Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Our book for January 2016 is:
Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts

This is one of those important "why" questions.

I'll start by quering whose recommendation this book is �?
I think this is a very good psychology book. After all, we are all teachers, and we need to be able to change false paradigms.

Andreas wrote: "I'll start by quering whose recommendation this book is �?
I think this is a very good psychology book. After all, we are all teachers, and we need to be able to change false paradigms."

This was one I recommended, though I have yet to even begin reading it (we have a new baby, not doing a lot of things right now!) I'll try to start it today, before the rest of January really gets going.

A series of congratulations to you, Dan! :)
I guess we'll get this one rolling. A newborn will need full attention.

I hope everything is well with you and family..

The first pages are very interesting. I think many will like this book. It talks about politicians from the very beginning.

Hmmmm - can't really think of anything politicians are useful for, except possibly fertilizer....

Democracy! We need politicians for democracy!!

Democracy? This is from my book Genesis:
"In market economy, individuals own the means of production. I call these individuals the owners. The problem with market economy is clear: we can not have too many owners in one place at one time. The fight over diminishing resources will drive the owners over the edge, they will bulldoze nature and human rights which they can do legally through a practice of political power, through the political mask that is democracy. Democracy is a performance staged on the setting of common good while in fact what happens behind the curtain is a practice of compromise through social contract: in order to live, it will not kill to hurt a bit. Well, in some places, the policy does kill, poverty increases, apathy becomes a trend, and it gets worse until the powerful gets a wake up call to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor, only to go back to sleep after a long day of working hard, to concerning more about winning the game rather than serving the best of humanity. I don‘t believe these owners can change, because there will always be insecurity, the second-born child of free market, competition. See, after a community conceives the seed of free market, it bears two children, the first child is progress, the second is competition. As long as there is free market, there will be some who have many and some who barely have any. The end result is conflict. For the sake of progress, people have to pay the ultimate price, their security."

Democracy is over-rated.

I have to agree with Elentarri. I'm not one for hyperbolic notions. I'm very careful about what I write.

But to lighten the mood I can be more flexible and say that politics these days has shown itself to be a victim of peace instead of the pioneer of peace, so much so that we can say: There are two types of people: they who produce, and the politicians.

Elentarri wrote: "Democracy is over-rated."

And what is your counter-proposal?

I musn't answer on behalf of Elentarri.

But this is what I think:
Democracy will only work if people are very advanced regarding their mind (they are not influenced by false observation, false beliefs, emotions, maxims).

Most people aren't as smart as we'd want them to be. And it is a lot to ask ONE person to do what is supposed to be done, imagine what we should do to convince MANY PEOPLE to do what's supposed to be done.

Democracy will never work if people don't have good education. And even if they have educations, some of these people will still be influenced by what they want instead of the truth. So, here we are sitting with a few people who propose democracy as a solution while knowing that it is very easy for people to be misled (as long as you have the money, you have exceptional oratory ability; these seductive qualities are one of the very reasons you can't lay your hope on democracy).

People need to be led by scientists, both from the field of natural and social science. We know that common good agrees with science now that I propose there should be no death or dearth. Common good doesn't agree with religions, maxims, and emotions that shout "Justice, justice" without knowing what justice really is. We can formulate justice using science; we can't formulate justice with any other than that, especially with greed lying around! So science is the indefinitely better way to go. Unless, anything else including God finally gives us all the explanations we need (I'd really prefer this; would save me and ALL PEOPLE from all the trouble and fear).

Here's where my idea of "The Umbrella System" in my book comes forth.

From Genesis:
"Market economy doesn‘t work because our society is still divided into countries. What we need to do is to eliminate the nationalities and let all the people do their best under the protection of one umbrella organization. Adopt everything that is good and get rid of the countries and the world will come together as a stateless society under one umbrella organization that is not another form of government."

Don't relate this with the umbrella corporation you see in that zombie movie. This movie ruins everything. Here, the scientific organization will adhere to the principle "no death and dearth", so there'll be no harm done at all. Even with little progress, it's already better than all the government, but we know that science is the one that makes progress so there will be A LOT OF progress.

Andreas wrote: "I musn't answer on behalf of Elentarri.

But this is what I think:
Democracy will only work if people are very advanced regarding their mind (they are not influenced by false observation, false bel..."

Hrm, where to start.

You are proposing that we live under the (benevolent) dictatorship of (natural) philosopher-kings. There is about 2500 years of commentary on this idea, but one need only look back to the various Utopian experiments from the Enlightenment through the gulags to see the real-world upshot: this simply doesn't work. I can't hope to address all the points here (2500 years of commentary on Plato's Republic) but here are a few points.

I suppose you could point at some much more modern examples (post gulags, e.g. modern China, as in the last 25-35 years or so) and claim that there are 'working' governments of a 'benevolent' and 'technocratic' type... but of course a great many would argue that China is the perfect example of why The Republic is simply terrible in practice.

You might argue that the problem here isn't the system, but the people (as you have already done vis-a-vis democracy), but more on that later.

"No death and dearth" is a nice turn of phrase, but you position it as if the problem were that current citizens, politicians, and leaders didn't already hold this as important. If people would "wake up" and see that they should work again death and want, they world would suddenly improve... but of course --along with other goals-- everyone (outside of various cults, ISIS, etc.) pretty much already would argue they are working toward this goal. Ask a leader in China, a hard-core libertarian, a pie-eyed progressive, a socialist... they ALL claim this is their goal. Hell, the Nazi's motivated their actions by saying they were ensuring safety and prosperity (for a "real" people, aka good Nazi Germans.)

So "No death and death" doesn't really help. In fact, this isn't any better than what politicians do right now. People ALWAYS claim they are going to fix things, solve the world's problems, "Make America Great Again(TM)" etc.

But implementing these things is the hard part.

What does it even mean to not have "dearth"? What is you and I disagree on that? In your system, with our new benevolent overlords, what if I honestly disagree with their assessment? Prison? Bullet to the head? Or am I allowed to peacefully disagree?

Okay, say I am allowed to peacefully disagree. What if 1,000,000 of us disagree? Now is it prison and bullets? This isn't democracy, so we can't vote out system, right. If we find it disagreeable enough literally our only option is revolution. So then what? Well... bullets and blood.

This seems a lot like the aforementioned experiments of the 20th century century. Those that continue (e.g. China) have to use all the power of propaganda, channeled ethnic and national hatred and tension, and brutal policing to maintain their "enlightened" rule. (And again, listen to the leaders of China and don't simply dismiss their words as if you know better than them what they believe: everything points to them actually believing their system to be the best possible under the circumstances.)

The fundamental flaw, as I see it, is right in your first few sentences, which I'll paraphrase as, "The problem with people is people." Or, as I once shouted during a somewhat similar verbal argument, "Sure, we wouldn't have all these human problems if it weren't for the goddamned humans." Going all the way back to Plato there has been a vein in thought that has sought to remove the humans by replacing them with a superior species, Homo Philosiphicus or, in this case, Homo Scientificus. Which ignores the glaring facts that (1) there is no such superior species and (2) you're going to end up needed a lot of guns and torture chambers because people have, so far 100% of the time, failed to go along with such plans.

(Sorry, I should have edited this for length, but I ran out of time and have to leave the house!)

Andreas: I may be one of those less than sufficiently educated people but I simply cannot wrap my head about "one umbrella organization that is not another form of government." Anyone who "governs" in whatever way is a form of government. And after spending 20 year working in universities (administratively) I would say that scientists are not the best governors/managers. Too many of them in my experience simply don't, can't or don't want to understand and manage people. One has to like and be fascinated with people and all their idiosyncrasies to want to manage them....and those kinds of people generally opted for the humanities. I've worked for several absolutely great scientist who were also "human-oriented" but found them to be in the minority within that group.
Frankly, I find that beyond a benevolent dictator (who also are far and few) democracy works as well as any form of government, but then that depends on what you need, want and expect from a government I suppose. As for those who want to "Make America Great Again"they seem to have a very skewed view of the world, never mind a lack of humanity for everyone who is in it. I think America could be great if it had it's eyes and ears on the, world instead of just on the USA.

Very interesting.
Thoughts from Elentarri and Nola?

I hate to think I started this, and I hate to wade back in. It was just a quick one-off comment, for both of us probably, but I do think its gotten too fashionable to bad-mouth politicians, and it is doesn't seem like joking like it does with lawyers. I think humans have been around a tremendously long time, and I can't think of any system that I prefer to democracy. I agree that that fly in the ointment is humans, but having us balance ourselves seems to be what works best. Some of the other systems turn out so terribly that democracy comes out looking like a fragile miracle.

Andreas wrote: "Very interesting.
Thoughts from Elentarri and Nola?"

Lots of politically incorrect ones which I am not going to discuss on the internet.

Nola wrote: "I hate to think I started this, and I hate to wade back in. It was just a quick one-off comment, for both of us probably, but I do think its gotten too fashionable to bad-mouth politicians, and it ..."
Are you in politics? Please don't feel alienated, Nola. I was 'stupefied' when Elentarri said the fertilizer thing in our personal chat, because I'm in politics. I started as a member of the medical team and I saw first-hand that Elentarri was right.

Nola wrote: " Some of the other systems turn out so terribly that democracy comes out looking like a fragile miracle."
This is why this discussion takes place.
To see if we can fix it.

Bette wrote: "Andreas: I may be one of those less than sufficiently educated people but I simply cannot wrap my head about "one umbrella organization that is not another form of government." Anyone who "governs"..."

Please don't say this. For all I know, I know less than you do. I know this to be true :)

Andreas wrote: "because I'm in politics." Didn't mean to offend you, but I have yet to find an honest (or useful) politician. They keep promising one thing and then doing something completely different, or goofing off when they are supposed to be working.

It makes democracy (as it works now) completely pointless if you vote for the guy who says he represents your views and then that guy does the complete opposite. Personally I think politicians who do not live up to promises made to voters should be penalized - maybe 80% of their assets liquidized and donated to the voters they lied to (no funny stuff like hiding assets in shell corporations and "non-profit organisations"). They should have just enough to not be dependent on government but not enough to be comfortable (this is a punishment/deterrent after all).

I'm sure some start off bright and eager but that doesn't last long. The first chapter of the book discusses that.

It is a good point to say that these scientists can't lead, but this is not a problem. I'd like to explain why. If they are not human-oriented, I believe it's either because their heads aren't straight or they simply don't have sufficient social skills, and these are the problems.

And Daniel brought up a very well-founded point that corresponds to history and of course the science behind it. But what I meant was different, a system that is better and I believe will work. There are two or more references to Plato's Republic in my work but this concept is neither a regime of philosopher kings nor communism, it is not a regime at all.

I'd like to elaborate and discuss this.

We won't be governed by anyone. We will be governed by nature. Nature represents the truth and the part of reality that matters in time. Democracy fails to deliver its function because people tend to think that they can rule and do whatever they want, by people I mean:
1. People in a country like the Germans who supported Hitler, or people in the smaller scale which is Hitler and the Nazi Party.
2. People in larger scale like a terrorist organization, or Israel, or Palestine, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or my country who think that they can bulldoze life and nature as if they are defending a greater truth. They don't know better. The Earth is moving toward scarcity and you can sense the intentions of these people who kill lives and spend resources: firstly, they are merely defending their countries, next, when it's not enough -- because population grows -- they dominate other countries through secret agendas and economic hit men. They do this through "democracy" which here means "the voice of the government" which says:
1. It is OK to kill in order to satisfy the majority of people (the people which they claim are 'good' for them because these people give them satisfactions).
2. We'll help you overthrow your dictatorship, but in exchange, let my people taste your honey.

How is this different from dictatorships by a bigger group?

HERE IS THE SIN OF DEMOCRACY: THEIR NUMBERS.

Hitler thought his cause was bigger than the Jews because Jews were a minority; democracy took a role here, Hitler wouldn't have been Hitler if he had been alone. The Palestinians think that their cause is bigger than the Israelis; democracy also takes place here. The Iranians think they have the right to war with Saudis; democracy also takes place here.

I have Chinese blood. Chinese and Indians are very deep in their philosophy that they should never kill. Forget Mao, I think that guy should've known better. Does any of us still dare to think that we, homo sapiens, really belong to groups?

"India is set to surpass China as the world's most populous country -- and much sooner than previously thought. China now has a population of 1.38 billion, compared to India's 1.31 billion, according to new data from the United Nations." (CNN; July 30, 2015)

This is the definition of democracy: I'm bigger than you, so my maxims are more important than you.

This is the practice of democracy: I'm not bigger than you but I am stronger, so my maxims are more important than you.

The truth is: Both the practice of democracy and the definition of democracy itself will never work. Even if a nation is bigger in number, it doesn't give them any right to kill anyone or live better than anyone else!

We have the right to a better life than others (which is what free market is about)? Do we have the right to govern others (which is what communism is about)? Prepare for some asskicking from others, which are not necessarily other countries but can be as close as our neighbors. One can argue that the point of democracy and free market is that we get rid of communism, the oppressor who has oppressed us and let that 'invisible hand' bear us progress. Well, who has the right to oppress now? You? Me? China? The US?

I suggest that we do the math instead: find the actual numbers, and see what democracy costs and will cost us.

When people start to think about the majority of their nation or their group, conflict will ensue with the other groups, and remember, people are getting smarter and none of them will want any of you win just as much as you don't want them to win. The smaller group will feel that they has to be stronger to compensate for their lack in supporters and they will kill the big group in their sleep, after that the small group will grow in numbers and become big and replace that big group, and after that a new small underground movement takes place, the cycle continues. And we wonder where evil comes from and why underground movements keep happening. We don't realize that it is democracy that causes it.
As long as we have 'democracy', conflict will never cease. We should roll back the tape and see who invented democracy: it was the oppressed. And the oppressed fought to claim the seat of the oppressor and thought that they had fixed it.

When can we stop this? This is why I propose to get rid of all emblems of nationalities.

And start saving resources.

I will return to my first sentences now:
The 'not another form of government' in my book means 'no one and no group, no matter how strong he/she/they is/are and no matter how big he/she/they is/are, has the right to govern others.'
We can say that it is anti-democracy and anti-communism as it is anti-dictatorship of any kind. As much as I say that market economy is a more aggressive, expansile form of command economy, I say now that democracy is a more aggressive, expansile form of dictatorship.

Nature, on the other hand, has the right to govern us, at least for now. If we can create faster growing crops, this is where we actually, really earn our break.

Democracy (i.e.: free market) is never the answer, just as much as communism isn't the answer.

I think you just completely ignored human nature?

If I may guess, by 'human nature' did you mean 'the tendency toward autocracy'?

If I wrote it clearly, I think it was clear that the system rejects autocracy and any kind of dictatorship. Why? Because science will get rid of subjective values which include autocracy. Nobody will ever be killed or harmed, so, there'll be no fear. Secondly, I'd really want to meet someone who'd still think he/she can have more while it is scientific that resources are limited. It is laziness that causes autocracy.

If anything, I think this system will safeguard humanity, all species, and the universe.

Andreas wrote: "It is a good point to say that these scientists can't lead, but this is not a problem. I'd like to explain why. If they are not human-oriented, I believe it's either because their heads aren't stra..."

Elentarri wrote: "I think you just completely ignored human nature?"

I've got to agree with Elentarri here. Your vision is beautiful... but I fail to see how it could ever work. The first 3 people to pick up sticks, say, "Screw this, give me your land," and this (anti-)system crumbles.

And those three people (and the 100 and 10,000 and 1,000,000 that come after them) *won't* think about it... they are grouping together into clan and tribe and nation-state and religion completely naturally. That isn't a problem of mis-education, that is just how people are (the steep hill of sand, which we never seem to be able to quite climb, is educating people not to be so clannish and sectarian.)

It's all well and good to say we'll get rid of emblems and nationalities... except that the vast majority seem quite attached to these emblems and groups. They will kill and be killed over them; they will quietly teach them to their children, even as they neighbors are dragged away for the same 'crimes'.

Furthermore, to say we won't have any emblems or nationalities is really saying we'll have only one set. (John Gray, amongst others, has written quite succinctly on this; Two Faces of Liberalism is a good, short starting place.) So who get's to choose which set that is? Again, if I and others reject your unified world culture, how will you make use obey? (You reject the idea that some things are worth killing over/some people can be killed, so how do you deal with this?)

Science can't get rid of subjective values. This is just (pardon my use of a strong statement) a ridiculous claim. I feel I need to say it strongly. You seem to want to put some calculus together than says freedom is worth this much and prosperity this much and cultural dynamism this much, etc. and then maximize that function. But you have to decide, in order to put together such and equation, how much e.g. freedom vs. prosperity is weighted. And then freedom vs. dynamism. And then so on. It is subjective how to assign those weights. You've got subjectivity baked right in.

What about the choice of the variables that are included? Do we include "potential for personal realization"? Who decides if that is or is not included? (Never mind how the heck you can measure this.)

Since this is for groups of people, how do we add/average/weight the disparate individual values? How do we decide that?

Finally, what do the terms even mean? What are we measuring in this equation? What does "freedom" mean? Who decides that?

You can have an objective turtle, but it's subjective elephants all the way down :)

You said, "You can have an objective turtle, but it's subjective elephants all the way down :)".
It's very clever! Did you mean to refer to 'the blind men and the elephant' parable?

Sorry for the late response, I finally understand what you mean when you said "Science can't get rid of subjective values. This is just (pardon my use of a strong statement) a ridiculous claim. I feel I need to say it strongly. You seem to want to put some calculus together than says freedom is worth this much and prosperity this much and cultural dynamism this much, etc. and then maximize that function. But you have to decide, in order to put together such and equation, how much e.g. freedom vs. prosperity is weighted. And then freedom vs. dynamism. And then so on. It is subjective how to assign those weights. You've got subjectivity baked right in."

Did you mean "What will happen to our favorite pasttime?"
Well, to this I say: we shouldn't ask much. I never ask much.
We should just genially demand that people understand this in their heart. They still can have fun. There is still freedom for personal values.
We should stress this: we want everyone to have freedom. We want that sci-fi technologies to come true. This is the goal of science, to free people from any kind of "evil" things such as wasting and using sports car. Science will then be able to find the very effective source of energy. Isn't the future fun!
But yes, it is truly a tragedy for me, and for all of us, that until this comes true, there is indeed a line for that freedom, at least for now �.

You were very insightful when you wrote "What about the choice of the variables that are included? Do we include "potential for personal realization"? Who decides if that is or is not included? (Never mind how the heck you can measure this.)"
We should sincerely celebrate every kind of personal realization and measure the validity of it, or at least whether it has the potential to occur in time before we "end".

You wrote, "Furthermore, to say we won't have any emblems or nationalities is really saying we'll have only one set. (John Gray, amongst others, has written quite succinctly on this; Two Faces of Liberalism is a good, short starting place.)"
I was aware of this. That's why the discussion with the leader of the new world in my book:
"Umbrella system?" Junhuan stopped to think. "You mean like one-world economy?"

"No, not one-world economy, not united-world economy, not single-world economy."

"I‘ve never heard of the umbrella system."

"It‘s in my doctoral dissertation."

"Please enlighten me."

"You remember when I said that market economy was the expansile form of command economy?" Aedan asked.

"Yes."

"Market economy doesn‘t work because our society is still divided into countries. What we need to do is �

By the way, you are very spot-on to raise these issues here. Two thumbs up! It takes a long path in the brain circuit to say what you said and it truly amazes me.

Andreas wrote: "If I may guess, by 'human nature' did you mean 'the tendency toward autocracy'?"

Not particularly. Most humans seem to like being sheep even if they find the idea/label offensive.

What I meant is that is sounded like you expect all humans to be logical all the time and to be nice and sweet and altruistic all the time. That is simply not going to happen. That doesn't even happen in Star Trek with the emotionless Vulcans. It sounds like you expect everyone to be the same - not even identical twins manage to be that much alike that they have identical goals and values. Daniel up top managed to cover a whole lot of stuff that I agree with as well. You can have a beautiful system going but there will always be someone who throws a spanner in the works.

Sadly, I agree.

I can simply answer to this with: it is enough, more than enough if all the people know this.

Whether they will, or will not act on it is another matter.

Sooooooooo................. what did everyone think of the book?

It's really good. I like it.

What do you think, Elentarri?

Didn't like it. Didn't even finish it. Too much blathering about USA politics and author bias.

I was about to say that: we shouldn't believe all the "mistakes" things the writers dished out. But the chapters are insightful. I've never read a book like this.

Andreas wrote: " I've never read a book like this."

I recommend any psychology text book - much better than this.

Interesting. Thank you. What about you guys? What do you guys think?

I found it quite interesting for what it was: a collection of anecdotes and insights, and pop-sci reporting on psychological and sociological research of the last several decades. As advertised, there were a few points where I recognized myself and it was interesting/gave me pause to see my own foibles on the printed page.

Elentarri wrote: "Didn't like it. Didn't even finish it. Too much blathering about USA politics and author bias."

It was definitely US-centric: politics, the justice system, etc. But while the players are different elsewhere, I don't imagine the failings and personalities are (there are many incredibly self-righteous politicians in Europe; Japan has a mysteriously high criminal conviction rate of near 99%; etc.)

There may have been some author bias (well: there always is). Was there some point you found especially biased? Or was it the discussion of the author bias that you found objectionable?

I agree with Elentarri. I found the book awful, however I did finish it, although I wanted to quit before the first chapter ended (but my partner convinced me I should see it through).

My biggest issue with it is that the authors framed is as answering the "why" question (i.e the function of these mechanisms), when they did not address this at all. In fact, they brought everything back to cognitive dissonance which addresses "what" (the mechanism) is responsible for the change in outcomes. It was very social psychology oriented and did not address any evolutionary/functional explanations (i.e. why does cognitive dissonance exist at all?). The authors definitely confused mechanistic and functional explanations of behaviour.

The authors also took sort of a 'moral' stance on the topics. That is, there was the underlying tone that they thought that we should recognize our dissonant behaviours/beliefs and address them because that is the best thing to do. However, I suspect that there is a function to dissonance - that people more often than not, present themselves in a positive light - because overall, there are greater benefits for them to do so. However, when benefits are minimal and costs are high [ex. the james frey/Oprah example], 'doing the right thing'/admitting that one was wrong, may actually be less costly and more beneficial than the alternative.

Daniel wrote: "As advertised, there were a few points where I recognized myself and it was interesting/gave me pause to see my own foibles on the printed page."

Exactly. And I read this book because of this. I too tend to use this book to reflect upon our everyday behaviors. The good news (bad news for the book) is people are the ones who are very eager to learn and this is where they become the truth. While I'm not saying that they are immune to self justifications, self justifications are not common occurrences in the science world. The book doesn't take curiosity into account, which can easily be the antidote to self justification, and I think curiosity is the strongest primal instinct in humans (it surpasses the psychological and biological primal instincts).

I compare the discussions between another group's and this group's. Another group cast me away because I wrote what could've happened inside Hitler's mind and for this they accused me of being antisemitic. Science people are definitely different. We are more civil with our responses. We get our emotions out of the equation. While we are definitely not better in any way, the fact that people think that they are the right one tends to have disastrous effect, and -- I've said it and now I'll say it again -- this is practically anti-truth.

Amanda wrote: "My biggest issue with it is that the authors framed is as answering the "why" question (i.e the function of these mechanisms), when they did not address this at all. In fact, they brought everything back to cognitive dissonance which addresses "what" (the mechanism) is responsible for the change in outcomes. It was very social psychology oriented and did not address any evolutionary/functional explanations (i.e. why does cognitive dissonance exist at all?). The authors definitely confused mechanistic and functional explanations of behaviour.

The authors also took sort of a 'moral' stance on the topics. That is, there was the underlying tone that they thought that we should recognize our dissonant behaviours/beliefs and address them because that is the best thing to do. However, I suspect that there is a function to dissonance - that people more often than not, present themselves in a positive light - because overall, there are greater benefits for them to do so. However, when benefits are minimal and costs are high [ex. the james frey/Oprah example], 'doing the right thing'/admitting that one was wrong, may actually be less costly and more beneficial than the alternative."

Very well put. Besides the objective nature of an emotionless fact engine which is several parts of our brain that may eliminate the dissonance thing, where is love in all this? We definitely won't advise anyone to do him/herself any harm if we love him/her.

The book gives me very useful information, and for this I thank the authors. It's certainly a valuable addition to the likes of Robert Cialdini's Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion and Robert Greene's The Art of Seduction.

Going on a tangent...

Andreas wrote: "I think curiosity is the strongest primal instinct in humans (it surpasses the psychological and biological primal instincts).

Although I'd like this to be true, I would have to disagree with you. I think that this would only emerge when survival threats (food, shelter, safety) have all been secured. The reason for this is because in ancestral environments (and even in some cases today), it would have been very dangerous to be curious. Curious about wild animals? Dead. Curious about a new plant you haven't seen before? Dead. Curious about the neighboring tribe? Dead.

However, it may have played a role in sexual selection. I think Geoffrey Miller addressed that in his book The Mating Mind.

What did Geoffrey Miller say?

Could we argue that on some level (perhaps the most profound one), our survival instinct is driven by fear of the unknown (death) and love of what we think we know (probabilities of the/a future). If we know what death is, we'll not be afraid of it anymore, and when the fear/love is gone so is the instinct to survive.

I think survival isn't the strongest primal instinct; if we love something we'll die for it, whether or not the something carries our genetic information. We observe this in people who smoke, speed racers, daredevils, war heroes, masochists, etc. Survival is oftentimes not a constant in determining our actions, it tends to be the variable.

I hope Daniel doesn't mind my mathematical definition of love.

It probably makes us nauseous, but it's just my one attempt to prove the existence of an afterlife, to measure how loving the universe/God really is.

*scrunches face up*
I'm having difficulty with a "loving universe/God" at the moment.

Elentarri wrote: "*scrunches face up*
I'm having difficulty with a "loving universe/God" at the moment."

Exactly. I too hate what I'm seeing.

@ Andreas: Just out of curiosity, how do you define God?

Andreas wrote: "Could we argue that on some level (perhaps the most profound one), our survival instinct is driven by fear of the unknown (death) and love of what we think we know (p..."

This does make some sense, I think. "I know that X gets me food/keeps me safe/prevents freezing water from getting on my babies/etc. and Y... well, I don't know how Y will work, and I'm not going to die to find out." And, as Amanda points out:

Amanda wrote: " Curious about wild animals? Dead. Curious about a new plant you haven't seen before? Dead. Curious about the neighboring tribe? Dead."

However, Andreas, I'm not sure I can agree with the very Buddhist sounding:

Andreas wrote: "If we know what death is, we'll not be afraid of it anymore, and when the fear/love is gone so is the instinct to survive."

I've a good idea what death is, or so I claim. And yet I am afraid of it. You can argue that, therefore, I don't truly understand what death is; but that argument moves into the dubious logic of e.g. religion.

I suppose this also hinges on what your definition of "afraid" is. I'm using it like so: I don't live in fear of death, but I am afraid of it. I don't live in fear of pain, or being imprisoned; but I am afraid of both of these things, too.

And, while it sounds philosophically nice, various historic Buddhists, Stoics, etc. did not seem to loose their instinct to survive, at least as demonstrated by their continued existence to sometimes quite old ages. On the other hand, many people -some presumably very much afraid of death- have sacrificed their lives willingly, though I can't really claim that such people have lost the 'instinct to survive.'

On a bit of a tangent: I suppose that true believers in various death cults, most famously in the last couple of decades various splinters of radical Islam, have -at least by their propaganda- gone happily to 'paradise.' So maybe you are right... though this then raises the issue that forgetting fear and love seems hardly the uncomplicated path to peace it has been represented to be since the importation/co-opting of e.g. Buddhist thinking in the West.

Andreas wrote: "I hope Daniel doesn't mind my mathematical definition of love."

Not sure I see such a thing in the thread...

Amanda wrote: "I agree with Elentarri. I found the book awful, however I did finish it..."

I saw several good things I'd like to reply to in Amanda's review, but I'll separate that from this reply (and will have to come back to it later in the day.)

This is a good discussion with many interesting points. I'll start with replying to older comments and move my way down...

Andreas wrote: "What did Geoffrey Miller say? "

In The Mating Mind his main argument was that our 'big brains' evolved from sexual selection, that is 'smarter' individuals were chosen as mates more often and/or had more successful offspring than individuals with 'smaller brains'. He also goes on to argue that art/music and other creations that have absolutely no bearing on survival were also products of sexual selection. Although this is a very simplified version of his thesis, you can extend this idea to curiosity - those who were curious were better at attracting mates and thus we see the trait today.

Andreas wrote: "I think survival isn't the strongest primal instinct; if we love something we'll die for it, whether or not the something carries our genetic information. We observe this in people who smoke, speed racers, daredevils, war heroes, masochists, etc. Survival is oftentimes not a constant in determining our actions, it tends to be the variable. "

Smoking is a bad example, just because it is a very long term 'death' and even a career smoker only usually succumbs to cancer in their post-reproductive years. We aren't 'programmed' to think that far in the future, really.

As for speed racers, daredevils and war heroes - I would argue that these are higher-risk, but successful strategies at attracting mates and producing children, it isn't always about long-term survival but survival till genes have been propagated (I actually contributed to a chapter coming out in August on the evolutionary basis of heroism - but won't go into details here). There also some data showing that individuals who engage in those kind of behaviours are generally better at handling those risks than those who do not.

Andreas wrote: "If we know what death is, we'll not be afraid of it anymore, and when the fear/love is gone so is the instinct to survive.

I like a lot of the points that Daniel made.

On the whole, I disagree with this statement, but do acknowledge that there are probably some individual cases that work like that. I would think that most cases in which this holds true is when there is no hope to survive. Thus when the instinct to survive is eliminated, one of the few options would be to release fear and embrace death.

However, when there is the possibility of survival, we fight for it [I will exempt suicide here, because these are cases of mechanisms going 'wrong']. Dawkins' idea of the Selfish Gene also suggests that it is our genes that want to survive and reproduce, and do not consult our consciousness...

I'm going to leave this here for now - I don't want to make too many tangential threads at once, haha.

I can sum up all the things in this head and say 'I don't really know' but I believe we will be able to eventually understand it.
Elentarri wrote: "@ Andreas: Just out of curiosity, how do you define God?"
I don't know for sure, but right now, contrary to how religious people define God, I don't think God has a predetermined plan. There is no master plan.

What Daniel said was very insightful, but again right now, it will be premature for me to come forth with any ideas. I wish I majored in physics.

Thank you, Amanda, for the explanations about The Mating Mind. I think I read about the concept sometime in the past, is this concept his? It's amazing.

Amanda said "There also some data showing that individuals who engage in those kind of behaviours are generally better at handling those risks than those who do not."
So they are actually exercising their better survival instincts for a better cause. This is a very good point.

Amanda said "I would think that most cases in which this holds true is when there is no hope to survive. Thus when the instinct to survive is eliminated, one of the few options would be to release fear and embrace death."
I need to clarify that when there is no hope to survive (a thoroughly sad example could be in terminally-ill patients), fear doesn't play the role here as much as love does, people are happy to accept things, and again, it lessens their survival instincts whereas they still don't know what will happen.
The scenarios when there is no hope to survive is just a small example where fear/love plays the role.

My big question: do you think we'll be able to explain all things? What do you guys think?
Biology explained through physics, geoscience through math? When we say love, fear, we are saying terms that can be explained through mathematics.
If we say we can't, this is when we become supernatural/religious, an example would be what happens to the concept of nonlocality.
Are we wasting our time studying science?

One last comment, as I never did follow up after saying I would respond to some of Amanda's comments.

Amanda wrote: "I agree with Elentarri. I found the book awful, however I did finish it, although I wanted to quit before the first chapter ended (but my partner convinced me I should see it through).

My biggest..."

I hear what you're saying re: "why" vs "what". I didn't have the same expectation of what the book would (attempt to) do, so did not have the same issue; my feeling about the book is still pretty positive. However, your raising the point does make me reconsider somewhat; I do wish there had been a more explicit separation/addressing of the "what" vs. "why."

Amanda wrote: "It was very social psychology oriented and did not address any evolutionary/functional explanations (i.e. why does cognitive dissonance exist at all?)"

I am always pretty dubious when others attempt evolutionary psychology (I myself find that I happily explain things this way myself, so I clearly have a double standard.) It often seems like variations of "just so" stories, and choosing between alternative explanations seems often a matter of taste. On top of that, I'm not sure how parse the question, "Why do we have cognitive dissonance?" because I'm not sure what you mean by, "why."

Hear me out :)

If you're asking, "to what end does cognitive dissonance serve?" then I think you have step back and ask, "why must it serve a purpose?" It may merely be the way our brain ended up working. I.e., in the overused computer analogy, you have two contradictory 'truths' and this 'error' gets kicked up the stack until something resolves it. In that way of thinking, there isn't really a "why" question to be addressed at all.

Amanda wrote: "The authors also took sort of a 'moral' stance on the topics."

Again, I think I was a bit blind to this as an issue, since I also take a somewhat 'moral' stance on this. I'm not shaken in that, particularly: I could offer a lengthy justification (everything I write ends up lengthy...) for why this is a quote-unquote moral issue. That said, the authors did little to justify that, and arguably they could/should have. It may seem obvious that in modern times this is a big issue with massive implications because the outcomes of our mistakes, misapprehensions, self-delusions, clannishness and whatnot are amplified by our technology... obvious to me. But the 'moral calculus' around that is definitely in need of arguing/explanation.

In any case, both these points made me rethink the book a bit; thank you for that.

No problem Daniel :). I was probably harsh on the book because I am already familiar with most of the ideas presented. Although the authors did use some pretty interesting and relevant examples, which I enjoyed.

As for some fun points that were raised...

Daniel wrote: "If you're asking, "to what end does cognitive dissonance serve?" then I think you have step back and ask, "why must it serve a purpose?" It may merely be the way our brain ended up working. I.e., in the overused computer analogy, you have two contradictory 'truths' and this 'error' gets kicked up the stack until something resolves it. In that way of thinking, there isn't really a "why" question to be addressed at all."

You are completely right - it could be an error. However, the authors seem to argue it as a universal trait. Not only that, they state that it readily affects much of our decision making. With these two points, I'm less inclined to think of it as an error and more along the lines of an adaptation - I would speculate that it helps us adapt to changing environments, allows us to present ourselves in a positive light, and return some sort of benefits to us (in most cases at least). However these ideas are purely speculative.

Andreas wrote: "My big question: do you think we'll be able to explain all things? "

Haha, certainly is a big question. My overall answer is no - there will always be errors, as Daniel said, and when it comes to behaviour there are so many interactions and individual circumstances which will make it hard to explain absolutely everything. However, I do think we will be able to explain a whole lot - pretty much everything that affects a large-ish group of people. The specific individual differences are the tough part.

I absolutely don't think science is a waste of time - it helps us understand the world we live in and make changes accordingly. So far it has helped us increase lifespan, quality of life and many other aspects. To me, that is worth it.

OK this has been mind blowing :). Daniel, if you recall the discussion here:
/topic/show/...

Joseph, who is -- I believe -- a marine biologist, demanded an explanation about QM. He said -- I quote -- "And can we give an example to satisfy my curiosity that can explain why the operation is non-commutable for QM. Could we perhaps think of some linear equations represented by the matrix equations that might give a clue why they physically are not commutable. Is the non-commutability in QM as simple as a matrix algebra dimension inequality? Probably not ...."

So I think it happens again here. LOL.

I think Elentarri was concerned about the same thing: the why question. And Amanda wrote it out loud:
"I agree with Elentarri. I found the book awful � My biggest issue with it is that the authors framed is as answering the "why" question (i.e the function of these mechanisms), when they did not address this at all. In fact, they brought everything back to cognitive dissonance which addresses "what" (the mechanism) is responsible for the change in outcomes. It was very social psychology oriented and did not address any evolutionary/functional explanations (i.e. why does cognitive dissonance exist at all?). The authors definitely confused mechanistic and functional explanations of behaviour."

It happened again here. In one corner we have Daniel, a physicist, and in another corner we have Elentarri, Amanda, and myself I think, LOL.

I am a great admirer of our beloved Professor Carl Sagan. And I can only smile imagining the debate that could've happened between him (a physicist) and his wife, Lynn Margulis (a biologist). :p