tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post6871619920911370752..comments2024-02-07T19:30:21.880+11:00Comments on Left Focus: The Righteous Mind - A book review by Eric AaronsVaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-841189399308597452012-11-05T23:41:43.073+11:002012-11-05T23:41:43.073+11:00The problem with all these views based on human na...The problem with all these views based on human nature or genes is that you construct the views you need to support your view of human nature. Dawkins and Haidt finding support for conservative, competitive views, Eric finds support for balance views and no as the previous post suggest we could make a case for cooperative views. <br /><br />The challenge of politics is make the world the way we want it to be. Even if there was rock-solid evidence that our genes predispose us to evil then that just shows we need to work harder to build structures to support the better angels of our nature and limit the evil ones.Shane Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15706076395194797998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-49379183559926098612012-11-04T23:27:20.383+11:002012-11-04T23:27:20.383+11:00'...
Selfish’ seems often to be taken to be t...'...<br /><br />Selfish’ seems often to be taken to be the antonym of ‘altruistic’, individualism often equated with individuality, and cooperation sometimes taken as a denial of that individuality. Dawkins has 4 index references to altruism, none for cooperation. ...'<br /><br />Aaaaactualy...<br /><br />http://macroevolution.narod.ru/gene/gene30.htm#intro30<br /><br />'Another good alternative to The Selfish Gene would have been The Cooperative Gene. It sounds paradoxically opposite, but a central part of the book argues for a form of cooperation among self-interested genes. This emphatically does not mean that groups of genes prosper at the expense of their members, or at the expense of other groups. Rather, each gene is seen as pursuing its own self-interested agenda against the background of the other genes in the gene pool — the set of candidates for sexual shuffling within a species. Those other genes are part of the environment in which each gene survives, in the same way as the weather, predators and prey, supporting vegetation and soil bacteria are parts of the environment. From each gene's point of view, the ‘background’ genes are those with which it shares bodies in its journey down the generations. In the short term, that means the other members of the genome. In the long term, it means the other genes in {x} the gene pool of the species. Natural selection therefore sees to it that gangs of mutually compatible — which is almost to say cooperating — genes are favoured in the presence of each other. At no time does this evolution of the ‘cooperative gene’ violate the fundamental principle of the selfish gene. Chapter 5 develops the idea, using the analogy of a rowing crew, and Chapter 13 takes it further.'<br /><br />Index references maybe, but cooperation is mentioned right there in the introduction to the 30th anniversary edition<br /><br />>^.^<<br /><br />Para Germanicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07474467456394028938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-31858218076218364402012-11-04T13:09:24.964+11:002012-11-04T13:09:24.964+11:00You mean this is what passes for critical analysis...You mean this is what passes for critical analysis on the left. I think I see why we are in such trouble. When a man of Eric's vast experience can't see through Haidt's conservative social Darwinism. Its mind boggling.<br /><br />The idea that passions rule over reason (the elephant over the rider as Haidt would have it) is not some recent scientific discovery - its one of the central themes of moral philosophy (or the Catholic theology of my youth). One wonders whether Haidt, like Sam Harris, even bothered to read any of it.<br /><br />So we good communists should ask themselves 'what sort of society would a creature who is 90% Chimp/10% bee (another Haidt trope) build?'. I imagine it would look at lot like Corporatised US (which Haidt endorses) or Stalinist Russia (which he opposes).<br /><br />Surely we can do better. I think I'd take my chances with a warmed over Catholic theory in which individualism is tempered by altruism than this justification for 'natural' heirarchy with Haidt and the scientists as queen bees and the rest of us 'workers' in conformity with the dicttates of the hive.<br />Shane Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15706076395194797998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-68250778785671392752012-11-04T13:05:42.208+11:002012-11-04T13:05:42.208+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.Shane Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15706076395194797998noreply@blogger.com