Ch. 4 - The Faults of Others
Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 1:01 pm
Ch. 4 - The Faults of Others
Quality books. Great conversations.
https://www.booktalk.org/
The human mind may have been shaped by evolutionary processes to play Machiavellian tit for tat, and it seems to come equipped with cognitive processes that predispose us to hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and moralistic conflict. But sometimes, by knowing the mind's structure and strategies, we can step out of the ancient game of social manipulation and enter into a game of our choosing. By seeing the log in your own eye you can become less biased, less moralistic, and therefore less inclined toward argument and conflict. You can begin to follow the perfect way, the path to happiness that leads through acceptance, which is the subject of the next chapter.
I keep thinking about Dexter's "monkey mind"—that term really stuck with me—and Robert Wright's idea that our “design” from natural selection isn’t really interested in finding truth. As such, our emotions aren’t a very accurate gauge of reality. We’re strongly motivated to take a position first and then go out and finding confirming evidence to show that we’re right. Lately I’ve been calling this “Google bias.”Buddha . . . counseled indifference to the ups and downs of life, but he urged that we quit the game entirely. Buddhism is a set of practices for escaping samsara and the endless cycle of rebirth. Though divided on whether to retreat from the world or engage with it, Buddhists all agree on the importance of training the mind to stop its incessant judging.
Not trying to start something, but the very last sentence here reminded me of the politics of global warming. Just to be clear, I do think there's definitely something to global warming, but there this idea that if we can only come together, we can solve global warming. And the attitude I see a lot is that anyone who doesn't think (as a liberal) about global warming is denounced as something evil and, indeed, part of the problem.As I thought about these various villains, including the older villains of communism and Satan himself, I realized that most of them share three properties: They are invisible (you can’t identify the evil one from appearance alone); their evil spreads by contagion, making it vital to protect impressionable young people from infection (for example from communist ideas, homosexual teachers, or stereotypes on television); and the villains can be defeated only if we all pull together as a team.
No, Haidt is wrong. There are two approaches, not three.geo wrote: three basic configurations of evil: dualism, monism, Christianity
Haidt tells us we can "train the elephant" not to lean so automatically, through meditation, CBT, and I guess Prozac, and then we'll at least have a chance of being aware of our biases and perhaps admitting to them. I just told gesler that my bias is to believe that government should be involved in health insurance, so when it comes to the justifiable attacks on the ACA, I still have a well of feeling that the Act's "heart" is in the right place. I can't necessarily come up with logical reasons for my preference; it just seems to be part of the elephant.geo wrote:I finally got a chance to read this chapter and, yeah, I can relate. Sometimes we take strong positions and don't think to ask why or what the point is. Especially when it comes to politics and religion, it seems we are oriented one way or another, and no amount of arguing is ever going to change someone's mind. And, yet, we relentlessly bat back and forth on religion here on BT. (I'm one of the worst offenders, I know). I think Christopher Hitchens said something once about how he just couldn't stop arguing with people about religion.
Robert Wright wrote:Buddha . . . counseled indifference to the ups and downs of life, but he urged that we quit the game entirely. Buddhism is a set of practices for escaping samsara and the endless cycle of rebirth. Though divided on whether to retreat from the world or engage with it, Buddhists all agree on the importance of training the mind to stop its incessant judging.
I’ve been trying to figure how different parts of Haidt's happiness prescription relate. I wonder how this Buddhist injunction to stop judging might relate to reciprocity or tit for tat, which pretty much makes the world go 'round. In tit for tat, is judging actually quite important, or does the Buddha mean something different from the smaller types of social judgment involved in tit for tat? If we "quit the game entirely," what might be the unintended consequence? My guess is that, applying Buddha's standard, we would all become less centered on tit for tat, and for Buddha that seemed desirable. Any religion, I think, tries to get people to a place they don't ordinarily occupy. Religion is kind of a booster for behavior. The question still remains for me whether I'd like things to be more like that. Tit for tat has a positive side as well as one we view more negatively.geo wrote:I keep thinking about Dexter's "monkey mind"—that term really stuck with me—and Robert Wright's idea that our “design” from natural selection isn’t really interested in finding truth. As such, our emotions aren’t a very accurate gauge of reality. We’re strongly motivated to take a position first and then go out and finding confirming evidence to show that we’re right.
Haidt called Wright's book The Moral Animal "masterful" (p. 63). I haven't read the book, but of course it's "on the list."For a couple of minutes today, I actually thought I was reading Robert Wright. But it was Haidt talking about the three basic configurations of evil as portrayed by religion:
DWill wrote:"Naive realism," the feeling we all have that our simple views of complex matters encompass all the relevant parts, corresponds to Daniel Kahnemans's WYSIATI, or what you see is all there is. In evolution, possibly this trait helped out, in that being sure of one's view of a situation solidified support around a leader. As for promoting love, peace, and understanding, it seems to often get in the way.
It probably wouldn't be good for economics if we all did it. Much of the American ethos seems to revolve around getting ahead which is usually measured by the acquisition of material goods and having big things. I recently heard the term "trophy house" for the first time.DWill wrote:. . . I’ve been trying to figure how different parts of Haidt's happiness prescription relate. I wonder how this Buddhist injunction to stop judging might relate to reciprocity or tit for tat, which pretty much makes the world go 'round. In tit for tat, is judging actually quite important, or does the Buddha mean something different from the smaller types of social judgment involved in tit for tat? If we "quit the game entirely," what might be the unintended consequence?
I was looking for information on William James and came upon an entire web site devoted to the pursuit of happiness.DWill wrote:My guess is that, applying Buddha's standard, we would all become less centered on tit for tat, and for Buddha that seemed desirable. Any religion, I think, tries to get people to a place they don't ordinarily occupy. Religion is kind of a booster for behavior. The question still remains for me whether I'd like things to be more like that. Tit for tat has a positive side as well as one we view more negatively.
Mine too!DWill wrote:Haidt called Wright's book The Moral Animal "masterful" (p. 63). I haven't read the book, but of course it's "on the list."