Viewing entries in
Explorations Outside
The problem with sentences is that we rarely know what they mean without knowing what came before and what came after. Not to mention all the background information. Plus all the non-sentence-like stuff going on. Bigger worlds and smaller worlds. All are being spoken to. Or “thought” to.
In none of these articles were there specific references or links to academic papers. Rather, the authors use markers of scientific authority to present their claims as “facts”.
So a thought can be a process, the outcome of a process, capacity, inchoate intention, opinion, state of beholding, state of awareness, tentative belief, or an act of contemplation. Is there a common theme to these definitions?
Harming others directly through hands-on action is harder on our psyches than causing harm indirectly, either through inaction or action at a remove (e.g., pulling a switch, pressing a button).
To think is to follow a scent, focused and determined. To think is to pursue. To wonder is to become a vessel. To wonder is to be filled.
Patriotism is devotion and loyalty to one’s country. Some say patriotism is the author of all sorts of ills. It easily morphs into its ugly cousin Nationalism, that bully with a superiority complex. By favoring one’s own country over others, patriotism encourages the denigration, hatred or distrust of others, making violations of human rights more acceptable.
Optimism undermines success when it’s based on magical thinking. We engage in magical thinking when we believe happy endings are the result of a will-to-success. Voila! It will happen because I Can Do It.
There are two ways we dehumanize others: focus on their machine-like qualities or stress their animal nature. Mechanistic dehumanization characterizes people as unemotional, cold, and rule-bound, like robots or automatons. Animalistic dehumanization portrays people as overly emotional, impulsive, and childlike.
Concern with status is part of our animal heritage. The regard of others is a scarce resource; therefore, we compete for it. Appealing and available mates are scarce: therefore, we compete for them.
You think you have high standards for discerning the truth of the matter? Then you must be able to imagine counterevidence to your theories of how the world works. At the very least.
In a variation on the “Wason selection task”, students in a research study were asked to test the rule “if a card has D on one side, it has a 3 on the other”. They were then shown four cards, which had either a letter (D or F) or a number (3 or 7) on them, and were asked which cards they would turn over to validate the rule. The correct answer was ...
Sometimes labeling, reducing (making little and laughable), and purposely ignoring complexity can be useful. We don’t have to give our full attention and cognitive resources to everything. We have to choose: does this matter enough?
As previous posts have amply shown, I'm not a big fan of mindfulness as a quasi-religious ideology. I’m not going to propose a specific counter-ideology. Sure, I have beliefs about what makes life worthwhile, what matters, the is and the ought.
All hail the engineer’s approach to problem solving! Recognize a need...Define the problem, the objectives and the constraints...Collect information and data...Generate alternative solutions... Evaluate the consequence of different solutions...
In “The Age of Wonder”, Richard Holmes writes that “the idea of the exploratory voyage, often lonely and perilous, is in one form or another a central and defining metaphor of Romantic science.”
The technocrat is often perceived as uninspired, narrow-minded, overly focused on details, a competent underling. The opposing construct is that of the visionary: charismatic, impassioned, focused on the Big Picture, confident of his vision, a leader.
“To do this may be to be a mere technocrat, rather than a complete human being concerned with the moral implications of what I say and the greatest good of society…” (Solomon M. Fulero and Lawrence S. Wrightsman-2008: Forensic Psychology)
For the sake of argument, I'm reducing the value of social status to its effect on widening the "field of eligibles" - that is, increasing the quality and quantity of potential mates. When in mate-seeking mode, we look around to see who’s available and who we think we can attract. Social comparison is the game. Inequality of mating opportunities is built into this game.
Should every generation be “better off” than the previous generation? What does “better off” mean? Looking only at the middle class and above, I’m assuming recent generations have been able to meet their core needs (sufficient housing, nutrition, healthcare, and education), so what should the current middle class be getting to reflect that they’re doing better than their parents?
Anthropologists scramble to show that the Other’s beliefs aren’t irrational – they make sense and do good explanatory work ... in context. Therapists labor to point out the irrationality of beliefs – that they do not obey strict rules of logic or evidence.