[from Joel] When I'm selecting a book, whether fiction or non-fiction, I generally read the end first. In the case of fiction I do this, because I hate to spend a lot of time on a book only to find a weak ending. In the case of non-fiction, I'm generally trying to learn something like a language, so I want to know where I'll end up if I invest all that time and effort. The same is true when I start any project. Although I don't know exactly where it will lead, I like to visualize a result and see if will be worth the effort. Let's imagine the consequences of proving that L/C mindedness is hardwired into us at conception. (This is not to say that environment cannot modify the result.) Let's also imagine that we find a non-partisan binary discriminator like the "chalice illusion" which allows us to tell who is what. Does this have any interesting consequences for our society?One result might be the avoidance of fruitless argument with people of the opposite mindedness. Another alternative might be an understanding of the common ground upon which we all can achieve understanding. Still another might be a "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" philosophy. If you've never read that pop psychology book, let me summarize. It postulates that men and women are so different that they might as well come from different planets. By accepting that premise, men and women would get along much better, because they would accept each other's quirks and learn to compensate for the difference rather than butt heads. Is the same true for L/C minds -Joel
10 comments:
Joel, I found it wierd that you read the last chapter of my online novel first! (Back last April you wrote: "Thanks for the web citation for your novel. I enjoyed the last chapter. I always start at the end of a novel. I figure that if a person can write a good ending, the rest might be okay. I'll get to the next to last chapter after I finish filing my taxes.")
There was a Seinfeld episode (about a wedding in India) that showed all the scenes in reverse order. To help viewers keep track of the time, Kramer was shown licking an "all-day sucker" lollipop that grew larger at each successive scene. I found it very hard to follow and it is probably my least favorite episode.
That said, I agree with your main point: "when I start any project ... I like to visualize a result and see if will be worth the effort.".
So, what if we could find an optical illusion that would reliably discriminate betwen L- and C-minded people? I agree with you that could foster "avoidance of fruitless argument with people of the opposite mindedness [or foster] an understanding of the common ground upon which we all can achieve understanding [or] accept each other's quirks and learn to compensate for the difference rather than butt heads."
Yes, but we don't need an optical illusion test to do that. Just ask a few political questions and you get a pretty good idea very quickly.
An advantage of a non-political optical illusion test would be to confirm the idea that L- or C-mindedness is a genetic factor. W. S. Gilbert (of Gilbert and Sullivan fame) sugested that over 100 years ago in his operetta Iolanthe
I often think it's comical / How Nature always does contrive ... / That every boy and every gal / That’s born into the world alive / Is either a little Liberal /
Or else a little Conservative! ...
When in that House M.P.'s divide, / If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too, / They’ve got to leave that brain outside, / And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.
But then the prospect of a lot / Of dull M. P.’s in close proximity, / All thinking for themselves, is what / No man can face with equanimity.
Then let’s rejoice with loud Fal la – Fal la la! / That Nature always does contrive ... / That every boy and every gal / That’s born into the world alive / Is either a little Liberal / Or else a little Conservative!
Ira Glickstein
Ira said: Yes, but we don't need an optical illusion test to do that. Just ask a few political questions and you get a pretty good idea very quickly.
Joel responds: Asking political questions will explore what might be an environmental or educational mindset. As long as we believe that, we will treat others as though we can argue them out of their ignorant or foolish beliefs.
Thanks for showing the chalice. My first reaction is to see the faces. How about you. -Joel
You are correct - an optical illusion L/C discriminator would be pretty good proof of genetic inheritance. Political questions would not discriminate between nature and nurture.
When I select the TVPClub Blog, the chalice illusion comes up with only the top part showing and it looks like a fancy cup or vase. When I scroll down and see the whole thing, the faces come out.
Ira Glickstein
According to a paper Gender differences in apparent motion perception there is an optical test that shows a small gender difference.
"Distance disparity is a strong cue to element correpondence in apparent motion. Using a 2-AFC paradigm we have previously shown that shape similarity also plays a role. We now demonstrate a small gender difference in these effects : women are more sensitive to distance disparity, whereas men are more sensitive to differences in shape. Furthermore, in the competing presence of a shape cue, women's sensitivity to distance decreases while men's sensitivity is unaffected. These observations may be related to putative gender differences in the form and motion-spatial relations cortical pathways." [NOTE: "2-AFC" means "two alternative, forced choice" where the person being tested must make a selection from two alternatives.]
I have searched and have been unable to find anything similar related to L/C discrimination.
Ira Glickstein
Ira said: According to a paper "Gender differences in apparent motion perception" there is an optical test that shows a small gender difference.
I tried the reference and unfortunately "small" was not defined. In any event, this is interesting in that it serves as a model. We know gender is certainly genetic and there are significant discords between the sexes. That may be similar to the L/C mind situation. When you consider how successful "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" was in helping couples relate to each other in spite of tje fact that they find each other irrational, there is hope that the L/C Mind concept might do the same. -Joel
By far the strongest correlation I have found between L minds and professions is that of scientists. As far as I know, in all my associations with physicists and biologists I have never encountered a conservative. (I consider Ira an engineer.) My experience is explained by a recent PewTrust poll that says only 9 per cent of scientists call themselves conservative.
Why this is so is certainly not obvious. The poll has lots of other interesting results.
I'm not sure Howard if you knew the direction of my political views (or how strong they were) when I was your grad student and you were Chairman of my PhD committee. In the academic and scientific environment it is career limiting to be politically conservative. (It is acceptable to be scientifically conservative, demanding proof before changing accepted scientific truths, as you did -correctly- with respect to artificial intelligence, in contrast to my much more liberal -and ultimately misguided- views on that scientific topic.)
At least one of your colleagues at Binghamton University confided he had to keep his political views private. He shared them with me privately only after I had earned my PhD and was free to express my views and he let me know he was one of us.
So, why (according to the Pew survey you linked to) do only 9% of scientists claim to be conservative vs 52% who say they are liberal? The answer is found in another Pew question: "Most important [funding] source in your specialty" 84% of the scientists said GOVERNMENT and 30% said FOUNDATIONS/NON-PROFITS, while only 20% said INDUSTRY/BUSINESS. (Numbers add to more than 100% because multiple responses were accepted, though I cannot understand how a true scientist would check more than one item as "most important".)
Perhaps engineers (and I consider engineering to be my profession and science only my hobby :^) are less sanguine about liberal politics because their primary funding comes from profit-making industry. Our views often coincide with the interests of those who butter our bread!
Ira Glickstein
At least since WWII government funding for non-military research has been fairly steady under both Republican and Democratic administrations, driven mostly by the budget.
Until the Bush era, the majority of Republicans have been fully supportive of science. Nevertheless, the poll shows only 6 percent of scientists call themselves Republicans.
This does not support Ira’s “butter our bread" speculation as to why this extreme correlation exists.
There two other elements in the Pew poll that need to be considered. The first is that the sample is entirely taken from AAAS members. Membership in this group already filters out some conservatives and republicans. I was a member for a few years after graduation, but I failed to renew after seeing the political aspects of the organization. (Also, conservatives are less likely to be joiners of groups in general.) The second is that it may be that institutions like universities may to attract socialistic personalities. I recall the retired head of MIT electrical engineering telling me about how he was surprised to discover how dependent he was upon his institution for personal identity. I also agree with Ira that the university is generally a hostile environment for political conservatives and republicans. -Joel
I also agree with Joel and Ira that academic institutions worldwide are much more liberal than conservative.
The question is why this is the case.
I doubt it has much to do with where the endowments and other financial support comes from.
In my experience, it is matter of different priorities, motivations and values.
Post a Comment