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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> 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
