Alleged problems with small attorneys riding big elephants

I've previously written about Jonathan Haidt's approach to human moral psychology. His approach is termed the "Social Intuitionist Model" of moral motivation and it suggests that

moral behaviors are typically the product of multiple levels of moral functioning, and are usually energized by the "hotter" levels of intuition, emotion, and behavioral virtue/vice. The "cooler" levels of values, reasoning, and willpower, while still important, are proposed to be secondary to the more affect-intensive processes.

Haidt has used the metaphor of an intellectually-nimble lawyer riding on top of a huge emotion-permeated elephant to illustrate his counter-intuitive approach, suggesting that the small articulate lawyer on top often lacks meaningful control over the elephant. Moral judgments are usually dominated by emotions such as empathy and disgust (the strength of these is represented by the big-ness of the elephant). In short, Haidt is quite sympathetic to David Hume's suggestion that moral reasoning is essentially "the slave of the passions." In the March 25, 2010 edition of Nature (available here), Paul Bloom expressed concern that something important has been left out of Haidt's model. In reaction, Haidt defended himself against Bloom’s attack (see below), indicating that Bloom (whose work Haidt admires, for the most part) has misconstrued Haidt’s Social Intuitionist Model. I believe that summarizing this exchange between Haidt and Bloom sharpens the focus on the meaning of Haidt’s Social Intuitionist Model. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingAlleged problems with small attorneys riding big elephants

Stories stick, while data is discounted

Over at Andy Goodman's Free Range Journal, we hear more evidence that "Stories stick," while "data is discounted." At this site we quite often see this problem in some of our comments. Someone who was taught a Bible story at a young age will ignore great quantities of statistical data in order to save the (Bible) story. The scientific story of evolution all-too-often wins when pitted against Adam and Eve. Even though natural selection offers an elegant story, it is not as available to many people as the bible story against which it competes. Then there's no contest between the scientific data versus the Bible story. Perhaps scientists need to develop better story frames if we are to have any chance against Adam and Eve. Same issue with Sarah Palin, who offers simple stories that stick with her followers. What chance does a statistics-wielding politician have against such simple stories as "Drill Baby Drill" or "America is the World's Greatest Country"? In this earlier post, I pointed out the correlation between innumeracy and rejection of the scientific theory of evolution.

Continue ReadingStories stick, while data is discounted

Deeply and ineffably religious, on the couch

One of the biggest mistakes one can make when trying to figure out people, in my opinion, is to assume that conscious thoughts in the form of words do most of the work of cognition. I believe this has it upside down, and that 90% of the engine our cognitive engine is not available to consciousness--it is subconscious and not available for introspection. It is a huge foundational mistake to ignore Freud's recognition that a large and powerful portion of the mind is not conscious. This is an especially important thing to note for those who cling to the notion that they can explain human behavior on the basis that it is generally rational. This mistake is compounded by the fact that humans are exquisitely good at confabulating, both consciously and unconsciously. We drum up ex-temporary reasons for our decisions post facto. We don't really know why we do the things we do but we brashly claim that we do know why we do the things we do.

Continue ReadingDeeply and ineffably religious, on the couch

Sperm Wars

Based on new evidence, it shouldn't be long before Las Vegas oddsmakers start accepting wagers on the intense battles that have now been observed within the sex organs of females. According to the March 19, 2010 issue of Science (available online only to subscribers; it is page 1443 in the print edition), sexual selection continues on in the most intimate of arenas in at least some species in which the females sometimes mate "more than once in quick succession, filling their reproductive tract with rival sperm that must compete for access to the unfertilized eggs." The Science article, by Elizabeth Pennisi, is entitled "Male Rivalry Extends to Sperm and Female Reproductive Tract." According to Pennisi, two recent studies have shown that the seminal fluid of some ants and bees contains "toxins that impede rival sperm." She also notes that some female fluids seem to counter these toxins. The studies cited in science indicates that "the competition between males continues in a very fierce way inside the female."

Continue ReadingSperm Wars

The genesis of human cooperation

In the special "Origins" issue of Discover Magazine, evolutionary anthropologist Michael Tomasello discusses some of his findings based upon his most recent book, Why We Cooperate. The article is not yet available online. The author of this article (Carlin Flora) opens her interview with Tomasello by pointing out that the vast majority of projects done in today's world are done in collaboration with others. What makes humans such collaborative beings? Actually, willingness to collaborate is a quality that clearly separates us from the other great apes, says Tomasello. He argues that the reason we cooperate so well with each other is our deep desire to help others and work with them toward shared goals. He was startled to find the degree of the "natural tendency" of young children (aged 1 to 3 years old) to cooperate with each other, but also to demand that newcomers to a group follow the rules of their games. Tomasello sketches out what he thinks is the origin of cooperative behavior

I think cooperative behavior started with obligate collaborative foraging, which is just a fancy way of saying that we need one another's help to get food. If we have to work as a team to get food, all of a sudden you're really important to me, and I am motivated to make sure you get your fair share so the you will want to team up again. Were interdependent.
Tomasello argues that the "second booster rocket of our evolution of cooperation" was the development of social norms-agreements about how to act.
Humans have conformity norms. In our studies we will show a kid how a game works, and then we'll have a puppet come in who plays the game wrong. The children will say "no, no, no! This is not how you do it! You do it like this!" But conventions apply only to "us" in the group; it is "we" who prepare our food in this way and dress in this way. It's part of our identity that we do it like this. In contrast to those people on the other side of the river; they talk funny, they dress funny, the discussing things and we don't care whether they behave in this way are not.
How powerful is the human instinct toward cooperation? "We conduct our wars with armies that are highly cooperative." The big question for Tomasello is whether we can scale up our willingness to cooperate, which evolved in small groups. We haven't completely ruined the world yet, and "we are still here."

Continue ReadingThe genesis of human cooperation