Re: Unto Others (very interesting)
The second book has the explanation, the first, is the mechanism. The oxitocin as many other hormones, are a mechanism that fix or promotes a set of behaviours instead of others. Hormonal discharge is the mechanism that the mammals have for modulating middle-long term responses. (For short term responses, they use electrical discharges in the nervous tissue). The discharged hormone flows trough the brain and adjust the responses of various mental modules. But this is a mechanism, not a magic substance that produces love, in the same way that the binary code is not a source of wishdom, even if it is used by computers. The evolutionary explanation is the interesting one. Many people say that the switch to more collaborative behaviours in humans appeared around 50.000- 60.000 years ago, when the human population nearly dissapeared. By the way, the cheetah also had an extreme episode of near-extinction whose result is that al cheetah are almost equal genetically and very peaceful between them. We humans also are extraordinarily similar and peaceful, in relative terms. Both cases may be related with small survival spots surrounded by very challenging environments, that produced migrations , overpopulation of these spots. This produced harsh conflicts, but the sports that managed to make use of the knowledge and mutual help of wide group survived. And may be that only one of them did, because this group was no more that 1000 individuals. Perhaps they survived thanks to a peaceful leader? A christ of the stone age that selected their followers from the peaceful ones? was ºit a mutant clan?. My hypotesis is that Jesus Christ in evoked the instinctive feelings developped 50.000 years ago. The human empathy goes beyond thit-for-that. Humans may be almost pure altruistic. Many people sincerely die for causes that will give nothing for him (although it would give to their descendants, and this is enough for evolution to select pure altruism). Pure altruism is not stable, But it is stable when there is a mechanism of collective altruistic, detection and punishment of free riders, However the selfish tendencies are not maladaptations. They are more primitive, but they are part of our nature.and are determinant in how human society works. To be selfish with you is good if there is loyalty (selflessness) around a wider whole that embrace you and me, and both you and me work for it. Selfishness inside selflessness make human society sucessful. 2012/7/24 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be Hi Russell, Le 24-juil.-12, à 01:30, Russell Standish a écrit : This one comes through loud and clear. Just curious to know what brand of emailer you have in your office that is so non-standard. Hope your internet connection at home is sorted out soon. I would be ropable if it happened to me (and so would the rest of my family). (In fact I was - it has happened twice over the last 12 years or so.) My business depends on it. It is really very annoying. Two electricians have come. The first found just nothing, and the second one eventually came to the conclusion that the problem comes from outside my building, somewhere below the pavement of the streets. It will not be solved soon, I am afraid. I use the standard Emailer of the Mac, but in my office, my applications are hard to update, for I have an old operating system. Best, Bruno Cheers On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:32:50AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Russell, Can you read this one? I have lost my connection at home, and apparently the problem is in the street, and it will take time to fix it. I use my emailer at my office, but it is a bit old. Apparently Stephen and Brent get my messages on the everything list. I might be hard to connect with for some time ... Best, Bruno PS I cc this on the everything list. Le 23-juil.-12, à 07:10, Russell Standish a écrit : Hi Bruno, There appears to be an invalid setting on your email client, as all your emails are coming out blank (as below). I can see your text by switching to a different mime part (something called text/enriched), but AFAIK, this is not a standard email type. Cheers On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 01:29:46PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: -- --**--** --- - Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au --**--** --- - http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Unto Others (very interesting)
Hi Russell, Le 24-juil.-12, à 01:30, Russell Standish a écrit : This one comes through loud and clear. Just curious to know what brand of emailer you have in your office that is so non-standard. Hope your internet connection at home is sorted out soon. I would be ropable if it happened to me (and so would the rest of my family). (In fact I was - it has happened twice over the last 12 years or so.) My business depends on it. It is really very annoying. Two electricians have come. The first found just nothing, and the second one eventually came to the conclusion that the problem comes from outside my building, somewhere below the pavement of the streets. It will not be solved soon, I am afraid. I use the standard Emailer of the Mac, but in my office, my applications are hard to update, for I have an old operating system. Best, Bruno Cheers On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:32:50AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Russell, Can you read this one? I have lost my connection at home, and apparently the problem is in the street, and it will take time to fix it. I use my emailer at my office, but it is a bit old. Apparently Stephen and Brent get my messages on the everything list. I might be hard to connect with for some time ... Best, Bruno PS I cc this on the everything list. Le 23-juil.-12, à 07:10, Russell Standish a écrit : Hi Bruno, There appears to be an invalid setting on your email client, as all your emails are coming out blank (as below). I can see your text by switching to a different mime part (something called text/enriched), but AFAIK, this is not a standard email type. Cheers On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 01:29:46PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: -- - -- - Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au - -- - http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- --- - Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au --- - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Unto Others (very interesting)
Hi Russell, Can you read this one? I have lost my connection at home, and apparently the problem is in the street, and it will take time to fix it. I use my emailer at my office, but it is a bit old. Apparently Stephen and Brent get my messages on the everything list. I might be hard to connect with for some time ... Best, Bruno PS I cc this on the everything list. Le 23-juil.-12, à 07:10, Russell Standish a écrit : Hi Bruno, There appears to be an invalid setting on your email client, as all your emails are coming out blank (as below). I can see your text by switching to a different mime part (something called text/enriched), but AFAIK, this is not a standard email type. Cheers On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 01:29:46PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: -- --- - Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au --- - http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Unto Others (very interesting)
This one comes through loud and clear. Just curious to know what brand of emailer you have in your office that is so non-standard. Hope your internet connection at home is sorted out soon. I would be ropable if it happened to me (and so would the rest of my family). (In fact I was - it has happened twice over the last 12 years or so.) My business depends on it. Cheers On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:32:50AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Russell, Can you read this one? I have lost my connection at home, and apparently the problem is in the street, and it will take time to fix it. I use my emailer at my office, but it is a bit old. Apparently Stephen and Brent get my messages on the everything list. I might be hard to connect with for some time ... Best, Bruno PS I cc this on the everything list. Le 23-juil.-12, à 07:10, Russell Standish a écrit : Hi Bruno, There appears to be an invalid setting on your email client, as all your emails are coming out blank (as below). I can see your text by switching to a different mime part (something called text/enriched), but AFAIK, this is not a standard email type. Cheers On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 01:29:46PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: -- --- - Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au --- - http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Unto Others (very interesting)
Le 21-juil.-12, à 21:58, meekerdb a écrit : On 7/21/2012 2:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 19-juil.-12, à 06:47, meekerdb a écrit : This may be of interest to those recently discussing free-riders. Brent Original Message Unto Others BY MICHAEL SHERMER It is the oldest and most universally recognized moral principle that was codified over two millennia ago by the Jewish sage Hillel the Elder: “Whatsoever thou wouldst that men should not do to thee, do not do that to them. This is the whole Law. The rest is only explanation.” With comp this does not work. We are too much different, and we can never judge for another. The principle becomes: Don't do to others what others does not want to be done on them, unless you need to defend your life. Put in another way: respect the meaning of the word no when said by others. But often the others are unknown persons, and even if known it may be impractical to poll them. Well, if you don't meet them the problem will not occur. The new principle just ask you to listen if they are not saying no (or nein, non, of make grimace that you might be able to interpret as please don't do that). For a group of people, democracy is based on that idea, of listening to others, through some sort of poll. Not easy, and not a panacea, but the degree zero of the political possible progresses. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Unto Others (very interesting)
On 7/22/2012 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But often the others are unknown persons, and even if known it may be impractical to poll them. Well, if you don't meet them the problem will not occur. No, modern society is so interwoven that the problem does occur. My daughter is struggling with the problem now. She wants to buy a new car. On the one hand she would like a fast sporting car. But on the other hand see feels she should buy an environmentally friendly car. Either decision will affect a lot of other people - most of whom she will never meet. Brent The new principle just ask you to listen if they are not saying no (or nein, non, of make grimace that you might be able to interpret as please don't do that). For a group of people, democracy is based on that idea, of listening to others, through some sort of poll. Not easy, and not a panacea, but the degree zero of the political possible progresses. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Unto Others (very interesting)
Le 19-juil.-12, à 06:47, meekerdb a écrit : This may be of interest to those recently discussing free-riders. Brent Original Message Unto Others BY MICHAEL SHERMER It is the oldest and most universally recognized moral principle that was codified over two millennia ago by the Jewish sage Hillel the Elder: “Whatsoever thou wouldst that men should not do to thee, do not do that to them. This is the whole Law. The rest is only explanation.” With comp this does not work. We are too much different, and we can never judge for another. The principle becomes: Don't do to others what others does not want to be done on them, unless you need to defend your life. Put in another way: respect the meaning of the word no when said by others. Bruno That explanation has been the subject of intense theological and philosophical disputation for millennia, and recently scientists are weighing in with naturalistic accounts of morality, such as the two books under review here. Paul J. Zak is an economist and pioneer in the new science of neuroeconomics who built his reputation on research that identified the hormone oxytocin as a biological proxy for trust. As Zak documents, countries whose citizens trust one another have higher average GDPs, and trust is built through mutually-beneficial exchanges that result in higher levels of oxytocin as measured in blood draws of subjects in economic exchange games as well as real-world in situ encounters. The Moral Molecule is an engaging and enlightening popular account of Zak’s decade of intense research into how this molecule evolved for one purpose—pair bonding and attachment in social mammals—and was co-opted for trust between strangers. The problem to be solved here is why strangers would be nice to one another. Evolutionary “selfish gene” theory well accounts for why we would be nice to our kin and kind—they share our genes so being altruistic and moral has an evolutionary payoff in our genes being indirectly propagated into future generations. The theory of kin selection explains how this works, and the theory of reciprocal altruism—I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine—goes a long way toward explaining why unrelated people in a social group would be kind to one another: my generosity to you today when my fortunes are sound will pay off down the road when life is good to you and my luck has run out. What Zak has so brilliantly done is to identify the precise biological pathways that explain the mechanics of how this system evolved and operates today. inconnu.jpg Order the hardcover from Amazon Order the Kindle Edition The Moral Molecule is loaded with first-person accounts of how Zak got his data, starting with a wedding he attended in the English countryside to draw the blood and measure the oxytocin levels of the bride, groom, and accompanying parents before and after the vows. The half-life of oxytocin is measured in minutes, so Zak had to draw 24 blood samples in under ten minutes that then had to be frozen and shipped back to his lab for analysis, the results of which “could be mapped out like the solar system, with the bride as the sun,” he vividly recalls. The bride’s oxytocin level shot up by 28 percent after vows were spoken, “and for each of the other people tested, the increase in oxytocin was in direct proportion to the likely intensity of emotional engagement in the event.” Bride’s mother: up 24 percent. Groom’s father: up 19 percent. The groom: up only 13 percent. Why? It turns out that testosterone interferes with the release of oxytocin, and Zak measured a 100 percent increase in the groom’s testosterone level after his vows were pronounced! How far will Zak go to get his data? In the western highlands of Papua New Guinea he set up a make-shift lab to draw the blood from tribal warriors before and after they performed a ritual dance, discovering that the “band of brothers” phenomena has a molecular basis in oxytocin. The Moral Molecule aims to explain “the source of love and prosperity,” which Zak identifies in a causal chain from oxytocin to empathy to morality to trust to prosperity. Numerous experiments he has conducted in this lab that are detailed in the book demonstrate that subjects who are cooperative and generous in a trust game have higher levels of oxytocin, and infusing subjects with oxytocin through a nose spray causes their generosity and cooperativeness to increase. Zak concludes his book with a thoughtful discussion of how liberal democracies and free markets produce the types of social systems that best enable people to interact in a way that puts them on the oxytocin-empathy-morality-trust-prosperity positive feedback loop. Every corporate CEO and congressman should read this book before making important decisions. In Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue,
Re: Unto Others (very interesting)
On 7/21/2012 5:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 19-juil.-12, à 06:47, meekerdb a écrit : This may be of interest to those recently discussing free-riders. Brent Original Message Unto Others BY MICHAEL SHERMER It is the oldest and most universally recognized moral principle that was codified over two millennia ago by the Jewish sage Hillel the Elder: “Whatsoever thou wouldst that men should not do to thee, do not do that to them. This is the whole Law. The rest is only explanation.” With comp this does not work. We are too much different, and we can never judge for another. The principle becomes: Don't do to others what others does not want to be done on them, unless you need to defend your life. Put in another way: respect the meaning of the word no when said by others. Bruno Hi Bruno, I disagree. You are over thinking the meaning of this. It is just the tit-for-tat strategy. Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you. It assumes sanity on your part, but it does not tell you what to do in a elaborative sense. One is supposed to use one's reason and not depend on some a priori rules. That explanation has been the subject of intense theological and philosophical disputation for millennia, and recently scientists are weighing in with naturalistic accounts of morality, such as the two books under review here. Paul J. Zak is an economist and pioneer in the new science of neuroeconomics who built his reputation on research that identified the hormone oxytocin as a biological proxy for trust. As Zak documents, countries whose citizens trust one another have higher average GDPs, and trust is built through mutually-beneficial exchanges that result in higher levels of oxytocin as measured in blood draws of subjects in economic exchange games as well as real-world /in situ/ encounters. /The Moral Molecule/ is an engaging and enlightening popular account of Zak’s decade of intense research into how this molecule evolved for one purpose—pair bonding and attachment in social mammals—and was co-opted for trust between strangers. The problem to be solved here is why strangers would be nice to one another. Evolutionary “selfish gene” theory well accounts for why we would be nice to our kin and kind—they share our genes so being altruistic and moral has an evolutionary payoff in our genes being indirectly propagated into future generations. The theory of kin selection explains how this works, and the theory of reciprocal altruism—I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine—goes a long way toward explaining why unrelated people in a social group would be kind to one another: my generosity to you today when my fortunes are sound will pay off down the road when life is good to you and my luck has run out. What Zak has so brilliantly done is to identify the precise biological pathways that explain the mechanics of how this system evolved and operates today. inconnu.jpg Order the hardcover from Amazon Order the Kindle Edition /The Moral Molecule/ is loaded with first-person accounts of how Zak got his data, starting with a wedding he attended in the English countryside to draw the blood and measure the oxytocin levels of the bride, groom, and accompanying parents before and after the vows. The half-life of oxytocin is measured in minutes, so Zak had to draw 24 blood samples in under ten minutes that then had to be frozen and shipped back to his lab for analysis, the results of which “could be mapped out like the solar system, with the bride as the sun,” he vividly recalls. The bride’s oxytocin level shot up by 28 percent after vows were spoken, “and for each of the other people tested, the increase in oxytocin was in direct proportion to the likely intensity of emotional engagement in the event.” Bride’s mother: up 24 percent. Groom’s father: up 19 percent. The groom: up only 13 percent. Why? It turns out that testosterone interferes with the release of oxytocin, and Zak measured a 100 percent increase in the groom’s testosterone level after his vows were pronounced! How far will Zak go to get his data? In the western highlands of Papua New Guinea he set up a make-shift lab to draw the blood from tribal warriors before and after they performed a ritual dance, discovering that the “band of brothers” phenomena has a molecular basis in oxytocin. /The Moral Molecule/ aims to explain “the source of love and prosperity,” which Zak identifies in a causal chain from oxytocin to empathy to morality to trust to prosperity. Numerous experiments he has conducted in this lab that are detailed in the book demonstrate that subjects who are cooperative and generous in a trust game have
Re: Unto Others (very interesting)
On 7/21/2012 2:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 19-juil.-12, à 06:47, meekerdb a écrit : This may be of interest to those recently discussing free-riders. Brent Original Message Unto Others BY MICHAEL SHERMER It is the oldest and most universally recognized moral principle that was codified over two millennia ago by the Jewish sage Hillel the Elder: “Whatsoever thou wouldst that men should not do to thee, do not do that to them. This is the whole Law. The rest is only explanation.” With comp this does not work. We are too much different, and we can never judge for another. The principle becomes: Don't do to others what others does not want to be done on them, unless you need to defend your life. Put in another way: respect the meaning of the word no when said by others. But often the others are unknown persons, and even if known it may be impractical to poll them. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Unto Others (very interesting)
On 7/21/2012 3:58 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/21/2012 2:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 19-juil.-12, à 06:47, meekerdb a écrit : This may be of interest to those recently discussing free-riders. Brent Original Message Unto Others BY MICHAEL SHERMER It is the oldest and most universally recognized moral principle that was codified over two millennia ago by the Jewish sage Hillel the Elder: “Whatsoever thou wouldst that men should not do to thee, do not do that to them. This is the whole Law. The rest is only explanation.” With comp this does not work. We are too much different, and we can never judge for another. The principle becomes: Don't do to others what others does not want to be done on them, unless you need to defend your life. Put in another way: respect the meaning of the word no when said by others. But often the others are unknown persons, and even if known it may be impractical to poll them. -- The others need only be models, imaginary people. It is one's own measure of good that is needed to determine one's own behavior. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Unto Others (very interesting)
On 7/21/2012 7:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/21/2012 3:58 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/21/2012 2:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 19-juil.-12, à 06:47, meekerdb a écrit : This may be of interest to those recently discussing free-riders. Brent Original Message Unto Others BY MICHAEL SHERMER It is the oldest and most universally recognized moral principle that was codified over two millennia ago by the Jewish sage Hillel the Elder: “Whatsoever thou wouldst that men should not do to thee, do not do that to them. This is the whole Law. The rest is only explanation.” With comp this does not work. We are too much different, and we can never judge for another. The principle becomes: Don't do to others what others does not want to be done on them, unless you need to defend your life. Put in another way: respect the meaning of the word no when said by others. But often the others are unknown persons, and even if known it may be impractical to poll them. -- The others need only be models, imaginary people. It is one's own measure of good that is needed to determine one's own behavior. Yeah, that's how the Inquisition justified torturing people to save their souls, since by their own measure of good they knew that was more important that mere pain in this life. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Unto Others (very interesting)
On 7/21/2012 10:12 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/21/2012 7:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/21/2012 3:58 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/21/2012 2:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 19-juil.-12, à 06:47, meekerdb a écrit : This may be of interest to those recently discussing free-riders. Brent Original Message Unto Others BY MICHAEL SHERMER It is the oldest and most universally recognized moral principle that was codified over two millennia ago by the Jewish sage Hillel the Elder: “Whatsoever thou wouldst that men should not do to thee, do not do that to them. This is the whole Law. The rest is only explanation.” With comp this does not work. We are too much different, and we can never judge for another. The principle becomes: Don't do to others what others does not want to be done on them, unless you need to defend your life. Put in another way: respect the meaning of the word no when said by others. But often the others are unknown persons, and even if known it may be impractical to poll them. -- The others need only be models, imaginary people. It is one's own measure of good that is needed to determine one's own behavior. Yeah, that's how the Inquisition justified torturing people to save their souls, since by their own measure of good they knew that was more important that mere pain in this life. Brent Dear God man, Do I need to paint a diagram of this for you? Do you really not get it? Amazing!! You can only define your own measure of ethical behavior, otherwise you are coercing or being coerced. Not complicated. The fact that you pulled the pre-20th century version of a Godwin's law validation puts a highlighter on your inability to think coherently. It's kinda sad. The Inquisition was imposing their (collective) metric of ethics on other people. What did their public proclamations have anything to do with the facts? How is this do unto others as you would wish them to do to you. Do you imagine yourself to like pain and thus wish others to enjoy it too? Do I need to explain how this kind of thinking is insane? (Psychopathic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathic, to be precise). I guess that it takes someone that is very bad at writing to confuse you on this or maybe you are projecting. I should not be so harsh actually, experiments have shown that most people will actually feel OK about torturing people so long as they are told to do it by some authority that they will submit too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment Choose your leaders wisely. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Unto Others (very interesting)
free markets produce the types of social systems that best enable people to interact in a way that puts them on the oxytocin-empathy? Really I thought it was each one on its own. On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 6:47 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: This may be of interest to those recently discussing free-riders. Brent Original Message Unto Others BY MICHAEL SHERMER It is the oldest and most universally recognized moral principle that was codified over two millennia ago by the Jewish sage Hillel the Elder: “Whatsoever thou wouldst that men should not do to thee, do not do that to them. This is the whole Law. The rest is only explanation.” That explanation has been the subject of intense theological and philosophical disputation for millennia, and recently scientists are weighing in with naturalistic accounts of morality, such as the two books under review here. Paul J. Zak is an economist and pioneer in the new science of neuroeconomics who built his reputation on research that identified the hormone oxytocin as a biological proxy for trust. As Zak documents, countries whose citizens trust one another have higher average GDPs, and trust is built through mutually-beneficial exchanges that result in higher levels of oxytocin as measured in blood draws of subjects in economic exchange games as well as real-world in situ encounters. The Moral Molecule is an engaging and enlightening popular account of Zak’s decade of intense research into how this molecule evolved for one purpose—pair bonding and attachment in social mammals—and was co-opted for trust between strangers. The problem to be solved here is why strangers would be nice to one another. Evolutionary “selfish gene” theory well accounts for why we would be nice to our kin and kind—they share our genes so being altruistic and moral has an evolutionary payoff in our genes being indirectly propagated into future generations. The theory of kin selection explains how this works, and the theory of reciprocal altruism—I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine—goes a long way toward explaining why unrelated people in a social group would be kind to one another: my generosity to you today when my fortunes are sound will pay off down the road when life is good to you and my luck has run out. What Zak has so brilliantly done is to identify the precise biological pathways that explain the mechanics of how this system evolved and operates today. Order the hardcover from Amazon Order the Kindle Edition The Moral Molecule is loaded with first-person accounts of how Zak got his data, starting with a wedding he attended in the English countryside to draw the blood and measure the oxytocin levels of the bride, groom, and accompanying parents before and after the vows. The half-life of oxytocin is measured in minutes, so Zak had to draw 24 blood samples in under ten minutes that then had to be frozen and shipped back to his lab for analysis, the results of which “could be mapped out like the solar system, with the bride as the sun,” he vividly recalls. The bride’s oxytocin level shot up by 28 percent after vows were spoken, “and for each of the other people tested, the increase in oxytocin was in direct proportion to the likely intensity of emotional engagement in the event.” Bride’s mother: up 24 percent. Groom’s father: up 19 percent. The groom: up only 13 percent. Why? It turns out that testosterone interferes with the release of oxytocin, and Zak measured a 100 percent increase in the groom’s testosterone level after his vows were pronounced! How far will Zak go to get his data? In the western highlands of Papua New Guinea he set up a make-shift lab to draw the blood from tribal warriors before and after they performed a ritual dance, discovering that the “band of brothers” phenomena has a molecular basis in oxytocin. The Moral Molecule aims to explain “the source of love and prosperity,” which Zak identifies in a causal chain from oxytocin to empathy to morality to trust to prosperity. Numerous experiments he has conducted in this lab that are detailed in the book demonstrate that subjects who are cooperative and generous in a trust game have higher levels of oxytocin, and infusing subjects with oxytocin through a nose spray causes their generosity and cooperativeness to increase. Zak concludes his book with a thoughtful discussion of how liberal democracies and free markets produce the types of social systems that best enable people to interact in a way that puts them on the oxytocin-empathy-morality-trust-prosperity positive feedback loop. Every corporate CEO and congressman should read this book before making important decisions. In Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame the USC evolutionary anthropologist Christopher Boehm tackles head-on the “free-rider” problem in explaining the origins of morality. Kin selection and reciprocal altruism
Re: Unto Others (very interesting)
On 7/19/2012 1:43 AM, R AM wrote: free markets produce the types of social systems that best enable people to interact in a way that puts them on the oxytocin-empathy? Really I thought it was each one on its own. I think that's the interesting point: those two are not contrary. Brent On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 6:47 AM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: This may be of interest to those recently discussing free-riders. Brent Original Message Unto Others BY MICHAEL SHERMER It is the oldest and most universally recognized moral principle that was codified over two millennia ago by the Jewish sage Hillel the Elder: “Whatsoever thou wouldst that men should not do to thee, do not do that to them. This is the whole Law. The rest is only explanation.” That explanation has been the subject of intense theological and philosophical disputation for millennia, and recently scientists are weighing in with naturalistic accounts of morality, such as the two books under review here. Paul J. Zak is an economist and pioneer in the new science of neuroeconomics who built his reputation on research that identified the hormone oxytocin as a biological proxy for trust. As Zak documents, countries whose citizens trust one another have higher average GDPs, and trust is built through mutually-beneficial exchanges that result in higher levels of oxytocin as measured in blood draws of subjects in economic exchange games as well as real-world in situ encounters. The Moral Molecule is an engaging and enlightening popular account of Zak’s decade of intense research into how this molecule evolved for one purpose—pair bonding and attachment in social mammals—and was co-opted for trust between strangers. The problem to be solved here is why strangers would be nice to one another. Evolutionary “selfish gene” theory well accounts for why we would be nice to our kin and kind—they share our genes so being altruistic and moral has an evolutionary payoff in our genes being indirectly propagated into future generations. The theory of kin selection explains how this works, and the theory of reciprocal altruism—I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine—goes a long way toward explaining why unrelated people in a social group would be kind to one another: my generosity to you today when my fortunes are sound will pay off down the road when life is good to you and my luck has run out. What Zak has so brilliantly done is to identify the precise biological pathways that explain the mechanics of how this system evolved and operates today. Order the hardcover from Amazon Order the Kindle Edition The Moral Molecule is loaded with first-person accounts of how Zak got his data, starting with a wedding he attended in the English countryside to draw the blood and measure the oxytocin levels of the bride, groom, and accompanying parents before and after the vows. The half-life of oxytocin is measured in minutes, so Zak had to draw 24 blood samples in under ten minutes that then had to be frozen and shipped back to his lab for analysis, the results of which “could be mapped out like the solar system, with the bride as the sun,” he vividly recalls. The bride’s oxytocin level shot up by 28 percent after vows were spoken, “and for each of the other people tested, the increase in oxytocin was in direct proportion to the likely intensity of emotional engagement in the event.” Bride’s mother: up 24 percent. Groom’s father: up 19 percent. The groom: up only 13 percent. Why? It turns out that testosterone interferes with the release of oxytocin, and Zak measured a 100 percent increase in the groom’s testosterone level after his vows were pronounced! How far will Zak go to get his data? In the western highlands of Papua New Guinea he set up a make-shift lab to draw the blood from tribal warriors before and after they performed a ritual dance, discovering that the “band of brothers” phenomena has a molecular basis in oxytocin. The Moral Molecule aims to explain “the source of love and prosperity,” which Zak identifies in a causal chain from oxytocin to empathy to morality to trust to prosperity. Numerous experiments he has conducted in this lab that are detailed in the book demonstrate that subjects who are cooperative and generous in a trust game have higher levels of oxytocin, and infusing subjects with oxytocin through a nose spray causes their generosity and cooperativeness to increase. Zak concludes his book with a thoughtful discussion of how liberal democracies and free markets produce the types of social systems that best enable people to interact in a way that puts them on the oxytocin-empathy-morality-trust-prosperity positive feedback loop. Every corporate CEO and congressman should read this book before making important decisions. In Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame the USC evolutionary anthropologist Christopher Boehm tackles head-on the “free-rider” problem in explaining the origins of
Re: Unto Others (very interesting)
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 5:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/19/2012 1:43 AM, R AM wrote: free markets produce the types of social systems that best enable people to interact in a way that puts them on the oxytocin-empathy? Really I thought it was each one on its own. I think that's the interesting point: those two are not contrary. I think friendship may release oxytocin, but free-markets relations won't. In any case, that's something that can be found out empirically, I guess. Brent On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 6:47 AM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: This may be of interest to those recently discussing free-riders. Brent Original Message Unto Others BY MICHAEL SHERMER It is the oldest and most universally recognized moral principle that was codified over two millennia ago by the Jewish sage Hillel the Elder: “Whatsoever thou wouldst that men should not do to thee, do not do that to them. This is the whole Law. The rest is only explanation.” That explanation has been the subject of intense theological and philosophical disputation for millennia, and recently scientists are weighing in with naturalistic accounts of morality, such as the two books under review here. Paul J. Zak is an economist and pioneer in the new science of neuroeconomics who built his reputation on research that identified the hormone oxytocin as a biological proxy for trust. As Zak documents, countries whose citizens trust one another have higher average GDPs, and trust is built through mutually-beneficial exchanges that result in higher levels of oxytocin as measured in blood draws of subjects in economic exchange games as well as real-world in situ encounters. The Moral Molecule is an engaging and enlightening popular account of Zak’s decade of intense research into how this molecule evolved for one purpose—pair bonding and attachment in social mammals—and was co-opted for trust between strangers. The problem to be solved here is why strangers would be nice to one another. Evolutionary “selfish gene” theory well accounts for why we would be nice to our kin and kind—they share our genes so being altruistic and moral has an evolutionary payoff in our genes being indirectly propagated into future generations. The theory of kin selection explains how this works, and the theory of reciprocal altruism—I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine—goes a long way toward explaining why unrelated people in a social group would be kind to one another: my generosity to you today when my fortunes are sound will pay off down the road when life is good to you and my luck has run out. What Zak has so brilliantly done is to identify the precise biological pathways that explain the mechanics of how this system evolved and operates today. Order the hardcover from Amazon Order the Kindle Edition The Moral Molecule is loaded with first-person accounts of how Zak got his data, starting with a wedding he attended in the English countryside to draw the blood and measure the oxytocin levels of the bride, groom, and accompanying parents before and after the vows. The half-life of oxytocin is measured in minutes, so Zak had to draw 24 blood samples in under ten minutes that then had to be frozen and shipped back to his lab for analysis, the results of which “could be mapped out like the solar system, with the bride as the sun,” he vividly recalls. The bride’s oxytocin level shot up by 28 percent after vows were spoken, “and for each of the other people tested, the increase in oxytocin was in direct proportion to the likely intensity of emotional engagement in the event.” Bride’s mother: up 24 percent. Groom’s father: up 19 percent. The groom: up only 13 percent. Why? It turns out that testosterone interferes with the release of oxytocin, and Zak measured a 100 percent increase in the groom’s testosterone level after his vows were pronounced! How far will Zak go to get his data? In the western highlands of Papua New Guinea he set up a make-shift lab to draw the blood from tribal warriors before and after they performed a ritual dance, discovering that the “band of brothers” phenomena has a molecular basis in oxytocin. The Moral Molecule aims to explain “the source of love and prosperity,” which Zak identifies in a causal chain from oxytocin to empathy to morality to trust to prosperity. Numerous experiments he has conducted in this lab that are detailed in the book demonstrate that subjects who are cooperative and generous in a trust game have higher levels of oxytocin, and infusing subjects with oxytocin through a nose spray causes their generosity and cooperativeness to increase. Zak concludes his book with a thoughtful discussion of how liberal democracies and free markets produce the types of social systems that best enable people to interact in a way that puts them on the
