the evolving mind

If you are a liberal confounded by the seeming back-ass values of conservatives, I suggest reading the essay, WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? by By Jonathan Haidt. I found it thought-provoking.

Haidt makes the following points -

[O]ne of the main reasons that so many Americans voted Republican over the last 30 years: they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats.

Hmm. I does seem that Liberals are frequently portrayed as near-anarchists by ultra-conservatives, as free-love, drug-taking hippies lacking boundaries. What kind of order is that?

Here’s my alternative definition: morality is any system of interlocking values, practices, institutions, and psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible.

Is it a bogus over-generalization to say that while conservative tend to focus on the group (their group, naturally) and responsibilities, liberals focus on individuals and rights?

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: politics, sociology

This headline surprised me — Physical Disability Brings Marital Happiness.

The lead sentence asserted -

A new study finds that the onset of physical disability boosts marital happiness more often than not.

My first reaction was “interesting . . . who’da thunk it?!” The researchers reported that “in some cases” the disability to one partner brings more interaction between the two. I could also imagine it infusing more meaning and sensitivity into the relationship. Maybe.

But upon a closer reading, I wondered whether this preliminary finding should be viewed with even greater skepticism. Was it a product of data mining?

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: critical thinking

[new name for the series started as "Identify This"]

Okay, the resolution of our Amazon-special digital microscope isn’t so good. But I still find it entertaining and edifying to “look closer” via the device.

The above is not crystal meth. Nor is it sugar. Any guess? Identity below the fold.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: microscope, puzzle

The recent jetliner crash is being blamed on birds. But I think they are innocent.

One allegation:

“birds knocked out both engines.”

Crafty birds — went right for the engines. Unless, of course, they got sucked in.

Another allegation:

“The accident apparently was caused by birds that slammed into the plane.”

With my limited understanding of physics, it seems that if anything did the slamming, it was the 300 mph Airbus A320 into the birds.

And this:

“U.S. Airways Flight out of LaGuardia crashed into the Hudson River today after it was struck by birds.”

Just who did the striking? And what was that jet doing in the birds’ airspace? Must we blame them?

Technorati Links: current events, semantics

The challenge -

“Dating and localizing manuscripts have historically presented persistent problems,” Stinson says, “because they have largely been based on the handwriting and dialect of the scribes who created the manuscripts – techniques that have proven unreliable for a number of reasons.”

A new solution -

Many medieval manuscripts were written on parchment made from animal skin, and NC State Assistant Professor of English Timothy Stinson is working to perfect techniques for extracting and analyzing the DNA contained in these skins with the long-term goal of creating a genetic database that can be used to determine when and where a manuscript was written.

Brilliant. But don’t expect results before the commercial break. [source]

Technorati Links: biology, technology

I enjoy boating here in Florida because the inland bodies of water tend to be placid and flat. One might describe the nearby St. John’s river as a slowly flowing swamp. We can navigate it (like sections above) with an electric trolling motor. Not only is it more eco-friendly, no exhaust in the air nor in the water, but it is also virtually silent. Much better for sneaking up on wildlife. And I enjoy sneaking up on wildlife. Not to say “boo” and watch them jump, but to see and observe them better and maybe snap a photograph.

Technorati Links: boating

Social conformity is an interesting subject. A classic experiment in this area is the “how long is this line” test. A subject is placed in a room with confederates of the experimenter. The subject is asked whether a line is the same length as A, B, C or D lines. When the confederates give an obviously false, yet unanimous answer, the subject is significantly likely to repeat it.

The experiment brings to mind jury duty. The push to socially conform is probably why there are relatively few hung juries.

But are we pulled into conforming or pushed? And is it a bad thing?

First, in answering the second query, I would say it definitely isn’t — generally. Sometimes, sure. And yes, in our highly individualistic culture, we tend to praise maverick behavior and scoff at followers. Yet with a healthy amount of social conformity we both know what to expect from others and we experience more harmony in our social relations. Those are not bad things. Yes, too much conformity is bad. But too little is chaotic and stressful.

In the article, Brain Mechanisms Of Social Conformity, I learned that the motive/mechanism behind conformity may not be to become more like others.

“The present study explains why we often automatically adjust our opinion in line with the majority opinion,” says Dr. Klucharev. “Our results also show that social conformity is based on mechanisms that comply with reinforcement learning and is reinforced by the neural error-monitoring activity which signals what is probably the most fundamental social mistake—that of being too different from others.”

Of course, whether your desire is to be more like others, or less different than others, the end results will be similar.

Why do we naturally desire (primarily unconsciously) to not-be-different from our cohorts? So that we, as individuals of a hyper-social species, do not risk being rejected. For then we would stand alone.

Technorati Links: behavior, culture, sociology

What is it?

Answer below the fold.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: microscope, puzzle

Here’s an interesting study from the social sciences: Cleanliness Makes People Less Severe In Moral Judgments. I wouldn’t make to much of it — two experiments with university students as subjects — but it is suggestive.

New research in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science has found that the physical notion of cleanliness significantly reduces the severity of moral judgments, showing that intuition, rather than deliberate reasoning can influence our perception of what is right and wrong. . . .

The findings from both experiments demonstrated that those who were subject to the cognitive feeling of cleanliness exercised less severe moral judgment than their counterparts.

Here is the implication I find interesting and important -

Lead researcher, Simone Schnall explains the relevance of the findings to everyday life; “When we exercise moral judgment, we believe we are making a conscious, rational decision, but this research shows that we are subconsciously influenced by how clean or ‘pure’ we feel.

Now here I go making something of it; I can’t resist. For a fascinating confluence, consider the Biblical/religious emphasis on purity and revulsion at those people and things “unclean.” Do they plant a seed of dirt in the followers mind so that they feel the need to wash at a particular trough of worship? Or do they offer rituals aimed at increasing feelings of cleanliness, thus making adherents feel more tolerant towards one another?

Taking an inch and running yet another mile, I wonder, Would the Moral Majority be more lenient in their standards if they gargled more often? Do some of the fundies display a more fervent conservatism when they have a dirty little secret?

So many questions, so little hard data.

Technorati Links: morality

Many women apply rouge to their cheeks. Just what are they trying to signal (whether or not they are aware of it)? I might hazard a guess.

No, they don’t apply the make-up to their ears. Nor do they paint the back of their hands to make that skin appear flushed. Why? They certainly could.

Human behavior is not random. Where there are patterns, particularly patterns seen cross-culturally, we may assume the behavior is firmly rooted in the unlearned, animal nature of the human being. Yet even learned behavior must build upon the innate tendencies we are born with. Nurture requires a nature to shape.

Technorati Links: flowers, gender, sexuality