Owning our mistakes

Mistakes

To err is human; to forgive, divine. Somewhere in between sits the willingness to admit when we’ve done wrong, and to take ownership of our transgressions against others. This is the crucial ingredient of a sincere apology and the first step towards forgiveness, divine or otherwise.

It can be hard enough to face up to our simple mistakes, which may impugn our competence, but admitting that we’ve done something bad, or perhaps even just said something out of line, is even more difficult: it threatens our self-image as essentially decent, moral people. Even when people do acknowledge that something they’ve done has caused hurt or offense, it’s not uncommon for the subsequent apology to be more of a pseudo-apology than the real deal. Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

On being thankful for the freely given kindness of others

Friendships begin with liking or gratitude – roots that can be pulled up
Daniel Deronda (1876), by George Eliot

Twice in my life I’ve been stood behind someone in a queue who has unwittingly dropped a £10 pound note. Both times, I picked it up, tapped the person on the shoulder, and gave it back to them.

This hardly makes me a moral saint or deserving of great praise. Yet I’d bet that for both people the simple act of returning their money generated at least a fleeting flash of gratitude, as I could easily have pocketed it.

Gratitude — like its converse, moral censure — is a basic moral emotion that fuels everyday social interactions. Now new research shows that how much gratitude we experience after people do us a favour depends on free we think they were to do it. Continue reading

Posted in RESEARCH, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

A Free Will Resource via Al Mele

Originally posted on A Philosopher's Take:

Al Mele, one of the most distinguished and recognizable philosophers writing on free will has launched a new blog where he plans to field questions and generate discussion a few times a week (see the blog here). He hopes to answer questions related to his last two books where he takes on scientific claims that supposedly lend support to the idea that we do not have free will. Here is a recent quote from Prof. Mele via facebook:

“Here’s something I posted on the Flickers of Freedom blog.

New Blog for Undergraduates

I’ve started a blog dedicated to discussion with undergraduates using either of my two latest books in a course:

A Dialogue on Free Will and Science

Free: Why Science Hasn’t Disproved Free Will

It’s part of an “outreach” idea I had while I was directing the Big Questions in Free Will project. The current…

View original 114 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Touring the Veritable Museum of Mistakes: Thoughts on Dennett on Harris on Free Will

Philosopher Dan Dennett has recently taken Sam Harris to task over his arguments for rejecting the concept of free will. Here are my thoughts on this intellectual fallout.

Sam Harris is perhaps the most prominent defender of the claim that we lack free will, a conclusion that he thinks is inescapable if we’re intellectually honest with ourselves and accept the best scientific picture of the world we have.

It’s not a new claim, and Harris doesn’t advocate any new arguments for his position on free will, usually known as hard determinism. (It’s called hard determinism because it’s based on the acceptance of determinism — the thesis that every event that happens has a preceding cause — combined with a denial of free will, which is seen to be incompatible with determinism.)

Harris’s hard determinism is a minority position within contemporary philosophy. Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

This Is How We Do It: Exploring the Psychology of Culture

Social life is powerfully shaped by rules of culture. But how do we acquire these rules, and why are we so prone to do so? Recent research is shedding light on these questions, and showing how we use culture to create our social identity.

Credit: David Cooper [http://www.headlinestheatre.com/past_work/us_and_them_play/media_us_and_them.htm]

Gangs do it; high-school cliques do it; even educated professionals do it: in all walks of life, groups of people — whether defined by shared interests, belonging to the same profession or competition with other collectives — invariably invent ways of demarcating themselves from everyone else. Street gangs like the notorious Crips and Bloods, who brought mayhem to South Central Los Angeles during the crack years of the 1990s, differentiate themselves by blue and red clothing, along with unique gang signs, tattoos, tags, and even dances. Teenagers and young adults — emo kids, skaters, goths, hipsters — broadcast membership in their chosen subculture by walking, talking and dressing the same.

This tendency to define and mark off our ingroup boundaries in terms of largely arbitrary and symbolic markers goes much wider than the clothes we wear, the hairstyles we sport, and the make-up and tattoos we adorn ourselves with. We have an almost inexhaustible range of social traits that can be used to define who is in or out of our groups — and we take full advantage of these opportunities.

For example, the language we speak is an especially salient way of carving out large-scale group boundaries. Between countries that share a common language, accent (British or American) serves as a more fine-grained way to divide up peoples, and within countries our accent, and the idiom we speak, provide a similarly easy way to divide up the social world (northern or Cockney, posh or working class).

Languages and dialects, however, are just the tip of the identity iceberg. Social, ethnic and religious groups have developed their own rules governing everything from what foods are deemed acceptable to eat, and the ways it should be prepared and consumed, to sexual mores, ways of greeting each other, the appropriate means by which the dead should be handled and disposed of, and so on indefinitely.

Practically every area of life is governed to a greater or lesser extent by a complex and sometimes opaque web of interweaved codes of conduct, rules of etiquette, social conventions, and moral prohibitions that constitute what behavioural scientists call social norms. So extensive are the social norms governing the way “our people” do things that they constitute a good part of the culture we imbibe during childhood and beyond. Understanding how we pick up these social norms, what motivates us to follow them, and how we treat people who fail to obey them is a first step towards explaining how and why we’re such deeply cultural creatures. Continue reading

Posted in Essay | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Why Sam Harris is confused about free will

One thing leads to another…

Sam Harris has been lured into talking about free will again. He says he has resisted writing about this topic since publishing The Moral Landscape and the short book Free Will because he felt he had said all there was to say about the matter. But emails from his readers flagged up what Harris sees as a continuing confusion about what his view of free will means for the possibility of loving people. We’ll get to this new post later, but first I want to spell out Harris’s views on free will, and the problems that attend to them. Continue reading

Posted in Essay, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

I like you ’cos you’re like me – or why my enemy’s enemy is my friend

Poor hipsters and their problems – life’s much simpler for kids

Kids’ social instincts emerge early [1,2]. Newborns prefer to look at human faces over other inanimate objects, especially attractive faces. Soon after, babies begin to evaluate the social actions of others: at three months they prefer to play with toy characters that they’ve seen be kind or helpful to another toy, and avoid mean, antisocial individuals [3].

By 9–12 months of age, toddlers understand that other people also share this preference: that is, they appreciate that someone else who has been helped or hindered in trying to achieve a goal will prefer the helper over the hinderer [4]. Three-year olds will also chastise and punish ‘naughty’ puppets, including those that harm other puppets (if only mildly) [5]. Together, these findings suggest that the basic psychological ingredients of full-blown morality are well established by the fourth year of life.

Some of the other social preferences that infants during this period are a little less morally positive, some even xenophobic. Six-month olds prefer to look at photos of people that speak their native language, and 10-month olds are more likely to accept gifts, such as a toy, from someone  speaking their own language [6]. Infants’ social preferences also develop an egocentric streak: by their first birthday, they show a preference for people who are similar to them, even if that only means liking the same kinds of food [7].

A new paper in Psychological Science from the lab of Yale University’s Karen Wynn — a leader in studies of moral development who has been  involved in many of the studies alluded to above — shows how these moralistic and self-referential aspects of social thought are intertwined as infants enter their second year [8]. Continue reading

Posted in RESEARCH | Tagged , , | Leave a comment