- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,851
MoraI foundations test, by Johnathan Haidt
- Thread starter Ronaldo_
- Start date
Akka
Moody old mage.
The test is highlighting the values we find important, but as with all tests, it can't measure if we actually live up to them.
For example, a lot of people (especially in the more traditionnal settings) emphasis the importance of "honour", but in practice I'd say more people will fall back on "saving face" than being actually honourable.
i.e. the performative version rather than the underlying principle.
For example, a lot of people (especially in the more traditionnal settings) emphasis the importance of "honour", but in practice I'd say more people will fall back on "saving face" than being actually honourable.
i.e. the performative version rather than the underlying principle.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
Ok, I'll try to respond to this in another way. You are a software developer. When you write code, does it change the hardware?
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
Sure, but those words you use (virtue signaling?) are being weaponized ....thanks, conflict theory
Depends what I'm writing code for. I don't tend to write code that low-level. "software developer" is a pretty wide spec. Hardware, at the lowest levels, are ran by software. All electricity does is connect the circuit (well, mostly).
But like I said, "it seems that you're arguing for some innate immutable quality that we as a society can't shape, improve, or remedy". No? Like if you could actually be specific about your position instead of trying analogies that don't work because you don't know the field you're trying to translate the analogy into, that'd be a lot more useful?
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
Yes, I am arguing that moral foundations theory claims this exactly. The predictive value of the test is entirely another discussion.
EDIT: I would describe you as an epigenetic modifier in my crazy analogy
Last edited:
Akka
Moody old mage.
I'm afraid I'm not really following the point here.
I'm just saying that answers on a test are kind of the "mental version" of the person taking the test, reflecting their opinions on a subject, but obviously not always how they would actually act in real situations. That's not even necessarily "virtue signaling" (though it does correlate/overlap with it), but rather just the difference between theory and practice, ideals and reality.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
i think you're overstating the self-determination of machines as to what makes them able to think
that we are basically complex rocks is a natural truth that you'll find a lot of sympathy for among the left. but the left is also plenty aware that rocks don't write books
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
I sort of agree with this but I don't at the same time? Complex rocks do write books?
EDIT: perhaps that's why I came on so hard, asking if this theory was trash (to you or others here)...or not
Last edited:
https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Meat_of_ChampionsI'd rather like to kill people, grind them up possibly alive; preferably feet first, package them into their own intestines to make fine sausages, roast those sausages
FLAME GRILLED
I'm not really equipped to debate what the theory argues . . . is this all still about owning Marx or something?
Like that's kinda glib, but at this point I don't really know what you want to debate. I came into the thread for the test. Not so much the theory. Everybody posting self-selects based on how each of us perceive reality. Is that wiring, or learning, or both? I have no idea. I like to think "both" but again, not really equipped for the theory.
At the end of the day all it boils down to is what we do with what we know - not what we know. That in of itself isn't a prize (though a lot of people treat it, and by extension intelligence, that way).
You believe the theory is bad, right? Why does it matter to you that you convince people that the theory is bad?
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
No, no. I believe the theory is sound. I don't own Marx, but this theory certainly does.
EDIT: I mostly agree with you but honestly, yeah, my opinion is that any moral foundation based on conflict theory is reprehensible.
Conflict theory is antithetical to humanity
EDIT 2: now, given the premise of the moral foundations theory, would you like to discuss the questions or the results?
EDIT: I mostly agree with you but honestly, yeah, my opinion is that any moral foundation based on conflict theory is reprehensible.
Conflict theory is antithetical to humanity
EDIT 2: now, given the premise of the moral foundations theory, would you like to discuss the questions or the results?
Last edited:
How does this theory own Marx? Without recursing into your personal opinion on what you define as conflict theory (and its applications), try and break it into something more digestable than that.
I mean, I'm not entirely sure the theory does, but then again I approached this from the context of the test, and not whatever claim the theory seems to be making about the origin of the traits it groups and attempts to identify with political groupings.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
Thanks, I will likely comment on the theory and Haidt as I learn more as well.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
I saw 2 of Jonathan H lectures. Admittedly, at times I want to say "ok Boomer" 
This one is from about 10 years ago. He was much more optimistic than he seems to be now. He does seem be selling more books now.
You don't have to watch the whole thing but at about 1:11 he talks about communism.
Post in thread '[LH] Barack Obama' https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/lh-barack-obama.268582/post-7229456
I posted this in a graphics thread, since I used to do some graphics for civ 4-5. I was told by the moderators to "take that horsehocky to off topic". So I did!
You don't have to watch the whole thing but at about 1:11 he talks about communism.
Post in thread '[LH] Barack Obama' https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/lh-barack-obama.268582/post-7229456
I posted this in a graphics thread, since I used to do some graphics for civ 4-5. I was told by the moderators to "take that horsehocky to off topic". So I did!
Lexicus
Deity
This is a conflict theory positing that society is a conflict between people who believe in conflict theory and those who don't
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
No not really. That is a "generalization flaw" of conflict theory
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
?tautology?
EDIT: I assume you give great importance to antii-durhing?
EDIT: I assume you give great importance to antii-durhing?
Some new work that seems to impact this: They reckon we need to be both inter personally collaborative and inter group competitive to evolve to be nice, or something.
Compared with other animals, humans are remarkably altruistic. Did this behaviour evolve because future interactions incentivise cooperation or because of group competition, meaning more cooperative groups are more likely to succeed? It’s a combination of both. Researchers asked members of Perepka and Ngenika groups in Papua New Guinea, who are less influenced by state rules, to play a cooperation game. “What the group competitions do is they counteract the individuals’ incentives to cheat a little bit,” economist and study co-author Ernst Fehr tells the Nature Podcast.
Compared with other animals, humans are remarkably altruistic. Did this behaviour evolve because future interactions incentivise cooperation or because of group competition, meaning more cooperative groups are more likely to succeed? It’s a combination of both. Researchers asked members of Perepka and Ngenika groups in Papua New Guinea, who are less influenced by state rules, to play a cooperation game. “What the group competitions do is they counteract the individuals’ incentives to cheat a little bit,” economist and study co-author Ernst Fehr tells the Nature Podcast.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
Evolutionists will be evolutionists, it is the currently accepted science. It's a scientific wake up call that conflict theory (and it's derivatives) is seriously flawed at it's foundation....
