Simplifying Psychology

[joe1776]

You say that no matter what anyone says.

I noticed that someone liked your post and guessed correctly that it was likely to be Augustus. Like you, he isn't clear in his understanding between offering an argument (in debate) and being argumentative (quarrelsome).

 

[Augustus]

You're making an outrageous claim you can't possibly support. I don't understand why you think such claims would be persuasive to intelligent, unbiased minds.

Talk is cheap my friend. Find some scientific papers that back up your claim because I can produce plenty to back up mine. Go back to the paper I cited earlier and look up the reference list then there's double figures already. You are currently on zero.

I could easily post many more, and will do if you post some of your own, otherwise it's just a waste of time.

I give it a 1.07% chance that you post even 1 (I'm being generous )

 

[joe1776]

Talk is cheap my friend. Find some scientific papers that back up your claim because I can produce plenty to back up mine. Go back to the paper I cited earlier and look up the reference list then there's double figures already. You are currently on zero.

I could easily post many more, and will do if you post some of your own, otherwise it's just a waste of time.

I give it a 1.07% chance that you post even 1 (I'm being generous )

The study you posted wasn't on the topic of in group/out group theory in human nature. It had to do with the behavior of chimps, a study that you've been unable to justify as useful in the study of human behavior.

And, you're right, I have no scientific research to support my position that the in group/out-group theory is bunk. That's a position that requires only logical reasoning. I'll bet you can't even coherently state the theory and describe something we learned from it, some insight into group behavior, that we didn't know before this "theory" was created.

The "theory" supplies new words to describe what we already knew. Did you not realize that "out-group bias" = group prejudice and "in-group bias" = group pride?

 

[Augustus]

The study you posted wasn't on the topic of in group/out group theory in human nature. It had to do with the behavior of chimps, a study that you've been unable to justify as useful in the study of human behavior.

You seem to be confused about the difference between children and chimps.

From earlier in the thread:

Consequences of ‘minimal’ group affiliations in children
Three experiments (total N = 140) tested the hypothesis that 5-year-old children’s membership in randomly assigned ‘minimal’ groups would be sufficient to induce intergroup bias. Children were randomly assigned to groups and engaged in tasks involving judgments of unfamiliar ingroup or outgroup children. Despite an absence of information regarding the relative status of groups or any competitive context, ingroup preferences were observed on explicit and implicit measures of attitude and resource allocation (Experiment 1), behavioral attribution, and expectations of reciprocity, with preferences persisting when groups were not described via a noun label (Experiment 2). In addition, children systematically distorted incoming information by preferentially encoding positive information about ingroup members (Experiment 3). Implications for the developmental origins of intergroup bias are discussed.
Consequences of ‘minimal’ group affiliations in children

Also linked to earlier (will post the studies too if you post some first)

Coalitional Instincts

Every human—not excepting scientists—bears the whole stamp of the human condition. This includes evolved neural programs specialized for navigating the world of coalitions—teams, not groups. (Although the concept of coalitional instincts has emerged over recent decades, there is no mutually-agreed-upon term for this concept yet.) These programs enable us and induce us to form, maintain, join, support, recognize, defend, defect from, factionalize, exploit, resist, subordinate, distrust, dislike, oppose, and attack coalitions. Coalitions are sets of individuals interpreted by their members and/or by others as sharing a common abstract identity (including propensities to act as a unit, to defend joint interests, and to have shared mental states and other properties of a single human agent, such as status and prerogatives).

Edge.org

And, you're right, I have no scientific research to support my position that the in group/out-group theory is bunk. That's a position that requires only logical reasoning. I'll bet you can't even coherently state the theory and describe something we learned from it, some insight into group behavior, that we didn't know before this "theory" was created.

Of all the arguments you've made, this is by far the worst.

The fact that something is quite obvious based on human behaviour is a very powerful argument as to why the science is correct (which btw, is what I've been arguing all along).

If hundreds of scientific experiments showed something that we already believed was true from experience, then why on earth would that mean it is 'bunk'?

Psychology should manifest itself in observable human behaviour. That it does is evidence in favour of it being true. When the same is also observed in similar species that compounds the evidence in favour.

Do you not realise this?

I noticed that someone liked your post and guessed correctly that it was likely to be Augustus. Like you, he isn't clear in his understanding between offering an argument (in debate) and being argumentative (quarrelsome).

Are you being deliberately disingenuous or are you genuinely ignorant of what reasoned argument actually is? Seriously.

Disagreement is fine, but when you think posting reasoned arguments supported by multiple peer-reviewed sources is simply churlishness then there is something wrong.

 

[joe1776]

You seem to be confused about the difference between children and chimps.

No, merely referencing a different study.

When the same is also observed in similar species that compounds the evidence in favour. Do you not realise this?

(1) The "evidence" from chimp behavior has to be subjectively interpreted by the researchers (was the chimp likely killed by a member of another group or one of his own?) which makes bias affecting the stats a definite possibility.

(2) Why would we need to confirm our observations of the behavior of human groups? The effects are obvious. It's the causes that we are in the dark about.

And arrogance make a credible explanation for both group pride and group prejudice. Scientists prefer to test hypotheses which explain more of the effects observed with fewer assumptions.


I'll try explaining this just once more using the word 'theory' as understood in common usage. But if you prefer, you may substitute the word 'hypothesis.' A theory should attempt to advance a cause or causes of the observed effects. It doesn't just confirm that the observed effects are indeed accurate (" yes, indeed groups do act that way").

When science only confirms what we already knew (group members are biased toward their own group and biased against competing groups) it's not much of a theory.

If that doesn't make sense to you, please do your best to explain why without resorting to insults.

 

[Howard Is]

I noticed that someone liked your post and guessed correctly that it was likely to be Augustus. Like you, he isn't clear in his understanding between offering an argument (in debate) and being argumentative (quarrelsome).

You need some kind of therapy.
And btw, you are incredibly arrogant.

 

[Augustus]

(1) The "evidence" from chimp behavior has to be subjectively interpreted by the researchers (was the chimp likely killed by a member of another group or one of his own?) which makes bias affecting the stats a definite possibility.

I'm beginning to think you don't even read what I post, this was very explicitly answered in the quotes provided.

(2) Why would we need to confirm our observations of the behavior of human groups? The effects are obvious. It's the causes that we are in the dark about.

Again, you seem not to have read the paper as you are unaware of what it says.

And arrogance make a credible explanation for both group pride and group prejudice.

When children instantly display biases when assigned to arbitrary groups, and other primates display in/outgroup biases as part of their standard behaviour, arrogance is not a very credible explanation, hence the fact that there are no scientific papers that make such a claim.

Ultimately your argument is "It's arrogance because I say so, and anyone who says otherwise is biased".

Scientists prefer to test hypotheses which explain more of the effects observed with fewer assumptions.

Hence they they don't make baseless assumptions that ignore the evidence that such behaviour is intuitive and evolutionarily beneficial.

Which do you have a problem with btw (in historical evolutionary terms, not in modernity which is irrelevant):

a) It was evolutionarily beneficial to be biased towards prosocial behaviour to the in-group
b) It was evolutionarily beneficial to be be intuitively suspicious of those outside the group

 

[joe1776]

You need some kind of therapy.
And btw, you are incredibly arrogant.

Maybe I just need to join your religion -- "loving kindness."

 

[Howard Is]

Maybe I just need to join your religion -- "loving kindness."

It would do you no harm.

 

[joe1776]

I'm beginning to think you don't even read what I post, this was very explicitly answered in the quotes provided.



Again, you seem not to have read the paper as you are unaware of what it says.



When children instantly display biases when assigned to arbitrary groups, and other primates display in/outgroup biases as part of their standard behaviour, arrogance is not a very credible explanation, hence the fact that there are no scientific papers that make such a claim.

Ultimately your argument is "It's arrogance because I say so, and anyone who says otherwise is biased".



Hence they they don't make baseless assumptions that ignore the evidence that such behaviour is intuitive and evolutionarily beneficial.

Which do you have a problem with btw (in historical evolutionary terms, not in modernity which is irrelevant):

a) It was evolutionarily beneficial to be biased towards prosocial behaviour to the in-group
b) It was evolutionarily beneficial to be be intuitively suspicious of those outside the group

I read your post but didn't find an on-point argument in it.

So, to sum up your counter-points to my argument:

You think scientists can learn something about human behavior by carefully watching some chimp behavior that they couldn't learn by analyzing centuries of human behavior.

You think that BOTH human aggression caused by group prejudice and the defensive behavior of the group under attack caused by group pride are somehow equally good survival strategies even though loss of life is the inevitable result.

And you reject arrogance as a credible cause of both group pride and group prejudice because logic isn't enough for you and I don't have any chimp studies to support my theory.

Oh, and I almost forgot...you think the "in-group bias" and "out-group bias" labels sound smarter than the "group pride" and "group prejudice" terms that everybody understands.

 

[Augustus]

You think scientists can learn something about human behavior by carefully watching some chimp behavior that they couldn't learn by analyzing centuries of human behavior.

No, that is basically the opposite of what I have been saying. It would be very hard to be more wrong. But I think you know that, don't you

You think that BOTH human aggression caused by group prejudice and the defensive behavior of the group under attack are somehow equally good survival strategies even though loss of life is the inevitable result.

What I believe:

a) It was evolutionarily beneficial to be biased towards prosocial behaviour to the in-group
b) It was evolutionarily beneficial to be be intuitively suspicious of those outside the group

Which do you disagree with?

And you reject arrogance as a credible cause of both group pride and group prejudice because logic isn't enough for you and I don't have any chimp studies to support my theory.

To use your favourite phrase 'It's clear you are getting frustrated' because you are resorting to constructing such an obvious strawman to argue against

As you well know, I reject your 'logic' because I find it very naive and believe it goes against the overwhelming scientific consensus on humans (hence I can easily support it with scientific articles), and this research on humans is also supported by research on other primates as well as personal experience, basic common sense and all of human recorded history.

Sorry to break it to you, but it is not really a persuasive counterbalance to science, experience and all of human history to have some random chap on the internet who admits he can't even find a single scientific paper to support his thesis, saying all he needs to establish fact to 'any unbiased person' is his own (poorly reasoned) opinion: 'logic'.

If what you say is so self-evidently true that it can be proved with only 'logic', how would you explain the fact that it is completely absent from scientific discussions on human social behaviour?

 

[joe1776]

If what you say is so self-evidently true that it can be proved with only 'logic', how would you explain the fact that it is completely absent from scientific discussions on human social behaviour?

That's easy. Science is slow and social scientists are not all that smart. For example, David Hume argued in about 1750 that moral judgments are intuitive. I found his argument convincing in about the year 1975 but it wasn't until the year 2000 that social scientists did the research to confirm Hume's position. Kohlberg's rationalist theory, which logically sucks and never had any science to support it, is still being taught in Psych 101.

My position on arrogance was inspired by Thomas Carlyle , about 1880.. He used the philosophical term for arrogance "egotism." He said: "Egotism is the source and summary of all faults and miseries." At first, I dismissed his comment as an exaggeration but then I gave it more thought and, as I said, it offers a credible explanation for much misbehavior and it's hard to think of exceptions. You couldn't manage to find one.

 

[Augustus]

That's easy. Science is slow and social scientists are not all that smart.

"Disputes with men, pertinaciously obstinate in their principles, are, of all others, the most irksome; except, perhaps, those with persons, entirely disingenuous, who really do not believe the opinions they defend, but engage in the controversy, from affectation, from a spirit of opposition, or from a desire of showing wit and ingenuity, superior to the rest of mankind. The same blind adherence to their own arguments is to be expected in both; the same contempt of their antagonists; and the same passionate vehemence, in inforcing sophistry and falsehood. And as reasoning is not the source, whence either disputant derives his tenets; it is in vain to expect, that any logic, which speaks not to the affections, will ever engage him to embrace sounder principles."
David Hume

On average, how often do you think that someone is justified in the belief that they alone are right because they are much smarter than everybody else? How often do you think it is simply arrogance and conceit?

For example, David Hume argued in about 1750 that moral judgments are intuitive. I found his argument convincing in about the year 1975 but it wasn't until the year 2000 that social scientists did the research to confirm Hume's position. Kohlberg's rationalist theory, which logically sucks and never had any science to support it, is still being taught in Psych 101.

What you seem unable to grasp is that Hume et al do not argue what you argue. You seem to believe in an extreme position in which human evolution is a teleological process with the goal of achieving harmony for a collective humanity rather than a series of adaptations to the environments in which we developed. Environments which contain numerous features and a complex web of cooperation and competition. Also, that all morality is intuitive, that this intuition is perfectly universal, that perfect objectivity is possible, and that all humans would reach the same position on any moral question, no matter the moral dilemma involved, as long as they are not biased.

That there is some role of intuition in morality doesn't support all of the other baseless assumptions you add to it. It is anti-Hume in the sense that he was innately sceptical, whereas you are willing to make sweeping assumptions unsupported by evidence or valid logic.

Hume acknowledged a role of both reason and artificial constructs such as 'justice'. "The sense of justice and injustice is not from derived from nature, but arises artificially, though necessarily from education, and from human conventions".

He expressed a belief that we are biased towards the in-group and that our benevolence and sympathy were greater for those most like us.

He also believed in human differences occurring from culture, personality, education, etc. that influenced our moral judgements.

The difference, which nature has placed between one man and another, is so wide, and this difference is still so much farther widened, by education, example, and habit, that, where the opposite extremes come at once under our apprehension, there is no scepticism so scrupulous, and scarce any assurance so determined, as absolutely to deny all distinction between them.David Hume - An enquiry into the principles of morals

My position on arrogance was inspired by Thomas Carlyle , about 1880.. He used the philosophical term for arrogance "egotism." He said: "Egotism is the source and summary of all faults and miseries." At first, I dismissed his comment as an exaggeration but then I gave it more thought and, as I said, it offers a credible explanation for much misbehavior and it's hard to think of exceptions.

Do you know that Carlyle was one of the most vocal opponents of Hume's "Epicurean" moral theories?

Also, the word he used was egoism, not egotism. They do not mean the same thing.

Egoism isn't simply arrogance as you defined it earlier in the thread. You were quite specific in using a narrow definition that related to an unpleasant character flaw.

Egoism is the underpinning of your moral theory, the seeking of pleasure and avoidance of pain, albeit yours is a form of 'enlightened egoism' (i.e. enlightened self-interest where self-interest aligns with group interest). You say our intuition 'rewards' or 'punishes' us based on the decisions we make, so acting in accordance with our intuitions is thus egoistic.

You have chosen to base your theory on 2 sources, one of which is actually a rejection of the other.

You couldn't manage to find one.

I presented numerous: love, family, loyalty, misinformation, ideology, 'greater good', etc.

 

[joe1776]

On average, how often do you think that someone is justified in the belief that they alone are right because they are much smarter than everybody else? How often do you think it is simply arrogance and conceit?

You have offered your own custom version of the Bandwagon Fallacy (That which is popular must therefore be correct) to imply that my position isn't intelligent. That's funny.

You also state that I'm alone in my position based on the fact that you've never heard of it before. That's not a logical deduction. I'd bet that there are lots of good ideas you've never heard before.

Furthermore, I didn't claim to be the original source of the idea. I gave you Thomas Carlyle as the person who inspired it. (According to Brainy Quote I'm right in using the word egotism)

Finally, it's common knowledge that scientists prefer to test hypotheses that explain more of the observed effects. How often do you think that such an hypothesis is well-known by the general public before it's tested?

What you seem unable to grasp is that Hume et al do not argue what you argue.

David Hume claimed that moral judgments are the product of intuition. Are you denying that?

That there is some role of intuition in morality doesn't support all of the other baseless assumptions you add to it. It is anti-Hume in the sense that he was innately sceptical, whereas you are willing to make sweeping assumptions unsupported by evidence or valid logic.

I was born skeptical. That's why I doubted the prevailing wisdom that moral judgments were the product of reason long before scientists confirmed my position.

Hume acknowledged a role of both reason and artificial constructs such as 'justice'. "The sense of justice and injustice is not from derived from nature, but arises artificially, though necessarily from education, and from human conventions".

Hume was wrong about that. Justice is based on fairness. We intuitively discern fair from unfair immediately by intuition (conscience) just as we do moral right from wrong. Any reasoning is post hoc.

He expressed a belief that we are biased towards the in-group and that our benevolence and sympathy were greater for those most like us.

That's obviously true but our debate is about the cause of those effects..

He also believed in human differences occurring from culture, personality, education, etc. that influenced our moral judgements.

The difference, which nature has placed between one man and another, is so wide, and this difference is still so much farther widened, by education, example, and habit, that, where the opposite extremes come at once under our apprehension, there is no scepticism so scrupulous, and scarce any assurance so determined, as absolutely to deny all distinction between them.David Hume - An enquiry into the principles of morals

I don't read what you quoted as supporting your claim. Taken out of context, it's not clear whether Hume is talking about moral judgments or the biases which influence whether or not we follow the judgments.

Do you know that Carlyle was one of the most vocal opponents of Hume's "Epicurean" moral theories?

Your point?

 

[Augustus]

You have offered your own custom version of the Bandwagon Fallacy (That which is popular must therefore be correct) to imply that my position isn't intelligent.

Try to read what is actually written please.

You also state that I'm alone in my position based on the fact that you've never heard of it before. That's not a logical deduction. I'd bet that there are lots of good ideas you've never heard before.

Well you've never even produced a single source to support what you are saying, and all the ones you claim support you, don't.

Furthermore, I didn't claim to be the original source of the idea. I gave you Thomas Carlyle as the person who inspired it. (According to Brainy Quote I'm right in using the word egotism)

So you've never actually read the original, just an out of context quote?

It's a discussion of Rousseau's character and the word is egoism. Go read the original rather than 'brainy quote'

David Hume claimed that moral judgments are the product of intuition. Are you denying that?

That there is some role of intuition in morality doesn't support all of the other baseless assumptions you add to it. It is anti-Hume in the sense that he was innately sceptical, whereas you are willing to make sweeping assumptions unsupported by evidence or valid logic.

I was born skeptical. That's why I doubted the prevailing wisdom that moral judgments were the product of reason long before scientists confirmed my position.

Scientists have made the case since the 19th C, see for example Herbert Spencer (of 'survival of the fittest' and Social Darwinism fame).

And your thesis is anything but sceptical, anybody who doubts there is even a chance they are wrong is hubristic (harmony is inevitable). Epistemic arrogance is not the marker of someone who was 'born sceptical'.

Hume was wrong about that. Justice is based on fairness. We intuitively discern fair from unfair immediately by intuition (conscience) just as we do moral right from wrong. Any reasoning is post hoc.

Again, the people you claim support you, don't and everybody is wrong except you.

Your point?

Egoism is the underpinning of your moral theory, the seeking of pleasure and avoidance of pain, albeit yours is a form of 'enlightened egoism' (i.e. enlightened self-interest where self-interest aligns with group interest). You say our intuition 'rewards' or 'punishes' us based on the decisions we make, so acting in accordance with our intuitions is thus egoistic.

You have chosen to base your theory on 2 sources, one of which is actually a rejection of the other.


"According to Carlyle, such ‘Epicureanism’ consisted primarily in an emphasis upon pleasure and pain as the springs of human action, and a positing of self-interest as the foundation of sociability in a modern commercial society. However, Carlyle soon came to reject such notions, seeking salvation in the writings of Kant and Schiller, who stressed the possibility of disinterested virtue, and the importance of free, moral activity....

Following Kant and Schiller, Carlyle argued that men ought rather to lay aside happiness, and recognize ‘the Infinite Nature of Duty’.80 In particular, they would have to lay aside their ‘own poor egoism, hungry love of happiness &c’, and acknowledge that ‘Self-renunciation’ was ‘the beginning of virtue for a man’"

 

[joe1776]

Try to read what is actually written please.



Well you've never even produced a single source to support what you are saying, and all the ones you claim support you, don't.



So you've never actually read the original, just an out of context quote?

It's a discussion of Rousseau's character and the word is egoism. Go read the original rather than 'brainy quote'



That there is some role of intuition in morality doesn't support all of the other baseless assumptions you add to it. It is anti-Hume in the sense that he was innately sceptical, whereas you are willing to make sweeping assumptions unsupported by evidence or valid logic.




Scientists have made the case since the 19th C, see for example Herbert Spencer (of 'survival of the fittest' and Social Darwinism fame).

And your thesis is anything but sceptical, anybody who doubts there is even a chance they are wrong is hubristic (harmony is inevitable). Epistemic arrogance is not the marker of someone who was 'born sceptical'.



Again, the people you claim support you, don't and everybody is wrong except you.



Egoism is the underpinning of your moral theory, the seeking of pleasure and avoidance of pain, albeit yours is a form of 'enlightened egoism' (i.e. enlightened self-interest where self-interest aligns with group interest). You say our intuition 'rewards' or 'punishes' us based on the decisions we make, so acting in accordance with our intuitions is thus egoistic.

You have chosen to base your theory on 2 sources, one of which is actually a rejection of the other.


"According to Carlyle, such ‘Epicureanism’ consisted primarily in an emphasis upon pleasure and pain as the springs of human action, and a positing of self-interest as the foundation of sociability in a modern commercial society. However, Carlyle soon came to reject such notions, seeking salvation in the writings of Kant and Schiller, who stressed the possibility of disinterested virtue, and the importance of free, moral activity....

Following Kant and Schiller, Carlyle argued that men ought rather to lay aside happiness, and recognize ‘the Infinite Nature of Duty’.80 In particular, they would have to lay aside their ‘own poor egoism, hungry love of happiness &c’, and acknowledge that ‘Self-renunciation’ was ‘the beginning of virtue for a man’"

Your post doesn't qualify as debate. It's entirely argumentative nonsense that doesn't interest me.

 

[Augustus]

Your post doesn't qualify as debate. It's entirely argumentative nonsense that doesn't interest me.

Ponting out that you've completely misunderstood the sources you base your theory on by referring to the original sources and peer-reviewed literature is 'argumentative nonsense that doesn't even qualify as debate'?

Strange that you think your unsupported opinions are powerful, reasoned arguments that any unbiased person must surely accept as fact, yet everyone who disagrees with you is simply spouting biased, irrational nonsense that 'doesn't even qualify as debate' no matter how many sources are referred to.

"Disputes with men, pertinaciously obstinate in their principles, are, of all others, the most irksome; except, perhaps, those with persons, entirely disingenuous, who really do not believe the opinions they defend, but engage in the controversy, from affectation, from a spirit of opposition, or from a desire of showing wit and ingenuity, superior to the rest of mankind. The same blind adherence to their own arguments is to be expected in both; the same contempt of their antagonists; and the same passionate vehemence, in inforcing sophistry and falsehood. And as reasoning is not the source, whence either disputant derives his tenets; it is in vain to expect, that any logic, which speaks not to the affections, will ever engage him to embrace sounder principles."
David Hume


Ironic really in a thread where you castigate others for their arrogance