I suspect you are right about that brink, with quantum computing, graphene product development, and all the other game changers coming down the pike, a revolution in human relations would seem imminent. Discussing the possibilities here, a real pleasure. Time to watch Leonard Cohen in his London concert. Santa was good.
On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:32:28 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > Max had a good time with a 6 year-old sheep dog (who insisted I threw > her ball) whilst I had a chat with a nice guy 'escaping' family. > Daughters have entered Xmas spirit - I 'forced' them to read some > Molly - and ended 30 year war! Max is a massive treat with hardly a > bad bone in him - grandson much the same. > > There's free economics book here - > http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf > - it's faulty but at least throws some alternatives our way. The guy > is more rigs' side of the political fence than me but anyone with any > sense surely knows GOP/Demo Left/Right is the problem not about > alternative solutions. > > On 25 Dec, 15:55, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > What I'm after is is something better than virtue ethics Molly - the > > psychologists miss the point that language already posits multiple > > meanings. People rely on assessment of character and this turns out > > to be a dreadful fiction.. We end up in fantasies of the competitive > > advantage of creativity Allan describes (or Habermas). Ariely gives > > me a big feeling that we already knew his 'discovery' and Molly's > > critique above - in short we could do better than this in here. My > > own feeling is we're on the brink of cracking the arguments open to > > see new outcomes. In most of the games played in classrooms like > > 'negotiation' someone reasonably bright (there turn out not to be > > many) can see the fault lines in the game - much as in Molly's 'kind > > of rubbish' above. > > > > My thesis is we may be far enough down the road to a human science now > > for the material and its thinking to challenge the current status quo > > as science once challenged 'the church'. Much academic work seems > > part of the wrong side to me in insisting we have to be so ludicrously > > clever to do it and basing what can be done in politesse and etiquette > > that prevent us calling a spade a spade to distinguish such from a > > shovel (important as shovels serve a different purpose). I think we > > can already embody a lot of clever work in machines that can't break > > rules and would encourage us to move away from chronic worship of the > > golden calf and fear that cleverness is just how we are governed by > > flim-flam. Must walk dog. > > > > On 25 Dec, 12:25, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder if the researchers took into account that a truly ethical > person > > > would not participate in the kind of rubbish that presents predictable > > > limited outcomes as fact. There may, indeed, be a correlation between > > > creativity and ethics, but I suspect it is more inclusive and requires > > > examination without the limits designed to define results. I keep > going > > > back to the model of spiral dynamics, one that allows and understands > that > > > we all move up and down and between memes during our lives given the > > > circumstances of our experience. Someone who does not have enough > money > > > for food may cheat in this experiment more than someone who has never > > > known financial stress or hunger. Here is a pretty good explanation > of the > > > original Graves material, although I've seen better, its the best I > could > > > find online this > > > morning. > http://www.edumar.cl/documentos/SD_version_for_constellation5.pdf > > > > > On Monday, December 24, 2012 5:58:21 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > > > > A free paper with the ideas is at > > > >http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/11-064.pdf > > > > I was interested because I find professional ethics and religious > > > > morality collapse under circumstances of self-interest and become > > > > rationalisation. WE need creative solutions - but there is a dark > > > > side to creativity. > > > > > > On 24 Dec, 22:03, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone — > > > > > Especially Ourselves" by Dan Ariely asks a seemingly simple > question — > > > > > “is dishonesty largely restricted to a few bad apples, or is it a > more > > > > > widespread problem?” — and goes on to reveal the surprising, > > > > > illuminating, often unsettling truths that underpin the > uncomfortable > > > > > answer. Like cruelty, dishonesty turns out to be a remarkably > > > > > prevalent phenomenon better explained by circumstances and > cognitive > > > > > processes than by concepts like character. > > > > > > > Work like this is challenging traditional economics - the genre is > > > > > 'behavioural economics'. My own take on this book and a lot of > work > > > > > from brain science and history is that we are at a tipping point > in > > > > > respect of the possibility of a human science. I'd like to see a > > > > > broader literature take up this challenge beyond current drivel on > > > > > black and white hats. > > > > > > > So what are you guys reading? > --
