<p>Liberals and conservatives aren't that different in principle. Both groups care about the well-being of society, democracy, etcetra. They only differ on a few (relatively insignificant to the majority of people) issues like gay marriage and abortion.</p>
<p>So, since liberals and conservatives are quite similar in their ideals, we could conclude that people who come off as RADICAL democrats or republicans are twisting their words or have a motive in mind--since the more neutral majority in each party is quite similar to the neutral majority in the other party.</p>
<p>Nobody is really that different in principle. Almost all humans are generally well-intentioned; they merely differ in their ethical standards and implementation.</p>
<p>they’re only well-intentioned wrt people within their moral circle. :p</p>
<p>globalization has expanded the moral circles of most people. but this is a VERY recent phenomenon - as we know - people didn’t extend their moral circles to “subhuman” peoples until after WWII.</p>
<p>==
</p>
<p>It actually depends on some AXIOMS though. For example, the MORAL AXIOMS that Christians subscribe to are different from the MORAL AXIOMS that, say, atheist liberal animal rights activists would subscribe to. </p>
<p>They’re really just following their own axioms. But axiomatic systems really spring from our evolution - an evolution that prizes cooperation in people within our moral circle.</p>
<p>Actually, one of the things is - that atheists and Christians subscribe to different axioms. Some atheists and Christians do believe in a reconciliation of sorts - others believe that such reconciliation is impossible. </p>
<p>If your axiomatic system is along the lines of “all atheists should be wiped off the face of the Earth” (there are passages in the Bible that can be INTERPRETED IN SOME WAYS to support this - but interpretations of the Bible have been used to support just about anything - like slavery) - then there is going to be no way you’re going to reconcile yourself to the existence of atheists for example</p>
<p>it’s an interesting idea - google marc hauser’s “moral minds”</p>
<p>According to my Psychology textbook, liberals and conservatives tend to diverge in their attribution of social problems: conservatives might attribute a person’s unemployment or poverty to a lack of work ethic or inherent personality deficiency, whereas a liberal is more likely to attribute the same problem to uncontrollable circumstances like discrimination in employment, financial limitations on education, etc. So in principle, yes, both sides of the ideological spectrum are striving for the same goals for society, but since in some cases they disagree on the fundamental causes of issues, ideas of what solutions would be effective vary greatly.</p>
<p>That’s only the liberals and conservatives of 21st century America though.</p>
<p>Recall that MANY conservative Christians used to be Calvinists, for example (Calvinists attributed everything to be predetermined - and that those who lacked work ethics or who had inherent personality deficiencies lacked them just because they weren’t judged well by God). Herein is where many paleo-conservatives differ from neo-conservatives (neo-conservatives are more likely to believe that poverty and unemployment are due to lack of work ethic or inherent personality deficiencies).</p>
<p>But those are the psychological issues. If you look at everything from the materialist standpoint, EVERYTHING is attributable to genetics and environment (especially intelligence). But the solutions one has to such issues do determine whether one is liberal or conservative or libertarian. (for the record for example, I don’t believe in free will, and I have heavily researched the neurological basins of “lack of work ethic” and distractibility - a lot of those are due to problems with the processing of the neurotransmitter dopamine). Nonetheless, I’m most sympathetic to libertarianism as incentives can act on people even in the absence of free will (but actually, both Democrats and Republicans reject biology so thoroughly that it’s pathetic, and most libertarians too). Yes inequality will result, and yes, some people are genetically disadvantaged. But equality is impossible. It’s possible that genetic engineering can actually reduce suffering (here I’m actually with James D. Watson)</p>
<p>Steven Pinker actually argued that the new religion. vs. science battles in the 21st century will arise over psychology (because we’re starting to reduce every undesirable behavior into neurochemical, genetic, and physiological routes). This raises a lot of questions. For example, if you give Adderall to the lazy (if the lazy are uncomfortable with their situations due to their intrinsic laziness, they SHOULD elect to have the option to take Adderall, because they really don’t have much control over how lazy they are), it may make the lazy a LOT more productive than they otherwise would be. I think it’s a perfectly legitimate idea. But it faces issues of abuse and misunderstanding (especially IF people become psychologically dependent on Adderall).</p>
<p>Also, for example, the BEST treatment for sex offenders BY FAR is chemical castration</p>
<p>==
A lot of it depends, for example, on whether you subscribe to the notion of “equality of opportunity” vs. “equality of outcome”. Liberals are sympathetic to the latter, conservatives to the former. The problem with the latter is that it forces a redistribution of resources (which is why people object to it). And a lot of it depends on whether you judge people to be truly equal or not (and in what ways). if you believe that everything is out of one’s control, you can still be conservative (you can just say that “well, it’s the way of life” and then attribute it to either natural selection or God’s will, either way of which will not make you a Democrat in the traditional sense).</p>
<p>You can say that “deficiencies of the will” are redeemable or you could say that they are “unredeemable” for example. </p>
<p>==
A lot of it is also based on the history of Anglo-American justice system (which judges people based on motives, not on outcomes). This is precisely what is causing a massive moral dilemma when it comes to the intersection of neurobiology/genetics and politics</p>
<p>Since one thing is, motives are often based on influences that are out of one’s control (for example, all sex offenders and criminals are only that way due to genetic and environmental influences).. SOME people DO believe that they are bad because of their MOTIVES. SOME people DO believe that they are intrinsically bad because they were born that way. If you believe that they are bad due to MOTIVES, however, this will be problematic when you consider that their motives are motivated by genetic and environmental influences. If you believe that they are intrinsically bad because they were born that way, then you won’t face an issue when we start identifying particular genes and neuroprocesses to particular undesirable behaviors. But then you aren’t a liberal in that sense of the term (which is what a lot of paleoconservatives thought of people with undesirable behaviors - though this included social Darwinists as well - social Darwinists don’t seem to conveniently fit into any political category)</p>
<p>Neoconservatives are more likely to believe that poverty and unemployment are due to FACTORS WITHIN ONE’S CONTROL. Paleoconservatives are more likely to believe that poverty and unemployment are due to factors OUTSIDE OF ONE’S CONTROL, but they are simultaneously unlikely to be sympathetic to helping those who are poor/unlucky due to those factors outside of one’s control.</p>
<p>It’s just that in 21st century American politics, most people believe that the poor/unlucky should be aided (which is a sharp turn from many centuries in the past - when they believed that the poor/unlucky ones were born that way and deserved to be that way). The key question is WHY - and this is where the disagreement begins (and where the different solutions also begin - the different solutions contingent on one’s conception of what CAUSES inequality).</p>
<p>==</p>
<p>Correction 2:
</p>
<p>Sorry, I wasn’t being objective here, this is an issue I feel somewhat passionate about (since I’m really irked by people who deny the biological basis of motivation). Also Adderall may not necessarily be the best option - as it’s possible that science will discover new motivational drugs that aren’t as prone to abuse as Adderall is. The main point remains: motivation is hugely affected by neurotransmitters (attitudes do help, but attitudes are often useless when one is hopelessly distractible or lazy due to neurotransmitter imbalance - and yes, not everyone can help themselves through willpower)</p>
<p>I agree. The problem with MANY politicians (conservative AND liberal) is that they have reached their conclusions BEFORE getting their facts straight. AND in politics, you don’t want to be seen as “not being firm” - if you are unfirm, you’ll be accused of flip-flopping. Yet you can’t BE FIRM if you’re open to the possibility of changing your views as you adapt to information.</p>
<p>You could say that conclusions ARE a sort of AXIOMS. Of course, SOME axioms are changeable. But many people don’t change their axioms (and never will). They don’t have much of an incentive to change them (especially the vast majority of people who won’t live differently whether they, say, accept the genetic basis of personality or not).</p>
<p>kerry used an argument similar to that but he lost. Nonetheless, while Kerry did adjust his views on some issues, he certainly has already prematurely reached his conclusions on other issues. </p>
<p>On the other hand, if you’re a scientist who is truly using the scientific method, you don’t reach conclusions before getting your facts straight. Of course, a politician can use social policies as hypotheses to investigate (we could say that Communism was an experiment, for example). But you can call anything an experiment. </p>
<p>Of course, now that we’re starting to understand human nature (from the research in biology, social psychology, and genetics), we now are starting to get in a position of finally developing policies that acknowledge human nature (and help utilize human nature to the fullest - for example - free market systems with incentives are far more compatible with human nature than communist regimes - as people are intrinsically selfish and are rarely motivated for the common good). But when people have already reached their conclusions as to which policies will work and which policies won’t work, they aren’t willing to listen to the scientists and policy-makers.</p>
<p>The problem is that science can easily be misinterpreted as well. For example, Herrnstein and Murray’s “Bell Curve” has some very legitimate points. But it is VERY prone to misinterpretation (for example, while it is true that many social programs have failed in part due to their assumptions that all people are capable of doing the same things under the same environments, this cannot be used as a justification that IQ tests are always the BEST way to sort out people, ESPECIALLY when we don’t know how these people would do in a DIFFERENT environment => especially when resources aren’t constrained and when people have the option of self-directed learning that fits their learning styles the most => the problem is that bureaucracies don’t like self-studiers because self-studiers deny them of money, as they tend to receive money proportionate to the number of students in the system). (and since there are no facts in science, mistakes can be made when people adopt policies based on science). The other problem is that a policy that works among ONE group of people may not work for ANOTHER group of people. For example, the social welfare systems in Scandinavia would probably work A LOT better there than they would in the US (since the US is far more heterogeneous, and welfare programs here would ultimately turn out to be more costly).</p>
<p>One LEADING misinterpretation I ALWAYS see among scientists is the misinterpretation of OVERGENERALIZATION. You can ONLY generalize your results to what has been PROVEN in our very little tiny corner of the universe (we can use our results to predict what we don’t know). But our predictions aren’t always right. If we didn’t peek out into the universe, we still wouldn’t know that Newton’s laws are only approximations to more fundamental equations (and thus cannot be generalized to places outside of our little tiny planet). (the same goes for social policies too, as they cannot be overgeneralized to an era of the Internet)</p>
<p>this is why I trust the sciences of human nature (since those are at least fairly universal among humans on earth, which should be good enough for our social policies). </p>
<p>But since science is self-adaptive and adapts itself to NEW INFORMATION, it is better than anything else we can do.</p>
<p>==</p>
<p>A VERY interesting book that you should read is Steven Pinker’s “Blank Slate”, which addresses the issues that the biological and cognitive sciences are having on policy-making. Basically, liberals and conservatives are both uncomfortable with genetic influences on human behavior.</p>
<p>==
But another thing is that we must distinguish between NORMATIVE AXIOMS and FACTUAL AXIOMS. If everyone accepted the same fundamental frameworks of what is physically true and what isn’t physically true, they would still differ in position due to normative axioms. If everyone believed in evolution, they’d still differ on their interpretations of whether, for example, animals deserve rights or not (as you cannot deduce normative axioms from any general body of knowledge, but you must assume them).</p>
<p>It’s better than anything else, so we use it. Because what are our alternatives? Nothing. </p>
<p>But let’s not think of absolutes. Of course science is not perfect. But it can be close to perfect. If it’s close to perfect, I think it’s legitimate justification to use it. </p>
<p>And it does work for making predictions about our very little tiny world, even if those predictions cannot be extended into the future. The key question with science is CONSISTENCY, and the fact is that most observations we make nowadays is very consistent with what we’ve observed. In fact, most scientists have been VERY surprised with the consistency of the sciences (at least for the more fundamental sciences). There’s a Eugene Wigner essay “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of mathematics in the Sciences” that you can google up. the softer social sciences face larger problems with consistency. hm. </p>
<h1>I think one of the fundamental questions with science concerns the process with patterns. Science only works when you can observe patterns (in which case predictions are useless). With perfect patterns, science is perfect. With no patterns (random walk), science is near-useless. With near-perfect patterns, science does do a good job.</h1>
<p>of course though, ONE major issue that I’m debating with myself right now is the issue of global warming. Global warming is inevitable in the long term (since the sun is expanding). Yet, OTOH, there are clear causal relationships between human generated actions and other pollutants (especially particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, CFCs, etc). Their levels in the atmosphere have clearly risen with industrialization, and fallen with environmental laws. the same can be said for carbon dioxide. But yet, carbon dioxide does go in natural cycles. The question is, is it desirable to conform to natural cycles? hard to say… (and now that depends on a combination of both your moral axioms and your factual axioms).</p>
<p>What are we using it for? To know things about the world around us, the past, and the future, right? It isn’t NECESSARY for us to know these things – especially since we don’t have an ACCURATE system for discovering them.</p>
<p>We’re using it to make predictions on future hypotheses. For example, we can use the sciences to make predictions on the relative projections of students with low IQs and those with high IQs. We can predict that students with higher IQs will get higher SAT scores and higher educational attainments in the end. We can also use the sciences to predict what families that they are more likely than not to come from. </p>
<p>We also use the data in order to make predictions on who succeeds and who doesn’t (based on initial admissions data). For example, on whether students with higher SAT scores will really do better than those with lower SAT scores in the applicant pool, or how much SAT IIs correlate with academic performance. Is this a science? Does it utilize the scientific method? in a way, it does. There’s the hypothesis, there’s the experimentation, there’s the data collection, and then there are the results and analysis, which may force one to modify the hypothesis. Of course one should be careful not to overgeneralize the results to apply to all colleges or all students.</p>
<p>obviously, it is necessary for the college to know this data, so that it selects the students who are most likely to succeed in the college (obviously as according to the college’s standards of success).</p>
<p>Science is really just a method of forming hypotheses and collecting data to support hypotheses, from which we can build a consistent system. </p>
<p>this is just the institutional level. On the societal level, we can make hypotheses on which students are most likely to succeed in what types of environments and why this is so. </p>
<p>Is this largely independent of biology? Not necessarily. I actually suspect that brain scans will be able to find better neural correlates with success than the models we have now (of g, IQ tests, and so forth). but as humans are biological organisms that obey natural laws, we can make predictions on their behaviors.</p>
<p>Obviously, correlation does not imply causation unless all factors are ruled out (a major issue that the social sciences have to deal with, in a very complex system). Nonetheless, many social scientists resort to statistical methods that help sort out the causative factors in their correlation matrices. (and then use their hypotheses under different conditions, to see if their hypotheses continue to be consistent in other systems). Obviously the social sciences do have their flaws, but they’re far better than choosing from people at random. certainly, an institution like HYPSM selects people out of its applicant pool, which is already highly self-select from the beginning. Such institutions have normative values (such as being a “leader” in some field), both primary and secondary (secondary including a diverse student body for example), and they have to collect data (factual data) in order to best conform with their normative values. And really, most students at MIT are FAR better fits there than a randomly selected population of several thousand people in the United States. Why? Because institutions like MIT rely on data in order to predict “success”, in the way it operationalizes “success”. It’s social science.</p>