub can be found here
and a pdf of the original here
Excluding the 'Stanford Prison Experiment' from a textbook
Dr. Peter Gray, Prof. at Boston College, discusses why he doesn't include Zimbardo's famous 'Stanford Prison Experiment' in his textbook: here
This is a compelling argument by Prof. Gray.
While Zimbardo wants to discuss the situational factors and the pathology of power, Gray notes that the pathology of power - interpreted from the experiment - is, in fact, a manifestation of the roles given to the participants (reminiscent of Milgram's experiment) and the enactment of stereotypes.
This is a compelling argument by Prof. Gray.
While Zimbardo wants to discuss the situational factors and the pathology of power, Gray notes that the pathology of power - interpreted from the experiment - is, in fact, a manifestation of the roles given to the participants (reminiscent of Milgram's experiment) and the enactment of stereotypes.
Friday, October 25, 2013
The Strange Situation and Attachment Theory
This video shows an example of 'secure' attachment
This one shows 'secure', 'avoidant', and 'resistant' styles of attachment.
Ainsworth has done considerable amount of work with Bowlby's proposal of 'Attachment theory' (which I consider to be a grandchild of Freud's psychoanalysis). Attachment theory is preceded by Piaget's 'Developmentl Stage Theory' and comes out around the same time as Erik Erikson's psycho-social stages theory.
Look up Ainsworth & Bell (1970) and Ainsworth (1978)
I write more on this here - commenting on the film 'We Need to Talk About Kevin'
There has also been cross-cultural studies on 'attachment theory', which are also quite interesting; provides commentary on parenting styles and whether attachment theory is appropriate to categorize parent-child relatioships in a universal manner.
Attachment theory also states that these "styles" persist throughout our lives and affect our romantic relationships.
Lee A. Kirkpatrick applies 'attachment theory' to religion and places it within an evolutionary context in his book: Attachment, Evolution, and the Psychology of Religion
Margaret Stroebe (2002) provides a good overview of Bowlby's attachment theory and applies it to "grief work" and bereavement.
This one shows 'secure', 'avoidant', and 'resistant' styles of attachment.
Ainsworth has done considerable amount of work with Bowlby's proposal of 'Attachment theory' (which I consider to be a grandchild of Freud's psychoanalysis). Attachment theory is preceded by Piaget's 'Developmentl Stage Theory' and comes out around the same time as Erik Erikson's psycho-social stages theory.
Look up Ainsworth & Bell (1970) and Ainsworth (1978)
I write more on this here - commenting on the film 'We Need to Talk About Kevin'
There has also been cross-cultural studies on 'attachment theory', which are also quite interesting; provides commentary on parenting styles and whether attachment theory is appropriate to categorize parent-child relatioships in a universal manner.
Attachment theory also states that these "styles" persist throughout our lives and affect our romantic relationships.
Lee A. Kirkpatrick applies 'attachment theory' to religion and places it within an evolutionary context in his book: Attachment, Evolution, and the Psychology of Religion
Margaret Stroebe (2002) provides a good overview of Bowlby's attachment theory and applies it to "grief work" and bereavement.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Freud on Sexuality and Civilization
00:00 - Chapter 1. The Importance of Nietzsche's Approach
10:29 - Chapter 2. Freud in a Historical Context
14:06 - Chapter 3. Psychoanalysis and Other Breakthroughs
29:26 - Chapter 4. "The Ego and the Id"
40:02 - Chapter 5. "Civilization and Its Discontents"
Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website:
http://open.yale.edu/courses
This course was recorded in Fall 2009.
*System 1 & 2 in Gender Bias
I have recently been alerted to an article, which applied Daniel Kahneman's System 1 and System 2 to gender bias.
And indeed the application of Kahneman's System 1 and System 2 to gender bias and its operation in the workplace is certainly apt. However, I will have to disagree on one minor and one major point with the author's post.
The minor disagreement is with the equations presented:
score = perceived skill x perceived desire x perceived fit x luck
If anyone of the suggested factors is a zero, this kills the entire equation (multiplication) and I'm not sure if a single factor being zero would completely eliminate one's chances. Perhaps a '+' would be more apt? Of course, I have no idea and the proposal of an equation for success, or hire, is also hypothetical with the presumption that those factors are indeed determining variables for the boss-judge or whomever is doing the hiring.
I would also question: the perception of skill = true skill +/- ability to communicate. It is very possible to present the perception of skill without having any true skill whatsoever. One may easily give the impression of competence without having any. Just as it is easy to present the perception of a great product with advertising but when purchased and taken home it turns out to be a shit product. I would suggest the author re-examine hat relationship between perceived X and true X.
My major disagreement would be the seeming suggestion that System 2 is constantly dormant until it is "awakened" or when System 1 "can't cope". While I think this is partially correct, it leaves the impression that System 2 is a last resort. Lazy does not mean absent. Kahneman states in his book that both are indeed awake and operating together during our conscious waking hours. System 2 is active and serves as an executive function; "self-control". The relationship between the two is such that 'effort is minimized and performance optimized.' In this way, gender bias is a stereotype of women. It is easier to presume a stereotype and perform as if the stereotype is true than expend effort to discern whether it is true and delay any performance contingent upon that deliberation. In this regard, the author is correct in stating that System 2 tends to corroborate the biases of System 1. However, System 2 does insert itself when System 1 runs into difficulty. In another area of research this is arguably what has been called 'cognitive dissonance'. In this sense, my view would be to continue to create difficulties for the gender biases existing in System 1 by targeting the activation of System 2. To draw attention in such a way that System 2 recognizes that the biases of System 1 do not necessarily apply. And hopefully, over time, the changes we would like to see are operative in System 1.
I do agree that precedent helps. The prior success of "a woman to whom we bear some resemblance" making it 'big' certainly progresses and diminishes the gender bias that is operating. Success can indeed breed success, which the author notes with the 'availability heuristic.' However, I am a bit cautious of the author's second suggestion: to target the boss-judge's System 1 and "provide what it needs to make sense of the world, or where necessary, shock System 1 enough to awaken and engage System 2 in our favour". This seems to be the dilemma in the application of the 'representative' heuristic. One of the ways the author suggests to reduce gender bias is confronting the bias and explicating through coherent communication such that the boss-judge will make sense of the individual outside of a stereotype. While I think this helps and engages with the boss-judge's System 2 to a degree depending on how System 1 understands the explanation, the scenario of confronting a boss-judge and explaining to him that he's operating on a stereotype can be a difficult situation. Calling a boss 'sexist' or 'racist' can be a sticky situation. I think this may be why the author suggested that only when it is necessary we "shock System 1 enough to awaken and engage System 2 in our favour". So the author states that we target the boss-judge's System 1 and only when necessary "awaken System 2".
I would disagree. Targeting system 1 potentially reinforces pre-existing gender biases of the boss-judge and creates a dependence on a prior standard of successful women for which one is then dependent on the cognitive capacity of the boss-judge to make that reference in his mind. If persuasion is the objective then I recommend a book by Robert Levine, social psychologist, 'The Power of Persuasion'. The book is well written, very easy to read, accessible and discusses the psychology of persuasion in depth.
Alternately, if the objective is towards the elimination of female stereotypes and gender bias then I think the route should be different. Kahneman states that System 2 can "change the way System 1 works, by programming the normally automatic functions of attention and memory". And I agree. In this vein, the target should be System 2 rather than System 1. Some types of gradual conversion engage the reflexive dimension of being human. Engaging System 2 is not a matter of "shock". But to be unexpected in the context of expected gender norms conceived by gender biases operating in System 1. This isn't to say that a woman should adopt a standard of masculinity, as the author so points out about wearing pants and a suit and compromising one's fashion sensibilities, which only furthers another domain of System 1 for the boss-judge. But instead, to adopt the existentialist exercise of redefinition and creation; to redefine what it means to be a woman. This may affirm some and deny other preconceived gender norms. It is, as Nietzsche put it a 'will to power'; to be bold and be the creator of one's own values - the master of one's morality. Every action one takes reinforces an existing impression (gender bias) or creates a new one in the perceiver. This is the burden of responsibility that Sartre talks about. Each of us is a representative of all of the things we can't help but be - female, male, skin tone, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. etc. To paraphrase Sartre in the context of gender bias, by fahsioning one's self one fashions woman. That is, by being the woman you want to be you fashion an impression for all women. It is a call to actively participate in the deconstruction and reconstruction of culture - in this case, the culture of gender biases. (I make a similar, albeit perhaps not so well written, argument with regard to a post-secular society: here)
I don't mean to put the burden on women alone men are just as critical in this endeavor. But seeing that the article is directed as a strategy for women I engaged it on that front.
Update 10/29: 6 myths about female ascendance in the workplace
And indeed the application of Kahneman's System 1 and System 2 to gender bias and its operation in the workplace is certainly apt. However, I will have to disagree on one minor and one major point with the author's post.
The minor disagreement is with the equations presented:
score = perceived skill x perceived desire x perceived fit x luck
If anyone of the suggested factors is a zero, this kills the entire equation (multiplication) and I'm not sure if a single factor being zero would completely eliminate one's chances. Perhaps a '+' would be more apt? Of course, I have no idea and the proposal of an equation for success, or hire, is also hypothetical with the presumption that those factors are indeed determining variables for the boss-judge or whomever is doing the hiring.
I would also question: the perception of skill = true skill +/- ability to communicate. It is very possible to present the perception of skill without having any true skill whatsoever. One may easily give the impression of competence without having any. Just as it is easy to present the perception of a great product with advertising but when purchased and taken home it turns out to be a shit product. I would suggest the author re-examine hat relationship between perceived X and true X.
My major disagreement would be the seeming suggestion that System 2 is constantly dormant until it is "awakened" or when System 1 "can't cope". While I think this is partially correct, it leaves the impression that System 2 is a last resort. Lazy does not mean absent. Kahneman states in his book that both are indeed awake and operating together during our conscious waking hours. System 2 is active and serves as an executive function; "self-control". The relationship between the two is such that 'effort is minimized and performance optimized.' In this way, gender bias is a stereotype of women. It is easier to presume a stereotype and perform as if the stereotype is true than expend effort to discern whether it is true and delay any performance contingent upon that deliberation. In this regard, the author is correct in stating that System 2 tends to corroborate the biases of System 1. However, System 2 does insert itself when System 1 runs into difficulty. In another area of research this is arguably what has been called 'cognitive dissonance'. In this sense, my view would be to continue to create difficulties for the gender biases existing in System 1 by targeting the activation of System 2. To draw attention in such a way that System 2 recognizes that the biases of System 1 do not necessarily apply. And hopefully, over time, the changes we would like to see are operative in System 1.
I do agree that precedent helps. The prior success of "a woman to whom we bear some resemblance" making it 'big' certainly progresses and diminishes the gender bias that is operating. Success can indeed breed success, which the author notes with the 'availability heuristic.' However, I am a bit cautious of the author's second suggestion: to target the boss-judge's System 1 and "provide what it needs to make sense of the world, or where necessary, shock System 1 enough to awaken and engage System 2 in our favour". This seems to be the dilemma in the application of the 'representative' heuristic. One of the ways the author suggests to reduce gender bias is confronting the bias and explicating through coherent communication such that the boss-judge will make sense of the individual outside of a stereotype. While I think this helps and engages with the boss-judge's System 2 to a degree depending on how System 1 understands the explanation, the scenario of confronting a boss-judge and explaining to him that he's operating on a stereotype can be a difficult situation. Calling a boss 'sexist' or 'racist' can be a sticky situation. I think this may be why the author suggested that only when it is necessary we "shock System 1 enough to awaken and engage System 2 in our favour". So the author states that we target the boss-judge's System 1 and only when necessary "awaken System 2".
I would disagree. Targeting system 1 potentially reinforces pre-existing gender biases of the boss-judge and creates a dependence on a prior standard of successful women for which one is then dependent on the cognitive capacity of the boss-judge to make that reference in his mind. If persuasion is the objective then I recommend a book by Robert Levine, social psychologist, 'The Power of Persuasion'. The book is well written, very easy to read, accessible and discusses the psychology of persuasion in depth.
Alternately, if the objective is towards the elimination of female stereotypes and gender bias then I think the route should be different. Kahneman states that System 2 can "change the way System 1 works, by programming the normally automatic functions of attention and memory". And I agree. In this vein, the target should be System 2 rather than System 1. Some types of gradual conversion engage the reflexive dimension of being human. Engaging System 2 is not a matter of "shock". But to be unexpected in the context of expected gender norms conceived by gender biases operating in System 1. This isn't to say that a woman should adopt a standard of masculinity, as the author so points out about wearing pants and a suit and compromising one's fashion sensibilities, which only furthers another domain of System 1 for the boss-judge. But instead, to adopt the existentialist exercise of redefinition and creation; to redefine what it means to be a woman. This may affirm some and deny other preconceived gender norms. It is, as Nietzsche put it a 'will to power'; to be bold and be the creator of one's own values - the master of one's morality. Every action one takes reinforces an existing impression (gender bias) or creates a new one in the perceiver. This is the burden of responsibility that Sartre talks about. Each of us is a representative of all of the things we can't help but be - female, male, skin tone, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. etc. To paraphrase Sartre in the context of gender bias, by fahsioning one's self one fashions woman. That is, by being the woman you want to be you fashion an impression for all women. It is a call to actively participate in the deconstruction and reconstruction of culture - in this case, the culture of gender biases. (I make a similar, albeit perhaps not so well written, argument with regard to a post-secular society: here)
I don't mean to put the burden on women alone men are just as critical in this endeavor. But seeing that the article is directed as a strategy for women I engaged it on that front.
Update 10/29: 6 myths about female ascendance in the workplace
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Theory of Mind (ToM)
The classic 'False Belief' test:
This has been demonstrated over and over again.
ToM capabilities happen between the ages of 4-5.
This has been demonstrated over and over again.
ToM capabilities happen between the ages of 4-5.
Jean Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development
'Sexism, Strength and Dominance: Masculinity in Disney Films'
Disney as a medium for male social conditioning - gradual conversion
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Emotions endure beyond conscious recollection
Sustained experience of emotion after loss of memory in patients with amnesia
Justin S. Feinstein, Melissa C. Duff, Daniel TranelAbstract:
Can the experience of an emotion persist once the memory for what induced the emotion has been forgotten? We capitalized on a rare opportunity to study this question directly using a select group of patients with severe amnesia following circumscribed bilateral damage to the hippocampus. The amnesic patients underwent a sadness induction procedure (using affectively-laden film clips) to ascertain whether their experience of sadness would persist beyond their memory for the sadness-inducing films. The experiment showed that the patients continued to experience elevated levels of sadness well beyond the point in time at which they had lost factual memory for the film clips. A second experiment using a happiness induction procedure yielded similar results, suggesting that both positive and negative emotional experiences can persist independent of explicit memory for the inducing event. These findings provide direct evidence that a feeling of emotion can endure beyond the conscious recollection for the events that initially triggered the emotion.
Very interesting...
Paper here
Pope Francis on Faith and Ideology: 'calls for greater openness'
“In ideologies there is not Jesus: in his tenderness, his love, his
meekness. And ideologies are rigid, always. Of every sign: rigid. And
when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the
faith: he is no longer a disciple of Jesus, he is a disciple of this
attitude of thought… For this reason Jesus said to them: ‘You have taken
away the key of knowledge.’ The knowledge of Jesus is transformed into
an ideological and also moralistic knowledge, because these close the
door with many requirements. The faith becomes ideology and ideology
frightens, ideology chases away the people, distances, distances the
people and distances of the Church of the people. But it is a serious
illness, this of ideological Christians. It is an illness, but it is not
new, eh?”
via Vatican Radio
Unfortunately I don't see the full homily from his Thursday morning mass. But I suggest the link at Vatican Radio above and there is more reported here and here
via Vatican Radio
Unfortunately I don't see the full homily from his Thursday morning mass. But I suggest the link at Vatican Radio above and there is more reported here and here
Monday, October 21, 2013
John B. Watson, Behaviourism and "Little Albert"
Classical conditioning was demonstrated by Pavlov in dogs. Watson sought to do the same with babies in the early 1920s by creating a fear response in furry animals through the association with a loud clanging noise.
More here and here
There has been much controversy over the ethics of this study and, if my memory serves correctly - which it may not, Watson later came back and stated that he was able to de-condition the fear response he created but to my knowledge there was no evidence to support that he did.
More here and here
There has been much controversy over the ethics of this study and, if my memory serves correctly - which it may not, Watson later came back and stated that he was able to de-condition the fear response he created but to my knowledge there was no evidence to support that he did.
Art and Religion XI: "Traditional" and "Experimental" art
Source
Dr. Jennifer Biddle, Anthropologist, argues that not all indigenous art is "traditional"; that much of the aboriginal art movement began as an "experimental" art putting acrylic on canvas that began in the 70s - effectively creating a discourse around "indigenous art".
"Traditional" art, for Biddle, was initially ephemeral and utilized for ritual purposes that has become 'traditional' art as a commodity to be framed, hanged, and displayed, i.e., from body to canvas.
She is speaking of a linguistic shift within the use of the term 'traditional' and its appropriation within material culture.
Now, through "experimental" art she is expanding the access of various mediums, different forms of expression, to the aboriginal culture as a means to transfer knowledge onto next generations. New art forms are now being incorporated into ritual and tradition/culture.
Her book is: Breasts, Bodies, Canvas: Central Desert Art as Experience
Adam Smith on the Death of David Hume
From James Fieser's (jfieser@utm.edu) Hume Archives:
LETTER FROM ADAM SMITH, LL.D.
TO WILLIAM STRAHAN, ESQ.
Kirkaldy, Fifeshire, Nov. 9. 1776
Dear Sir,
It is with a real, though a very melancholy, pleasure that l sit down to give you some account of the behaviour of our late excellent friend, Mr. Hume, during his last illness.
Though, in his own judgment, his disease was mortal and incurable, yet he allowed himself to be prevailed upon, by the entreaty of his friends, to try what might be the effects of a long journey. A few days before he set out, he wrote that account of his own life, which, together with his other papers, he has left to your care. My account, therefore, shall begin where his ends.
He set out for London towards the end of April, and at Morpeth met with Mr. John Home and myself, who had both come down from London on purpose to see him, expecting to have found him at Edinburgh. Mr. Home returned with him, and attended him during the whole of his stay in England, with that care and attention which might be expected from a temper so perfectly friendly and affectionate. As I had written to my mother that she might expect me in Scotland, I was under the necessity of continuing my journey.
His disease seemed to yield to exercise and change of air, and when he arrived in London, he was apparently in much better health than when he left Edinburgh. He was advised to go to Bath to drink the waters, which appeared for some time to have so good an effect upon him, that even he himself began to entertain, what he was not apt to do, a better opinion of his own health. His symptoms, However, soon returned with their usual violence, and from that moment he gave up all thoughts of recovery, but submitted with the utmost cheerfulness, and the most perfect complacency and resignation.
Upon his return to Edinburgh, though he found himself much weaker, yet his cheerfulness never abated and he continued to divert himself, as usual, with correcting his own works for a new edition, with reading books of amusement, with the conversation of his friends; and, sometimes in the evening, with a party at his favourite game of whist. His cheerfulness was so great, and his conversation and amusements run so much in their usual strain, that, notwithstanding all bad symptoms, many people could not believe he was dying.
"I shall tell your friend, Colonel Edmondstone," said Doctor Dundas to him one day, "that I left you much better, and in a fair way of recovery."
"Doctor," said he," as I believe you would not chuse to tell any thing but the truth, you had better tell him, that I am dying as fast as my enemies, if I have any, could wish, and as easily and cheerfully as my best friends could desire."
Colonel Edmondstone soon afterwards came to see him, and take leave of him; and on his way home, he could not forbear writing him a letter bidding him once more an eternal adieu, and applying to him, as to a dying man, the beautiful French verses in which the Abbe Chaulieu, in expectation of his own death, laments his approaching separation from his friend, the Marquis de la Fare. Mr. Hume's magnanimity and firmness were such, that his most affectionate friends knew, that they hazarded nothing in talking or writing to him as to a dying man, and that so far from being hurt by this frankness, he was rather pleased and flattered by it. l happened to come into his room while he was reading this letter, which he had just received, and which he immediately showed me. I told him, that though I was sensible how very much he was weakened, and that appearances were in many respects very bad, yet his cheerfulness was still so great, the spirit of life seemed still to be so very strong in him, that I could not help entertaining some faint hopes.
He answered, "Your hopes are groundless. An habitual diarrhoea of more than a year's standing, would be a very bad disease at any age: at my age it is a mortal one. When I lie down in the evening, l feel myself weaker than when I rose in the morning; and when I rise in the morning, weaker than when I lay down in the evening. I am sensible, besides, that some of my vital parts are affected, so that I must soon die."
"Well," said I, "if it must be so you have at least the satisfaction of leaving all your friends, your brother's family in particular, in great prosperity."
He said that he felt that satisfaction so sensibly, that when he was reading a few days before, Lucian's Dialogues of the Dead, among all the excuses which are alleged to Charon for not entering readily into his boat he could not find one that fitted him; he had no house to finish, he had no daughter to provide for, he had no enemies upon whom he wished to revenge himself.
"I could not well imagine," said he, what excuse I could make to Charon in order to obtain a little delay. I have done every thing of consequence which I ever meant to do, and I could at no time expect to leave my relations and friends in a better situation than that in which I am now likely to leave them; I, therefore, have all reason to die contented." He then diverted himself with inventing several jocular excuses, which he supposed he might make to Charon, and with imagining the very surly answers which it might suit the character of Charon to return to them. "Upon further consideration" said he, "I thought I might say to him, 'Good Charon, I have been correcting my works for a new edition. Allow me a little time, that I may see how the Public receives the alterations.'
"But Charon would answer, 'When you have seen the effect of these, you will be for making other alterations. There will be no end of such excuses; so, honest friend, please step into the boat.'
"But I might still urge, 'Have a little patience, good Charon, I have been endeavouring to open the eyes of the public. If I live a few years longer, I may have the satisfaction of seeing the downfal of some of the prevailing systems of superstition.'
"But Charon would then lose all temper and decency. 'You loitering rogue, that will not happen these many hundred years. Do you fancy I will grant you a lease for so long a term? Get into the boat this instant, you lazy loitering rogue.'"
But, though Mr. Hume always talked of his approaching dissolution with great cheerfulness, he never affected to make any parade of his magnanimity. He never mentioned the subject but when the conversation naturally led to it, and never dwelt longer upon it than the course of the conversation happened to require: it was a subject indeed which occurred pretty frequently, in consequence of the inquiries which his friends, who came to see him, naturally made concerning the state of his health.
The conversation which I mentioned above, and which passed on Thursday the 8th of August, was the last, except one, that I ever had with him. He had now become so very weak, that the company of his most intimate friends fatigued him; for his cheerfulness was still so great, his complaisance and social disposition were still so entire, that when any friend was with him, he could not help talking more, and with greater exertion, than suited the weakness of his body. At his own desire, therefore, I agreed to leave Edinburgh, where I was staying partly upon his account, and returned to my mother's house here, at Kirkaldy, upon condition that he would send for me whenever he wished to see me; the physician who saw him most frequently, Doctor Black, undertaking, in the mean time, to write me occasionally an account of the state of his health.
On the 22nd of August, the Doctor wrote me the following letter:
Since my last, Mr. Hume has passed his time pretty easily, but is much weaker. He sits up, goes down stairs once a day, and amuses himself with reading, but seldom sees any body. He finds that even the conversation of his most intimate friends fatigues and oppresses him; and it is happy that he does not need it, for he is quite free from anxiety, impatience, or low spirits, and passes his time very well with the assistance of amusing books.I received the day after a letter from Mr. Hume himself, of which the following is an extract.
Edinburgh, 23rd august, 1776.Three days after I received the following letter from Doctor Black.
My Dearest Friend,
I am obliged to make use of my nephew's hand in writing to you, as I do not rise to-day....
I go very fast to decline, and last night had a small fever, which I hoped might put a quicker period to this tedious illness, but unluckily it has, in a great measure, gone off. I cannot submit to your coming over here on my account, as it is possible for me to see you so small a part of the day, but Doctor Black can better inform you concerning the degree of strength which may from time to time remain with me.
Adieu, &c."
Edinburgh, Monday, 26th August, 1776.Thus died our most excellent, and never to be forgotten friend; concerning whose philosophical opinions men will, no doubt, judge variously, every one approving, or condemning them, according as they happen to coincide or disagree with his own; but concerning whose character and conduct there can scarce be a difference of opinion. His temper, indeed, seemed to be more happily balanced, if I may be allowed such an expression, than that perhaps of any other man I have ever known.
Dear Sir,
Yesterday about four o'clock afternoon, Mr. Hume expired. The near approach of his death became evident in the night between Thursday and Friday, when his disease became excessive, and soon weakened him so much, that he could no longer rise out of his bed. He continued to the last perfectly sensible, and free from much pain or feelings of distress. He never dropped the smallest expression of impatience; but when he had occasion to speak to the people about him, always did it with affection and tenderness. I thought it improper to write to bring you over, especially as I heard that he had dictated a letter to you desiring you not to come. When he became very weak, it cost him an effort to speak, and he died in such a happy composure of mind, that nothing could exceed it."
Even in the lowest state of his fortune, his great and necessary frugality never hindered him from exercising, upon proper occasions, acts both of charity and generosity. It was a frugality founded, not upon avarice, but upon the love of independency. The extreme gentleness of his nature never weakened either the firmness of his mind, or the steadiness of his resolutions. His constant pleasantry was the genuine effusion of good-nature and good humour, tempered with delicacy and modesty, and without even the slightest tincture of malignity, so frequently the disagreeable source of what is called wit in other men. It never was the meaning of his raillery to mortify; and therefore, far from offending, it seldom failed to please and delight, even those who were the objects of it.
To his friends, who were frequently the objects of it, there was not perhaps any one of all his great and amiable qualities, which contributed more to endear his conversation. And that gaiety of temper, so agreeable in society, but which is so often accompanied with frivolous and superficial qualities, was in him certainly attended with the most severe application, the most extensive learning, the greatest depth of thought, and a capacity in every respect the most comprehensive.
Upon the whole, I have always considered him, both in his lifetime and since his death, as approaching as nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous man, as perhaps the nature of human frailty will permit.
I ever am, dear Sir,
Most affectionately your's,
ADAM SMITH.from: Early Biographies of David Hume, ed. James Fieser (Internet Release, 1995).
Source
Weber's Theory of Class
00:00 - Chapter 1. Remarks for Final Exam
04:06 - Chapter 2. Introduction to Weber's Theory on Class
19:57 - Chapter 3. Definition of Class
29:59 - Chapter 4. Definition of Status Group
38:19 - Chapter 5. Class and Status Compared; Types of Classes
Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website:
http://open.yale.edu/courses
This course was recorded in Fall 2009.
On the Black Bloc: Hedges v. Graeber
Peter Ludlow outlines a few issues surrounding the role of the Black Bloc, with links to the articles by Hedges (Black Bloc is "the cancer of occupy") and the response by Graeber (who disagrees).
Here at Leiter Reports
In the comments section of that post, David Graeber clarifies:
People misunderstand what I said about Gandhi. Gandhi made clear he
opposed violent tactics. I don't think he made a big issue out of
property damage one way or another, and present-day Gandhians in India
do practice it (such as the famous KRSS destruction of the Kentucky
Fried Chicken outlet in Karnataka), but he certainly didn't countenance
any sort of attacks even against inanimate objects among his own
followers. Obviously he condemned murder; but he didn't condemn the
murderers, he insisted they were good people trying to do the right
thing in a way he strongly disagreed with. Not only did he emphasize
that those who used violent tactics against injustice were good people,
he added that he considered them morally superior to those who took no
action at all. This would have been the equivalent of saying "while I
don't think it is a good thing to break a window, I understand that what
Black Bloc are doing is far better than what the vast majority of
Americans do when they stand idly by and do nothing."
See how far this position is from most of those who claim to be Gandhian today?
The example of Chauri Chaura, where Gandhi suspended a campaign after his own followers ended up killing 22 policemen (either by hacking apart, or burning alive, or both, depending on the account) shows precisely how ridiculous the comparisons now are. Obviously if some people in Occupy Denver or what-have-you ended up killing 22 cops, we would have suspended our campaign too - so would the Black Bloc, who oppose anything that will do harm to living beings. The idea that anyone is seriously acting as if a couple damaged pieces of glass in Oakland (i.e., in one out of 800 occupations) is somehow morally equivalent to burning 22 people alive is a perfect sign of how bizarre our public discourse has become. There's no way to have a mass social movement, especially one that's under constant attack by police, where there's no faction that gets even a little rowdy somewhere sometimes. The amount of damage to property done in the entire Occupy movement was less than one is likely to get after the average Canadian hockey game.
What made me furious is that the entire liberal class, as Hedges calls them, used this entirely bogus idea of what was about Gandhi to essentially excuse looking the other way when the cops used extreme violence to suppress totally non-violent protestors across America. All they could talk about was whether two months before people in one city had illegitimately broken a window. In New York for instance, the only major incident of window-breaking I'm aware of happened on March 17, 2012, when police broke a storefront window, using a non-violent protestor's head. The incident was caught on video but somehow no one seemed to feel it was very notable because they were still ranting on about the Black Bloc, who at that point weren't breaking anything at all, and who hadn't existed at all in New York or 99% of occupations. Whereas Gandhi, were he alive, would have clearly said that while he was against (some) Black Bloc tactics, what they were doing was far better than those who were using them as an excuse to refuse to protest anything at all.
Here at Leiter Reports
In the comments section of that post, David Graeber clarifies:
"David Graeber said...
See how far this position is from most of those who claim to be Gandhian today?
The example of Chauri Chaura, where Gandhi suspended a campaign after his own followers ended up killing 22 policemen (either by hacking apart, or burning alive, or both, depending on the account) shows precisely how ridiculous the comparisons now are. Obviously if some people in Occupy Denver or what-have-you ended up killing 22 cops, we would have suspended our campaign too - so would the Black Bloc, who oppose anything that will do harm to living beings. The idea that anyone is seriously acting as if a couple damaged pieces of glass in Oakland (i.e., in one out of 800 occupations) is somehow morally equivalent to burning 22 people alive is a perfect sign of how bizarre our public discourse has become. There's no way to have a mass social movement, especially one that's under constant attack by police, where there's no faction that gets even a little rowdy somewhere sometimes. The amount of damage to property done in the entire Occupy movement was less than one is likely to get after the average Canadian hockey game.
What made me furious is that the entire liberal class, as Hedges calls them, used this entirely bogus idea of what was about Gandhi to essentially excuse looking the other way when the cops used extreme violence to suppress totally non-violent protestors across America. All they could talk about was whether two months before people in one city had illegitimately broken a window. In New York for instance, the only major incident of window-breaking I'm aware of happened on March 17, 2012, when police broke a storefront window, using a non-violent protestor's head. The incident was caught on video but somehow no one seemed to feel it was very notable because they were still ranting on about the Black Bloc, who at that point weren't breaking anything at all, and who hadn't existed at all in New York or 99% of occupations. Whereas Gandhi, were he alive, would have clearly said that while he was against (some) Black Bloc tactics, what they were doing was far better than those who were using them as an excuse to refuse to protest anything at all.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
*Police, Guns and the Law
On October 14, 2013, Mr. Bobby Bennett - the man in the chair in the video - was shot by Dallas police. They shot four times.
Jackson, the 52 year-old man's mother, called police after the two had got into an argument earlier that day. "She was worried about Bennett, who has spent 20 years in and out of prison". He is also diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar. The officers were told he had "mental issues" and a "small knife" on him. Jackson was told that "specially trained police" would arrive.
According to Dallas law, "It is legal for officers to shoot a civilian who comes at the with a knife."
Source
Also reported here
Is this action justified? Is a system predicated on the "trust" of police officers, to report accurately for purposes of justice and protect/serve the people, acceptable? Is the system sufficient?
The police are standing at a considerable distance from the man. Two police officers, two guns, against one 52 year old man with mental issues and a knife.
Two trained (at least in theory) officers of the state. Protected by a law that allows "officers to shoot a civilian" who comes at them with a knife.
IF this surveillance video had not existed then the police officers account of Mr. Bennett behaving "in a threatening manner", "lunged" at the officers with a knife, and therefore they shot him would have been the story.
IF this was disputed and gone to court (given that the civilians had enough money to even get that far), then the case would either have been settled by the lawyers without any publicity OR the case would have gone to trial and determined by the testimony of the witness in the video, the police officers, Bennett, and his mother colored by any media spinned on the characters involved. The case would have been close and the police defended. Even worse, Bennett and his mother probably would had to have covered the hospital bill which would have had devastating effects on them financially.
The worst part about this, is that the scenarios just described could have easily happened.
There are two versions in which this should be thought out. The first case is with the video and the information provided. The second case is without the video and the possible scenarios I just drew up.
How do we go from a philosophical, theological, or social scientific, reflection of these cases and get to a point that has relevance and impact on law, society, and governance?
Of course, the much more interesting scenario is knowing what happened in the video and thinking about the scenario without the evidence from surveillance and the empowerment police have to "report" on what happened as the "truth".
This is a real epistemic issue for how justice is operationalized in society.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Friday, October 18, 2013
The Biology and Psychology of Ethical Behavior
Sapolsky, Fiske, and Greene
The Biology and Psychology of Ethical Behavior from Being Human on FORA.tv
The Biology and Psychology of Ethical Behavior from Being Human on FORA.tv
Hip Hop and Religion
In Dr. Daniel Hodge's paper:
'No Church in the Wild: An Ontology of Hip Hop's Socio-Religious Discourse in Tupac's "Black Jesuz"'
He states, "The Church, as an institution, for Tupac and The Outlawz, is no different. In their estimation, if the cops beat you, schools lie to you, and systems fail you, why would the Church be any different?"
...
Quoting, African American studies and Hip Hop Scholar, Michael Eric Dyson:
"Black Jesus for Tupac meant for him that figure that identifies with the hurt, the downtrodden, and the downfallen. The Black Jesus is a new figure; both literally within the literary traditions of black response to suffering, but also religious responses to suffering. If this is the Black Jesus of history, it is the Jesus that has never been talked about and most people who talk about Jesus would never recognize."
I can't attest to what most people who talk about Jesus understand about Jesus but I think both Hodge and Dyson are right to point out the push Tupac was trying to make in his appeal to "Black Jesuz" as a socio-political commentary.
more here
'No Church in the Wild: An Ontology of Hip Hop's Socio-Religious Discourse in Tupac's "Black Jesuz"'
He states, "The Church, as an institution, for Tupac and The Outlawz, is no different. In their estimation, if the cops beat you, schools lie to you, and systems fail you, why would the Church be any different?"
...
Quoting, African American studies and Hip Hop Scholar, Michael Eric Dyson:
"Black Jesus for Tupac meant for him that figure that identifies with the hurt, the downtrodden, and the downfallen. The Black Jesus is a new figure; both literally within the literary traditions of black response to suffering, but also religious responses to suffering. If this is the Black Jesus of history, it is the Jesus that has never been talked about and most people who talk about Jesus would never recognize."
I can't attest to what most people who talk about Jesus understand about Jesus but I think both Hodge and Dyson are right to point out the push Tupac was trying to make in his appeal to "Black Jesuz" as a socio-political commentary.
more here
'Preachers of LA' episode 1
An example of Prosperity Gospel in effect
via Rhetoric, Race and Religion
*Update 10/20: Some commentary here
While there is distaste in focusing on this particular phenomena, and there are pastors in the African-American community who do not adhere to prosperity gospel and a entertainment business model, these are nonetheless cases happening today and should not be denied. Albeit this is dramatized for television.
via Rhetoric, Race and Religion
*Update 10/20: Some commentary here
While there is distaste in focusing on this particular phenomena, and there are pastors in the African-American community who do not adhere to prosperity gospel and a entertainment business model, these are nonetheless cases happening today and should not be denied. Albeit this is dramatized for television.
Art and Religion X: (Trailer) 'They will have to kill us first', Music in Mali
“Documentary filmmaker Johanna Schwartz wrote for Index on Censorship magazine on the censorship and persecution that musicians in Mali have faced from Islamists, with musician Fadiamata Walet Oumar. In the article they highlighted how music was being driven out of the country, with even those with musical ringtones on their mobile phones facing crackdowns. Many musicians fled Mali during the worst excesses of persecution, as the article charts. Schwartz is an award-winning documentary maker, and she is giving Index readers an exclusive preview of her documentary They Will Have To Kill Us First.”
via Religion News
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Dostoevsky
"Why should we assume everything as we imagine it, as we make up our minds to imagine it? A thousand things may happen in reality which elude the subtlest imagination."
-Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
-Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
*Hannah Arendt
Recently, a movie about Hannah Arendt came out depicting the time and event that launched her most famous work and the phrase that is so often associated with her: "the banality of evil".
Arendt has been significant in philosophy, I remember reading her as an undergrad and enjoying her book 'The Human Condition'. Although I must admit, I should go back and read her again at some point with the mind I have now. With the movie, it would seem the controversy of her writing has resurfaced with the launch of the movie.
Her articles in the New Yorker can be read here: part I , part II, part III, part IV, part V
A revised and enlarged edition (pdf) can be found here
One of the wonderful benefits of the internet is that we have access in the public domain to things like the Eichmann trial - this way, to an extent, it is possible to witness some of the things Arendt witnessed:
This past july, Roger Berkowitz wrote a piece in the NYT: Misreading 'Eichmann in Jerusalem'.
He does a good job summarizing the opinions other intellectuals have had about Arendt's assessment of Eichmann and goes on to his own clarifications of Arendt's work.
*Update: Apparently it was her birthday a couple days ago (October 14)
a bit more here on her work 'On Violence' - how bureaucracy fuels violence
and here at leiter reports by Peter Ludlow
Arendt has been significant in philosophy, I remember reading her as an undergrad and enjoying her book 'The Human Condition'. Although I must admit, I should go back and read her again at some point with the mind I have now. With the movie, it would seem the controversy of her writing has resurfaced with the launch of the movie.
Her articles in the New Yorker can be read here: part I , part II, part III, part IV, part V
A revised and enlarged edition (pdf) can be found here
One of the wonderful benefits of the internet is that we have access in the public domain to things like the Eichmann trial - this way, to an extent, it is possible to witness some of the things Arendt witnessed:
This past july, Roger Berkowitz wrote a piece in the NYT: Misreading 'Eichmann in Jerusalem'.
He does a good job summarizing the opinions other intellectuals have had about Arendt's assessment of Eichmann and goes on to his own clarifications of Arendt's work.
"“What stuck in the minds” of men like Eichmann, Arendt wrote, was not a
rational or coherent ideology. It was “simply the notion of being
involved in something historic, grandiose, unique.”
...
Arendt concluded that evil in the modern world is done neither by monsters nor by bureaucrats, but by joiners.
...
That evil, Arendt argued, originates in the neediness of lonely,
alienated bourgeois people who live lives so devoid of higher meaning
that they give themselves fully to movements. It is the meaning Eichmann
finds as part of the Nazi movement that leads him to do anything and
sacrifice everything. Such joiners are not stupid; they are not robots.
But they are thoughtless in the sense that they abandon their
independence, their capacity to think for themselves, and instead commit
themselves absolutely to the fictional truth of the movement. It is
futile to reason with them. They inhabit an echo chamber, having no
interest in learning what others believe. It is this thoughtless
commitment that permits idealists to imagine themselves as heroes and
makes them willing to employ technological implements of violence in the
name of saving the world."
And lastly, I'll finish the post with an interview (in German, English subtitles) with Hannah Arendt:
*Update: Apparently it was her birthday a couple days ago (October 14)
a bit more here on her work 'On Violence' - how bureaucracy fuels violence
and here at leiter reports by Peter Ludlow
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
The top 5 new law and religion papers
1.What is a ‘Religious Institution’? by Zoe Robinson (Depaul University College of Law) [269 downloads]
2. Book Review: ‘The Tragedy of Religious Freedom’ by Ian C. Bartum (University of Nevada, Las Vegas) [106 downloads]
3.Corporate Religious Liberty by Caroline Mala Corbin (University of Miami School of Law) [88 downloads]
4. Book Review of ‘A Confucian Constitutional Order: How China’s Ancient Past Can Shape its Political Future’ by Jiang Qing, edited by Daniel Bell and Ruiping Fan (Princeton University Press) by Carl F. Minzner (Fordham University- School of Law) [83 downloads]
5.‘The Word[ ] ‘Person’…Includes Corporations’: Why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Protects Both For- and Nonprofit Corporations by Jeremy M. Christiansen (University of Utah- S.J. Quinney College of Law) [78 downloads]
Source
2. Book Review: ‘The Tragedy of Religious Freedom’ by Ian C. Bartum (University of Nevada, Las Vegas) [106 downloads]
3.Corporate Religious Liberty by Caroline Mala Corbin (University of Miami School of Law) [88 downloads]
4. Book Review of ‘A Confucian Constitutional Order: How China’s Ancient Past Can Shape its Political Future’ by Jiang Qing, edited by Daniel Bell and Ruiping Fan (Princeton University Press) by Carl F. Minzner (Fordham University- School of Law) [83 downloads]
5.‘The Word[ ] ‘Person’…Includes Corporations’: Why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Protects Both For- and Nonprofit Corporations by Jeremy M. Christiansen (University of Utah- S.J. Quinney College of Law) [78 downloads]
Source
*Rick Warren and Asian Stereotypes
So Rick Warren and his antics on race has been surfacing on the internet - more than once - and apparently this isn't the first time he's mixed racism with obscure humour.
So... what did he do? Well, as documented here and here and here
The first incident was about a photo:
With the caption: "the typical attitude of Saddleback Staff as they start work each day."
Like many other asians, I am a bit confused with what he's trying to suggest here (That Christians who work for Rick Warren get up everyday like a Disney movie with a Red Guard Propaganda twist? Or that Christians are coming onto the world like a communist army, a cultural revolution? I don't know nor do I get it). And I'm sure this evokes much stronger emotions for the Chinese-American community than any other Asian-American community.
But the responses of those who came to the defense of the picture and Rick Warren is even more interesting:
Now, I get racist humour when it's done in an appropriate context. I am fully able to laugh at my own heritage, background, phenotype and play on asian stereotypes. I'm not only used to it but grew up learning to deflect and not really taking too much offense at genuine ignorance. But there is an appropriate context for when and where you do make jokes.
Warren - knowingly or unknowingly - evoked a sensitive topic with the image he selected (for reasons I don't think I really need to go into) to characterise his staff. And again, this was done on a public online forum - facebook. Making jokes amongst your buddies in private is one thing. But in public for everybody that 'likes' you and your organization to see?
I wonder how he would feel if the tables were turned. Most racist humour can go both ways. So let's suppose a Chinese pastor wants to do the same:
The second antic, Rick Warren and his staff did was:
And the Evangelical Asian-American community didn't appreciate it; they posted an open letter: here
So... what did he do? Well, as documented here and here and here
The first incident was about a photo:
With the caption: "the typical attitude of Saddleback Staff as they start work each day."
Like many other asians, I am a bit confused with what he's trying to suggest here (That Christians who work for Rick Warren get up everyday like a Disney movie with a Red Guard Propaganda twist? Or that Christians are coming onto the world like a communist army, a cultural revolution? I don't know nor do I get it). And I'm sure this evokes much stronger emotions for the Chinese-American community than any other Asian-American community.
But the responses of those who came to the defense of the picture and Rick Warren is even more interesting:
- Don’t you know this is a joke? This is funny. Get over yourself. Get a sense of humor. Christians can be funny.
- I didn’t mean to offend you. BUT…Get over yourself. Get a sense of humor. Christians can be funny.
- Why are you attacking “fill in the blank with well-intentioned White person’s name here”? Don’t you know how many people said person’s ministry and life’s work has touched and brought to faith? Get over yourself. Get a sense of humor. Christians can be funny.
- If you are a Christian, show “fill in the blank with well-intentioned White person’s name here” some grace. Get over yourself. Get a sense of humor. Christians can be funny.
- Don’t be so politically-correct. Be a Christian first. Don’t make this about race. Get over yourself. Get a sense of humor. Christians can be funny.
Now, I get racist humour when it's done in an appropriate context. I am fully able to laugh at my own heritage, background, phenotype and play on asian stereotypes. I'm not only used to it but grew up learning to deflect and not really taking too much offense at genuine ignorance. But there is an appropriate context for when and where you do make jokes.
Warren - knowingly or unknowingly - evoked a sensitive topic with the image he selected (for reasons I don't think I really need to go into) to characterise his staff. And again, this was done on a public online forum - facebook. Making jokes amongst your buddies in private is one thing. But in public for everybody that 'likes' you and your organization to see?
I wonder how he would feel if the tables were turned. Most racist humour can go both ways. So let's suppose a Chinese pastor wants to do the same:
With the caption:
"The typical attitude of XYZ staff as they collect for charity"
Or maybe something like this:
"The typical attitude of our XYZ Church missionaries out in the field"
But hey, forget the social-historical context because Christians are funny!
Warren later posted an apology for the image.
*Update (10/19): NPR has put up a post about this now - here
*Update (10/19): NPR has put up a post about this now - here
The second antic, Rick Warren and his staff did was:
"In the video at Exponential, a pastor
jokes about making his church-planting apprentice do menial activities,
such as getting him coffee, giving him massages, and holding his towel,
according to the Rev. Christine Lee, a Korean-American Episcopal priest
who attended the conference.
The
apprentice reacts to the pastor in a parody of the “Karate Kid,” the
1984 martial arts film. The pastor begins speaking in a Chinese accent
with “typical ‘Oriental’ music” playing in the background, Lee said.
They go into a karate segment, and at one point, they bow to each other."
And the Evangelical Asian-American community didn't appreciate it; they posted an open letter: here
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Nietzsche on Power, Knowledge and Morality
00:00 - Chapter 1. Nietzsche, Freud and Weber and The Problem of Modernity
10:23 - Chapter 2. Nietzsche in a Historical Context
25:35 - Chapter 3. Nietzsche's Major Works
33:21 - Chapter 4. Major Themes in "On the Genealogy of Morals"
Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website:
http://open.yale.edu/courses
This course was recorded in Fall 2009.
Natural Law Roots of the Social Contract Tradition
00:00 - Chapter 1. Enlightenment
05:33 - Chapter 2. The Early Enlightenment: John Locke (1632 -- 1704)
29:25 - Chapter 3. Doctrine of Individual Rights
Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website:
http://open.yale.edu/courses
This course was recorded in Spring 2010.
The Rawlsian Social Contract
00:00 - Chapter 1. Political Liberalism: John Rawls (1921 -- 2002)
11:59 - Chapter 2. Insights and Questions in Rawls's Theory of Justice
34:15 - Chapter 3. Resourcism and The General Conception of Justice
Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website:
http://open.yale.edu/courses
This course was recorded in Spring 2010.
Guantanamo - Hunger Strikes (animated video)
"In March 2013, reports of a hunger strike at Guantánamo Bay, the US detention camp in Cuba, began to surface. Details were sketchy and were contradicted by statements from the US military. Now, using testimony from five detainees, this animated film reveals the daily brutality of life inside Guantánamo. Today there are 17 prisoners still on hunger strike, 16 of whom are being force-fed. Two are in hospital"
From the Guardian
Saturday, October 12, 2013
John Tasioulas (UCL) on Human Rights (podcast)
Over at Philosophy Bites. Podcast here
Discusses the relationship between law and morality in human rights.
Discusses the relationship between law and morality in human rights.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Gaudi's Sagrada Familia
Beginning in 1883, the projected end date is 2026. Thanks to technology we can see the projection of its construction in the clip above.
More info at Open Culture (with a link to the virtual tour)
It's pretty awesome:
Sovereignty of Native Americans
"We often think of US Empire acting on the global stage through
occupations and wars abroad, but the longest-running manifestation of US
imperialism is the illegal occupation of portions of the United States
and denial of the sovereignty of Native Indians, which continues today.
The brutal history of this occupation and the fact that it is ongoing
are largely ignored by most Americans, but awareness and the need for a
peaceful resolution are imperative if we are to evolve into a
cooperative and just society.
In the past century, efforts by Native Indian nations to achieve recognition of signed treaties have been thwarted. When attempts to use domestic law failed, Native Indian Nations joined with other indigenous nations from around the world to gain recognition under international law. This effort, which took the form of a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the United Nations, was sabotaged by the United States, Canada and some of their allies."
More here
What's interesting is the reviving acknowledgment that "native tribes' traditional knowledge can help us adapt to climate change"
In which the article states:
"Dartmouth assistant professors Nicholas Reo and Angela Parker, whose article is titled "Re-thinking colonialism to prepare for the impacts of rapid environmental change," said New England settlers created a cascade of environmental and human changes that spread across North America, including human diseases, invasive species, deforestation and overharvest.
The researchers identified social and ecological tipping points and feedback loops that amplify and mitigate environmental change. For example, prior to the arrival of Europeans, old growth deciduous forests were rich with animal and plant resources and covered more than 80 percent of New England. Native peoples helped to sustain this bountiful biodiversity for centuries through their land practices."
Except...politically, I see no reason why the Native American communities should help in any way.
In the words of Malcom X:
"You don't stick a knife in a man's back nine inches and then pull it out six inches and say you're making progress ... No matter how much respect, no matter how much recognition, whites show towards me, as far as I am concerned, as long as it is not shown to everyone of our people in this country, it doesn't exist for me."
In the past century, efforts by Native Indian nations to achieve recognition of signed treaties have been thwarted. When attempts to use domestic law failed, Native Indian Nations joined with other indigenous nations from around the world to gain recognition under international law. This effort, which took the form of a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the United Nations, was sabotaged by the United States, Canada and some of their allies."
More here
What's interesting is the reviving acknowledgment that "native tribes' traditional knowledge can help us adapt to climate change"
In which the article states:
"Dartmouth assistant professors Nicholas Reo and Angela Parker, whose article is titled "Re-thinking colonialism to prepare for the impacts of rapid environmental change," said New England settlers created a cascade of environmental and human changes that spread across North America, including human diseases, invasive species, deforestation and overharvest.
The researchers identified social and ecological tipping points and feedback loops that amplify and mitigate environmental change. For example, prior to the arrival of Europeans, old growth deciduous forests were rich with animal and plant resources and covered more than 80 percent of New England. Native peoples helped to sustain this bountiful biodiversity for centuries through their land practices."
Except...politically, I see no reason why the Native American communities should help in any way.
In the words of Malcom X:
"You don't stick a knife in a man's back nine inches and then pull it out six inches and say you're making progress ... No matter how much respect, no matter how much recognition, whites show towards me, as far as I am concerned, as long as it is not shown to everyone of our people in this country, it doesn't exist for me."
Pew Forum: 2013 Hispanic Values Survey
On the changing religio-political dimension of Hispanics in the U.S. correlated with social and economic issues
*Update (10/17): On the religiously unaffiliated
"While media reports of religious switching among Hispanics have primarily focused on the growth of Hispanic Protestants, particularly evangelical Protestants or evangelicos, the unaffiliated have experienced similar growth. The Hispanic Values Survey reveals that the growth of Protestantism among Hispanics is really only half of the story. The ranks of both evangelical Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated have grown at roughly equal rates. Evangelical Protestant affiliation has increased by six percentage points (from seven percent to 13 percent), while the percentage of those claiming no religious affiliation has increased by seven percentage points (from seven percent to 12 percent). The percentage of mainline Protestants have remained relatively steady; 12 percent of Hispanics identify as mainline Protestant today, compared to nine percent who were raised as mainline Protestant."
via Pew Forum
'An interview over Zizek' on theology
The link below is an interview over Zizek on theology and addresses the following questions:
1. In general, what are the fundamental formulations of Žižek on theology?
2. What is the peculiarity of his approach?
3. In what sense are the works of Žižek, especially the latest ones, relevant to the current theological debate?
4. In what sense is the argumentation of Žižek on this subject complex and unusual?
5. How can we understand the claim of Žižek that, to become a true dialectical materialist, one must go through the Christian experience? Is not this about a paradoxical stance from him?
6. How can we understand the fact that Žižek is interested in the emancipatory potential offered by Christian theology?
7. How does Žižek analyze the continental philosophy and the future of Christian theology from the legacy of Paul of Tarsus? What is the significance of Paul, in this perspective?
8. To what extent are Pascal, Kierkegaard, and Chesterton leading thinkers in the theological stance of the Slovenian philosopher?
9. What are the main points of the debate between Žižek and Milbank in “The Monstrosity of Christ: Paradox or Dialectic”?
10. To what extent does the debate between these two thinkers deepen the dialogue between faith and reason?
http://itself.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/an-interview-over-zizek/
1. In general, what are the fundamental formulations of Žižek on theology?
2. What is the peculiarity of his approach?
3. In what sense are the works of Žižek, especially the latest ones, relevant to the current theological debate?
4. In what sense is the argumentation of Žižek on this subject complex and unusual?
5. How can we understand the claim of Žižek that, to become a true dialectical materialist, one must go through the Christian experience? Is not this about a paradoxical stance from him?
6. How can we understand the fact that Žižek is interested in the emancipatory potential offered by Christian theology?
7. How does Žižek analyze the continental philosophy and the future of Christian theology from the legacy of Paul of Tarsus? What is the significance of Paul, in this perspective?
8. To what extent are Pascal, Kierkegaard, and Chesterton leading thinkers in the theological stance of the Slovenian philosopher?
9. What are the main points of the debate between Žižek and Milbank in “The Monstrosity of Christ: Paradox or Dialectic”?
10. To what extent does the debate between these two thinkers deepen the dialogue between faith and reason?
http://itself.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/an-interview-over-zizek/
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
3 different versions of Dante's Inferno reviewed by Harrison
He reviews:
Inferno by Dan Brown
Doubleday, 461 pp., $29.95
Inferno by Dante, translated from the Italian by Mary Jo Bang, with illustrations by Henrik Drescher Graywolf, 340 pp., $35.00
The Divine Comedy by Dante, translated from the Italian by Clive James
Liveright, 527 pp., $29.95
Harrison does a great job reviewing the three and instills an appreciation for the classic work by Dante: read here
Inferno by Dan Brown
Doubleday, 461 pp., $29.95
Inferno by Dante, translated from the Italian by Mary Jo Bang, with illustrations by Henrik Drescher Graywolf, 340 pp., $35.00
The Divine Comedy by Dante, translated from the Italian by Clive James
Liveright, 527 pp., $29.95
Harrison does a great job reviewing the three and instills an appreciation for the classic work by Dante: read here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)