Rationalism without humanism is a lot of trouble. Thanks for sparing me the details. I feel we would completelly agree on the details and the conclusion.
We have two sometimes competing systems of evaluation, though. One of them is a bunch of heuristics developed to help us navigate the social intricacies of tribal life, and the other is a system of analytical thought developed to help us plan, predict, and optimize outcomes. Both of those systems might recommend altruistic behavior in certain circumstances. The heuristics are more likely to act as if someone is watching at all times, because it’s very difficult to intuitively sense the absence of watchers. The analysis is more likely to account for abstract or tenuous benefits such as helping a friend, a child, or even a stranger’s child. Since our internal reward mechanisms developed at a time when societies were very small, we get some happiness from making others happy. That’s logical if you expect to interact with that person or with someone who knows that person many times over the years, which we expect by default. That doesn’t make it not altruistic, though - we might get pleasure and some intangible benefits from altruistic behavior, but if that makes it not count, then you’ve moved the definition (the cost I pay may still be more than the benefit, even if the benefit isn’t 0).
Yeah, you have structures in your brain which create a physiological basis for empathy. When you see other humans do and experience things, part of your brain recreates that experience for you. So there is, for most normal humans, an inherent reward for assisting other humans. (it’s worth noting though, that these physiological drives only function when in immediate proximity, where you are able to observe the other person… they don’t generally translate to abstract thoughts, which is why folks are so much more willing to be assholes to abstract “others” they don’t directly interact with)
Ya, that’s basically what I said at the end of my earlier post.
It’s more of a semantic issue… what we describe as altruism isn’t altruism in the most absolute sense, but that probably doesn’t matter. We always do things because we perceive them, either consciously or unconsciously, as maximizing some evaluation of “good” for us. But that perception of “good” includes benefiting other human beings.
I agree, but I think it’s important to note that this maximization can be very short-sighted and emotionally-driven at times and very cold or far-sighted (and perhaps inaccurately “far-sighted”) at other times. So in the moment, we are probably doing the thing that maximizes our evaluation functions, but there’s no guarantee that thing isn’t objectively bad for us. Of course, that’s also true of stuff that doesn’t help anyone else, so…
Appellations like “soy boy”. I have a delicate digestion, and I can’t even eat soy without getting gassy. So that insult is completely off the mark.
“If you’re not a liberal when you’re young you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative when you’re older you have no brain.”
I think the implication with this cliche is that when you are young you are full of idealism, but as you get older and more experienced you become more realistic/cynical about human behavior. It’s not really implying that conservatives are selfish or un-altruistic. The saying is still completely wrong though.
Most studies show that people retain their beliefs throughout life.
But the arc of history bends to the left!
There are also studies that show that older cohorts are significantly more conservative than younger ones, which means either liberals die young or people’s views, even if they are actually stable, are considered more conservative as time goes on.
Is that the case though? If you are an opened minded person in the 1960s, you probably will be an open minded person of 2018 as well. Sure, it might be a bit more difficult to accept intersex or asexual people, but you’ll likely give it a shot.
That seems sensible, I’m just saying that older groups vote more conservatively than younger ones, yet the conservative party was not more powerful in the 60s than now.
We’re also at the point where the political leanings of the next generation would normally be taking over the political dialogue.
Simply due to the power of quantity the Boomers will hold the reins until they are dead.
Sorry you are ignoring the good of the species and the tribe over any individual genetic imperative.
Tribes with occasional self-sacrificing suckers may tend to do better, overall, than one filled with Ferengi.
I think that is actually part of it.
Also, I think there are always people who see themselves as more liberal than they really are. Who believe in something until it comes to their neighborhood.
I have just read about how in the early 60’s people in northern states thought racism was only a southern problem. Until black leaders started demanding equality in their city and suddenly they found black leaders questioning their beliefs. Boston is a fine example of this. Suddenly “liberal” white politicians and school board members found themselves deploring the black communities.
#MeToo is working towards change. The acceptance (in most ways) of the LGBT has changed.
No major social change happens quickly.
But yea, old ways die hard. But the Boomers inherited many of those old ways as well. And in some cases Boomers helped lead the way.
Oh definitely, didn’t mean to imply otherwise. They’re the ones who came up with “trust no one over 30” after all.
It’s just the discussion will always be about what the Boomers want regardless of what that may be due to demographic weight.
Boomers are no longer the majority of voters, but they may still cast the majority of votes:
TLDR: Boomers are about 40% of the voting eligible population now, but younger generations are less likely to vote (in 2014, they even voted less than boomers did at the same age).
However, Parkland may be having an actual impact:
The old conservative canard “Dems are fickle libertines who care nothing about monogamy, but Republicans embody wholesome family values by standing by their man/woman” has never been true. But now it’s been disproved with science!
Mind you, the science involved is kinda terrifying from a privacy standpoint, but that’s really for the “Social media controls the world” thread:
Kodi Arfer, a behavioural scientist at the University of California in Los Angeles, and Jason Jones, a sociologist at Stony Brook University in New York, linked the 2012 voter registration records for California, Florida, Kansas, New York and Oklahoma to credit card payments made by people living in those states to Ashley Madison between 2008 and 2015. The payment details were released in 2015 when a group called the Impact Team hacked millions of Ashley Madison accounts.
Is there more to it than the headline or are they just assuming the Ashley Madison userbase is an accurate representation of adultery demographics overall?
Well, there is Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump.
On the other hand, there is Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
I guess anecdotal evidence isn’t all that useful.
And dozens of Congresscritters at the federal and state levels.
That said,
is still true.
The liberals want to take away our guns.
A few may, but the vast majority just want reasonable laws that allow people to use their guns as they are intended (eg. hunting, self-protection) and to limit the damage that can be done by crazy people.