|
Post by faskew on Sept 15, 2017 8:16:08 GMT -5
From an article on CNN yesterday by Tali Sharot:
The very first thing we need to realize is that beliefs are like fast cars, designer shoes, chocolate cupcakes and exotic holidays: they affect our well-being and happiness. So just as we aspire to fill our fridge with fresh fare and our wardrobe with nice attire, we try to fill our minds with information that makes us feel strong and right, and to avoid information that makes us confused or insecure...
But with non-invasive brain imaging techniques, my colleagues and I have recently gathered evidence that suggests our brain reacts to desirable information as it does to rewarding stimuli like food, and reacts to undesirable information as it does to aversive stimuli like electric shocks. So, just as we are motivated to seek food and avoid shocks, we are also motivated either to seek or avoid incoming information...
Unfortunately, the solution is not as simple as providing people with full and accurate information. When you provide someone with new data they quickly accept evidence that confirms their preconceived notions and assess counter evidence with a critical eye...
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 15, 2017 10:47:32 GMT -5
From an article on CNN yesterday by Tali Sharot: The very first thing we need to realize is that beliefs are like fast cars, designer shoes, chocolate cupcakes and exotic holidays: they affect our well-being and happiness. So just as we aspire to fill our fridge with fresh fare and our wardrobe with nice attire, we try to fill our minds with information that makes us feel strong and right, and to avoid information that makes us confused or insecure... But with non-invasive brain imaging techniques, my colleagues and I have recently gathered evidence that suggests our brain reacts to desirable information as it does to rewarding stimuli like food, and reacts to undesirable information as it does to aversive stimuli like electric shocks. So, just as we are motivated to seek food and avoid shocks, we are also motivated either to seek or avoid incoming information... Unfortunately, the solution is not as simple as providing people with full and accurate information. When you provide someone with new data they quickly accept evidence that confirms their preconceived notions and assess counter evidence with a critical eye... That explains a lot. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 11:59:21 GMT -5
Yes, why we keep talking past each other.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 15, 2017 13:09:34 GMT -5
Yes, why we keep talking past each other. Unfortunately, that's all too true. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 20:23:47 GMT -5
I think it's important to realize that simple knowledge of the facts isn't enough. Facts are subject to interpretation, and everyone of us interprets the facts they encounter based on their own subjective understanding of the world they live in.
However I do believe that we can still understand other people's points of view though. But the limits of our understanding require us to understand other people's thoughs as approximations of our own point of view. So shifts and changes in our understanding are possible, but they are small and subtle and only really noticeable over time.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 15, 2017 23:08:56 GMT -5
I think it's important to realize that simple knowledge of the facts isn't enough. Facts are subject to interpretation, and everyone of us interprets the facts they encounter based on their own subjective understanding of the world they live in. Aren't some interpretations better than others though? Fanatic Communists interpreted the mass murders of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the others as justified actions that would bring the world closer to the Communist Utopia. Others claimed that these were monstrous, barbaric acts. Were both interpretations equally right? Not always small and subtle. That wasn't what happened to me and to a lot of other former leftists. The change was total, although it did take 3 years in my case. Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Sept 16, 2017 7:20:48 GMT -5
The problem in politics lately hasn't been one of interpretation - it's been one of denying that certain things are facts at all. Trump routinely calls anything he doesn't like "fake news". He's not interpreting facts, he's saying that anything that he disagrees with is a total falsehood. It's a similar tactic used by Putin and other dictators. If the public can't trust "facts", they are easier to control.
Interpretation is most common when dealing with cause and effect. A (a fact) produced B (another fact). For example, the 9/11 anniversary brought up the old claim by Billy Grahams' daughter that the 9/11 attacks were God's punishment for the US being sinful. It is indeed a fact that the US is slowly moving away from religion, becoming more tolerant of gays, etc. and the 9/11 attacks are also a fact. It's her reason for the attacks that uses two facts to come up with a bogus claim.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 10:25:19 GMT -5
I think it's important to realize that simple knowledge of the facts isn't enough. Facts are subject to interpretation, and everyone of us interprets the facts they encounter based on their own subjective understanding of the world they live in. Aren't some interpretations better than others though? Fanatic Communists interpreted the mass murders of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the others as justified actions that would bring the world closer to the Communist Utopia. Others claimed that these were monstrous, barbaric acts. Were both interpretations equally right? Not always small and subtle. That wasn't what happened to me and to a lot of other former leftists. The change was total, although it did take 3 years in my case. Bob I don't know, a lot of your positions still seem to match up pretty well with early 1960s era Western Marxism, down to your insistence that the USSR is the inevitable logical end point of socialist beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 16, 2017 11:21:18 GMT -5
Aren't some interpretations better than others though? Fanatic Communists interpreted the mass murders of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the others as justified actions that would bring the world closer to the Communist Utopia. Others claimed that these were monstrous, barbaric acts. Were both interpretations equally right? Not always small and subtle. That wasn't what happened to me and to a lot of other former leftists. The change was total, although it did take 3 years in my case. Bob I don't know, a lot of your positions still seem to match up pretty well with early 1960s era Western Marxism, down to your insistence that the USSR is the inevitable logical end point of socialist beliefs. Really? Which ones? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 17:44:27 GMT -5
Let's see: - The current government exists to oppress the real wealth creators of society
- The people who create the real wealth are not identical with the people in control of most of society's wealth
- There is an ideal form of government that must be reached in order to solve the current problems of society
- It is an ideal form of government because it furthers the rights and interests of the wealth creators
- All economic woes are seen as the inevitable failure of the current social order, and will be either solved or stop occurring under the ideal form of government
- There is no cogent plan to transform the current social order towards this ideal form of government
- Racism, Sexism, and other forms of inequality are effects of the current, unjust social order, and will be dealth with or cease to exist outright when the ideal form of government has been established
- The reason why people don't hear about this is because the message is being curtailed or suppressed by the mainstream establishment
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 18, 2017 21:12:48 GMT -5
Let's see: The current government exists to oppress the real wealth creators of society "Exists to oppress?" I would re-word that to: The current government DOES oppress the real wealth creators of society through forced income re-distribution. Yes. Therefore...? There are no "ideal forms of government." But some forms of government are better than others. Once again, there is no ideal form of government. But is there anything wrong with enabling wealth creators to create more wealth? Are you saying that the current social order is not responsible for any of today's economic woes? Sure there is. Just reduce the vast amount of government bureaucracy and restrictions. Unless of course you want to argue that the "ideal" form of government requires lots and lots of government bureaucracy and restrictions. Are you claiming that? Racism and sexism were here thousands of years before the present system existed, and will unfortunately probably be here for a long while yet. This will happen no matter what form of government we have. No. The real reason is because most people don't care about politics or economics as long as they have enough money, food, and a warm place to take care of their basic biological functions. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 21:18:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 18, 2017 22:43:35 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 22:45:57 GMT -5
You said "thousands" of years ago. You haven't proven that yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 23:17:31 GMT -5
The problem, Bob, is that all your wishes and dreams are all pie in the sky stuff. You have nothing material and real that you can point to. And, frankly, what you describe is really a selfish utopia. Yes, you can disagree, but you have nothing to show or prove anything different. It's all pie in the sky. Cherry pie would be nice, though.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Sept 19, 2017 8:32:10 GMT -5
I’ve always had a problem with the concept of “wealth creators”. It seems to me that the majority of people in any society are “wealth creators.” Yeah, the people who own Walmart are wealth creators, but so is every customer who buys something at one of their stores. If the government takes a dollar from a rich “wealth creator” and give it to a poor person, that dollar is spent and it percolates up the economy until it lands back with the rich again, creating “wealth” all along the way.
The concept of “wealth” has changed over the years. Originally, “wealth” was whatever the hunter/gatherers happened to find. Later, “wealth” came from agriculture and mining. Later still, “wealth” was produced by skilled worker or factories. These days “wealth” is mostly numbers in computers. (There way more money in computer numbers than there is paper money to back them.) And there are fabulously rich people who do nothing but manipulate those numbers. It’s not necessary to actually grow or build or do anything to create wealth. Just play with the numbers. Beats working.
The claim that if the government takes too much money away from “wealth creators”, they will stop creating and the world will collapse never made any sense to me. What’s the difference in lifestyle between having 10 billion dollars and 5 billion dollars? What person ever said, hey, if I’m only going to make 1 billion dollars this year, it’s not worth it. I’m quitting! Yeah, some small business owner types can be hurt, but for the astronomically rich, money is meaningless. They already have more than they can spend in a lifetime.
In the US we used to tax the top earners at something like 90%, and that was the golden age of our economy. Now our top tax is what, 35%, and we’re in trouble. (Of course, rich folk never paid the top tax, thanks to all the loopholes in the tax laws.)
The people who have the most money in the US are also the people who run things. Corporations use the government to help them make more money and the political battles are between corporate puppets who are defending their patrons. Walmart doesn’t want welfare reform because poor people buy their cheap stuff. Hotels, restaurants, etc. don’t want immigration reform because they depend on cheap illegal labor. Defense contractors don’t want cuts in unnecessary military spending because that would hurt their profits. And so on.
Our economy is caught up in corruption and waste, both government and private, virtually beyond calculating. Me, I don’t have any idea how to fix it. Like I said, the people with the money are also the people who run things. And they don’t want change. 8-<
Just my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2017 13:41:17 GMT -5
You said "thousands" of years ago. You haven't proven that yet. Well, it really depends on what you mean by the words you use. "Racism" in the sense used to day, where there is a whole pseudoscientific structure behind the simple fact that some people have darker skin than others, did not exist in Aristotle's times. The ancient Greeks were xenophobic as hell, but they didn't really ascribe a particular weight to skin color - what mattered to them was your place of birth, the way you dressed, and the language you spoke. People who didn't speak Greek were "Barbarians", people who weren't born in the city state where they lived were "Outsiders", people who didn't dress or act the way the Greeks did were "Foreigners". Now, in terms of women's rights, ancient Greece made the Taliban look progressive by comparison.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Sept 22, 2017 15:03:19 GMT -5
Classical Greek city states had this weird rule that you needed a citizen sponsor to visit their city. If you didn't have a citizen sponsor, any citizen could rob you, make you a slave, kill your or whatever. Only citizens of that city were considered fully human. A citizen sponsor could bring you in to visit and do business, or whatever, and you'd be safe. But no sponsor - don't go to that city.
|
|