New Topic: Science-based Fundamentalism
Locked
New Topic: Science-based Fundamentalism
 
|
Here you go, Owen. I propose this example of a particular class of social dynamic to used as a case study for developing science-based explanations for human behavior patterns, rather than religious ones. I believe there are possibilities with the first and second categories that you suggest below, and particularly the Central Limit Theorem.
This is an especially interesting study candidate, seeing how the many parts of the rest of the world are so *hugely* for stoning. What's different about us? And don't tell me Muslims are smarter than us, they aren't. Different, yes. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27484976/ --Doug PS: No ranting about my bad spelling, please... On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote: People: I'm thinking Freakonomics here. Statistics. Human behavior patterns. You know, Science! ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: New Topic: Science-based Fundamentalism
|
|
Let me add to the mix a book that was published more than fifty years
ago by the social psychologist, Leon Festinger, called "When Prophecy Fails." Festinger was permitted to observe a doomsday cult (he told them who he was, and why he was there, and still they welcomed him) which believed that the world was coming to an end on a given date. Date came and went, no end of world. Did the cultists desert their cult? No, they told him they'd misinterpreted the signs, and that the end of the world would come on a later, though imminent, date. Lather, rinse, repeat. Certain members fell away after a while, but a solid core (the base?) kept on believing. Festinger had some interesting theories about cognitive dissonance and the persistence of belief in the face of contrary evidence. I've thought of this book often the last few months. PMcC On Nov 1, 2008, at 4:53 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: > Here you go, Owen. I propose this example of a particular class of > social dynamic to used as a case study for developing science-based > explanations for human behavior patterns, rather than religious ones. > I believe there are possibilities with the first and second categories > that you suggest below, and particularly the Central Limit Theorem. > > This is an especially interesting study candidate, seeing how the many > parts of the rest of the world are so *hugely* for stoning. What's > different about us? And don't tell me Muslims are smarter than us, > they aren't. Different, yes. > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27484976/ > > --Doug > > PS: No ranting about my bad spelling, please... > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> > wrote: >> People: I'm thinking Freakonomics here. Statistics. Human behavior >> patterns. You know, Science! >> >> Thus far I've heard only rants on religion, stupidity, and probably >> bad spelling. >> >> Is there *any* reason for the close vote (especially in the 2000 >> 2004 2008 elections). >> >> Here are a few possibilities: >> - Parties form attractors. >> - Classism. >> - Single Issue voters. >> - Marketing to a tie. >> - The Central Limit Theorem. >> >> This is especially interesting seeing how the rest of the world is >> so *hugely* for Obama. What's different about us? And don't tell me >> Europeans are smarter than us, they aren't. Different, yes. But >> they elect assholes as often as we do. >> >> I heard an interesting talk about how historians look at this: >> http://radioopensource.org/a-longer-view-of-2008-historian-gordon- >> wood/ >> One of his points is that: "I think that all of these candidates >> will find that they have been carried along by forces that they can >> scarcely understand." >> >> -- Owen >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org active, restless spirit, equally alive to joy and sorrow, should only be organized dust." Mary Wollstonecraft ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: New Topic: Science-based Fundamentalism
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
On Nov 1, 2008, at 2:53 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
> Here you go, Owen. I propose this example of a particular class of > social > dynamic to used as a case study for developing science-based > explanations > for human behavior patterns, rather than religious ones. > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27484976/ I think I'm missing something here. A horror occurred. Apparently due to religious extremism/fundamentalism. Are you saying that the all idiocy is of this sort? That it is pointless to wonder why the elections are so close when there would seem to be good reason for one candidate to be much preferred? That the election is close due to fundamentalism? > I believe there > are possibilities with the first and second categories that you > suggest > below, and particularly the Central Limit Theorem. > > This is an especially interesting study candidate, seeing how the > many parts > of the rest of the world are so *hugely* for stoning. What's > different > about us? And don't tell me Muslims are smarter than us, they aren't. > Different, yes. Er, am I to assume that fear of Islam, or possibly Muslims, is the core reason for the close race? Or is this just an example of just how horrid the world can get? I understand that, at least. I appreciate being fed up with this sort of horror. But, getting back to voting, wouldn't that lead to wanting more enlightened leadership? Or maybe it just gets folks mad enough to go to war to try to stop it. Looks like a tie in terms of who to vote for. Oh, wait ... > --Doug > > PS: No ranting about my bad spelling, please... My bad .. I included that quip as an indication of the extreme range of reasons we were groping for. -- Owen On Nov 1, 2008, at 2:53 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: > Here you go, Owen. I propose this example of a particular class of > social > dynamic to used as a case study for developing science-based > explanations > for human behavior patterns, rather than religious ones. I believe > there > are possibilities with the first and second categories that you > suggest > below, and particularly the Central Limit Theorem. > > This is an especially interesting study candidate, seeing how the > many parts > of the rest of the world are so *hugely* for stoning. What's > different > about us? And don't tell me Muslims are smarter than us, they aren't. > Different, yes. > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27484976/ > > --Doug > > PS: No ranting about my bad spelling, please... > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Owen Densmore > <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> People: I'm thinking Freakonomics here. Statistics. Human behavior >> patterns. You know, Science! >> >> Thus far I've heard only rants on religion, stupidity, and probably >> bad >> spelling. >> >> Is there *any* reason for the close vote (especially in the 2000 >> 2004 2008 >> elections). >> >> Here are a few possibilities: >> - Parties form attractors. >> - Classism. >> - Single Issue voters. >> - Marketing to a tie. >> - The Central Limit Theorem. >> >> This is especially interesting seeing how the rest of the world is so >> *hugely* for Obama. What's different about us? And don't tell me >> Europeans >> are smarter than us, they aren't. Different, yes. But they elect >> assholes >> as often as we do. >> >> I heard an interesting talk about how historians look at this: >> http://radioopensource.org/a-longer-view-of-2008-historian-gordon-wood/ >> One of his points is that: "I think that all of these candidates >> will find >> that they have been carried along by forces that they can scarcely >> understand." >> >> -- Owen >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: New Topic: Science-based Fundamentalism
|
|
Same theme, Owen. No change. You are looking for scientific explanations for fundamentalist human behavior, rather than religious ones.
I am, in my own subtle way, suggesting that this endeavor is unrealistic; that behavior rooted in religious dogma can have no other explanation than that it is rooted in dogma. Think of it as a fundamental lemma, if you must. (Yes, I know: clever). No Central Limit Theorem. No stochastic ABM rules. No scientific proof. Simply that when people allow themselves to become brainwashed, whatever particular flavor of dogma that they have been taught to believe as inviolet truth will become the overriding predictor of their behavior. A much more interesting question, IMO, is why people have such a fondness, almost a need to be told what they should think. Not, given that they have been bequeathed the guiding light they seem to crave, why they act the way they do. Belief in the divine imperative of the right to stone 13 year old rape victims is based in religious dogma. Belief that Barack Obama is a Muslim, or even more importantly is *not* a "Good Christian" is fed by religious dogma. Check this out: http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/mccainpalin-supporters-let-their-rac Now, instead of looking for a scientific explanation of why those folks are acting this way, perhaps we should be investigating why it has been socially acceptable to teach people that this type of behavior is acceptable? --Doug On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: New Topic: Science-based Fundamentalism
|
|
Here I am, staring into the "Doug's Breakfast" again! I just can't help
myself! > Same theme, Owen. No change. You are looking for scientific > explanations for fundamentalist human behavior, rather than religious > ones. I think Owen is looking for scientific explanations for why the election (appears to be) so close, given how much evidence there is for the need for an extreme change in our government, not for the motivation of the many (but not all) of McCain/Palin supporters who come from a religious fundamentalist perspective. I'd estimate no more than 50% of the Red voters are voting Red for these (religious/racist) reasons. For example, my own parents are neither Christian nor Racist, yet they still believe that liberal excesses are more dangerous than what we have just been through (8 or 28 years, depending on your measure). I don't get it, but I DO know that you can vote Red without being a religious fundamentalist. My parents may be the exception, but I don't think so. Hell, *I* voted for Reagan because in my own limited view/ignorance in my youth thought I was shutting down this very same thing (in the person of Jimmy Carter) in favor of a good honest actor who didn't speak southern and didn't invoke "Christian Values". > No Central Limit Theorem. I was more than half serious when I invoked the Lagrange model of orbital stability in two-body gravitational systems. I also believe that some application of the central limit theorem might be invoked as well. Some sampling theory might help too. For example: When one side (or the other) mobilizes and gets a groundswell of support, it is not surprising that the other side will react in kind. To the extent that everyone operates (politically) on a continuum between far left and far right (which I find a sad and probably self-reinforcing way of being) and can be polarized by greed or fear (or rhetoric) away from the center, it does seem that we would get a central-limit-esque bimodal distribution. I think this is why candidates often try to appear "centrist" during an election, to try to pick up part of the "other hump", while the radicals on both sides try to polarize the issues to get those humps separated cleanly. I prefer a higher-dimensional model (like as many dimensions as there are issues? which if you press me, I will probably claim is uncountable or fractal or something) or at least the two-body orbit model. In that one, I personally tend to wander between L4 and L5 with only the occasional visit to L1 and with little or no interest in L3 or L2.. the issues are almost never so simple. For example, I can believe in the right to own guns without wanting (most) people to own guns and I can believe in the right to have abortions without wanting (most) people to have abortions, or the right for individuals to create and apply wealth without wanting them to use that to inhibit other's ability to do the same, etc. ad nauseum. > No stochastic ABM rules. Doug's question about "why people have a fondness, almost a need to be told what they should think" is part of "flocking" (more aptly packing, herding, banding?) instincts, and *does* suggest some stochastic ABM rules might capture at least *some* of the results we see. > No scientific proof. We still have little or no data in this realm (as far as I know), so it is hard to imagine more than some scientific models semi-validated only by anecdotal evidence and scant/weak data sources (polls, election results). So I agree, no scientific "proof" of much at all. > Belief in the divine imperative of the right to stone 13 year old rape > victims is based in religious dogma. A niggling point, but I think said "stoners" believe it is their *imperative* not their *right*... a subtle but important point. If we take it to be them acting on their "right" then it is easy to judge them wrongly. > Belief that Barack Obama is a Muslim, or even more importantly is > *not* a "Good Christian" is fed by religious dogma. > > Check this out: > > http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/mccainpalin-supporters-let-their-rac > > Now, instead of looking for a scientific explanation of why those > folks are acting this way, perhaps we should be investigating why it > has been socially acceptable to teach people that this type of > behavior is acceptable? like "racism" or "classism". I think it is very natural for territorial herd/pack/band animals to treat others of their own species which are not identifiable as of their group, as enemies. I wish we had transcended this by now, but it doesn't surprise me that we go to it. And I agree with Doug that we should be looking at this more carefully, and looking at it across the board. We should, for example, throw Political Correctness into the blender with Religious Fundamentalism before we pour it into the analyzers and spread it in the petri dishes. I think the deeper question is "what makes us act in ways that do not appear to have much if any survival value?" or "where is the enlightenment in enlightened self-interest?". And I think the answer(s) might be somewhere in the difference of (and tension between?) survival of the individual and survival of the group (and of the species too I suppose). carry on, - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: New Topic: Science-based Fundamentalism
|
Administrator
|
Very well said, Steve. I probably should have been a bit more clear
about my interest in the close vote. After the 2004 election, and the gawd awful disappointment that I felt: - That the dems would have such a horrid candidate - That idiots would still vote for Bush .. I started healing by looking for what was really happening. I found this critter: http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/october6/ onenation-106.html It pointed out that rather than being divided, we're not .. we're simply centrist and that creates a close election by its very nature. Look -- I understand our natural desire to consider "them" all idiots. But we have family and friends who are "them". I was just chatting with my friend Boni Armijo, who's dad/family own Johny's Cash Store, across from our casita. We talked about the election. Boni (who's also on the city's development council) was clearly thoughtful about the election. Last time he voted for Bush. This time, he's for Obama. I *really* respect the Armijo family and the Rios family and others who live in my neighborhood. They are considerate, thoughtful, warm people. They have gently accepted my family into their town. They have great good manners. Yet we here on this list consider them "them". So rather than accepting fundamentalism as our great divide, I tend to think we are very centrist, and indeed, this is likely the cause of our close vote. Thus my quip on the Central Limit Theorem. In an earlier post, it was assumed that I did not have particularly wide experience of the "rest of us". I don't accept that. I was raised in the south, with all the Bubbas. I worked as a kid on construction gangs with "them". My last two years of high school were in a Benedictine Abby because I was thrown out of all the high schools I attended before that. I attended Georgia Tech. I met my first yankees there. I spent two years in the Peace Corps in Ghana, West Africa. I was humbled by their sophistication. I traveled widely in Europe. I was amazed by their world. I went to grad school at Syracuse, up state NY. I was busted for political activity. I've had dogs set upon me for thinking differently. I tripped with Tim Leary. I lived 6-8 years in a Buddhist community in Rochester NY. I rode the .com boom/bust in Silly Vally. I attend St. Francis cathedral. And on it goes. And I still find that "them" is "me". -- Owen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: New Topic: Science-based Fundamentalism
|
|
Owen
Very well said, Steve. I probably should have been a bit more clear about my interest in the close vote.Actually, I think you were clear. I think it was the rest of us that took one implication of your question and ran all over the place with it. That is why I felt compelled to try to get back to the original point you were trying to make and to encourage discussion around. And on it goes. And I still find that "them" is "me". "We have met the enemy and they is us!" - PogoYes, I think this is very important to remember. I think it sometimes undermines our conviction when things get tough. We can't see our "opponent" as "enemy" which makes it harder to fight "to the death". I think this is *why* there *is* a tendency to vilify the "opponent"... go generate the self-rightous energy required to fight hard (or dirty) enough to win. In general, I would say that the Conservative Party and followers have been more able to obtain this stance. A lot of my talk amongst my peers is to try to get them NOT to take the low road of hate, judgement, intolerance as a mechanism for developing the self-rightous energy and conviction that can help carry you through a tough fight (including the tough position of being the loser). I am also saddened by the replacement of statesmen with politicians at all levels. Not only have the candidates for our high offices degenerated to spouting whatever rhetoric it takes to be elected, the common voter often takes the same stance. We do not often enough discuss the real issues and their implications thoroughly and thoughfully, but rather grab the most extreme of them, pick a very one-sided view of them, and then try to ram them down the throat of anyone not agreeing. I would like to postulate that we have a tension between Centrist idealism... at some level we all just want to get along and find reasonable solutions to our problems... but at another level, we can be whipped up by our greed and fear into thinking that to get what we want (or avoid what we fear) we need to take an extreme position. I still hold that these are consequences of a two-party system. Every issue has two answers and many issues where there is little or no disagreement between the dominant parties never get addressed. Third and fourth parties (when viable) help to open up questions the dominant parties of the moment are unwilling to address. This is why I liked having Perot and Nader in the mix, even if Nader somehow became the 00 spoiler for Gore. The Greens and the Libertarians have a lot of important points to put forth, but we will hardly listen to them unless they have a viable place in national elections. BTW... I *don't* assume that the entire constituency of this list is Pro-Obama or Anti-McCain. It seems likely to be heavily loaded that way... like the TED conference when one of the speakers asked for a show of hands and there was only a smattering of Republicans. I also assume there is a strong contingent of independent thinkers who *only* identify with one party or the other as a "lesser of evils" I'm off for a trip to the Dixon Studio tour. Beautiful day for it! - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: New Topic: Science-based Fundamentalism
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
Very well said, Owen.
;-} As the "assumer" who suggested that you had an unBubba-fied background, I submit my heartfelt apologies. Now, back to your original question: "Why is this race so close?", my opinion is that religion is the major factor. And yes, I correlate religion with a lack of intelligence. IMO, either less intelligent people are attracted to fundamentalist-style religion, or religion makes smart people stupid. Don't know which it is; don't care -- the effect is the same. Consider this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28/palin-claimed-dinosaurs-a_n_130012.html
Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of
Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in
casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth
created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say
most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.
I truly believe that the Republicans among us are attracted to this Fundamentalist "Christian" orientation. It is the Republican party that has traditionally courted the conservative Christian component of our society, and this is why I believe the race is as close as it is. In suggesting this, I am disagreeing with Steve's assessment that only 50% of the Red voters are voting Red for religious/racist reasons, I suspect that it is a much higher percentage who are motivated to vote against a black Democrat for these reasons. I do agree with something that Roger said earlier -- that there really isn't much difference (effectively) between between the two parties. The political system is large, inefficient, and hugely susceptible to corruption. I fully expect that if Obama wins, four (or eight) years latter we will find ourselves disgusted with the corrupt, inefficient, back-biting Democratic party. I myself am an Independent, I do not believe that the two-party system serves our best interests. Since Owen has proposed a study in this general topic area, I'd like to add my own suggestion for a research topic: what percentage of the US population is motivated to vote for the reasons demonstrated by this crowd: http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/mccainpalin-supporters-let-their-rac and why has our society tolerated and fostered their belief set? --Doug On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote: Very well said, Steve. I probably should have been a bit more clear about my interest in the close vote. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: New Topic: Science-based Fundamentalism
|
|
Douglas Roberts wrote:
> I truly believe that the Republicans among us are attracted to this > Fundamentalist "Christian" orientation. > Coming late to this discussion I just had to throw in a monkey wrench. Specifically, a Scopes monkey wrench. The prosecutor of the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 was William Jennings Bryan, three-time Democratic Party nominee for President and Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson. In your lifetime, Doug, the Republicans have attracted fundamentalists, but before the Democratic party change in the sixties, the Democrats were the fundamentalists. Common factors are the American South and populism. -- Ray Parks [hidden email] Consilient Heuristician Voice:505-844-4024 ATA Department Mobile:505-238-9359 http://www.sandia.gov/scada Fax:505-844-9641 http://www.sandia.gov/idart Pager:800-690-5288 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: New Topic: Science-based Fundamentalism
|
|
Thanks, Ray. I am aware of the Scopes Monkey Trial, was taught it in school.
I am neither a Democrat, nor a Republican -- I am an Independent. I agree with Roger's earlier assessment that there is effectively little difference between the Reds and the Blues. I believe a two -party system is not in our best interest because it is a system that clearly promotes demagoguery and blind ideology, and just like Orwell's 1984, the ideology can change, but Big Brother is seldom your friend. --Doug On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Parks, Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |