
Sobre nosotros
In this Meetup, inspired by Jonathan Haidt and other authors who examine how humans think and act in cultural and political environments, we will try to better understand our own and others' values and beliefs - and possibly even find ways to improve dialogue across the usual political and cultural boundaries. This is NOT "Crossfire" or some other political debate program. This is not a college dorm-room discussion. This is not a book club. We use lectures, case studies, exercises, and group discussions to explore concepts and issues raised by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt in his works, including "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion." We also explore issues related to polarization discussed by other social psychologists, cognitive scientists, etc.
The objective is not so much to debate political issues, advance policy prescriptions or find areas of policy agreement (e.g., in health care or defense policy) as to explore – using exercises, case studies, lectures and group discussions – how we think and how we become so attached to particular values and beliefs that separate us into Blue, Red, and other Americans. Class participation and a strong interest in hearing and understanding other points of view will be crucial to our success. There are recommended (but not required) readings that allow members to get more out of the Meetups.
Hopefully we will learn something about ourselves and about those other Americans we often consider to be our opponents in political and cultural battles. And we'll have some fun, too!
SYLLABUS for our four central topics:
Topic 1
We begin by considering what it would be like to live in a society other than the WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic) world we enjoy here in the DMV (the District and nearby Maryland and Virginia).
We then explore the human inclination to join groups, become loyal to groups and the groups’ moral narratives, and then become blind to alternative moral worlds.
The attractions of authoritarianism as opposed to liberal democracy.
The epidemic of loneliness in much of the world.
Sorting ourselves out. Many of us don’t really want to live with diversity.
Plenty of class discussion as these points and examples are raised.
Topic 2
Through case studies of moral dilemmas, we examine our tendency to respond quickly with intuition, then use our reason to justify whatever decision our intuition has produced. The case studies also give us an opportunity to consider our moral values, utilitarianism versus other moral values, and our duties to society. Lots of class discussion about the case studies and the issues they raise.
We consider different approaches to creating a society in which unrelated people can live together peacefully – Mill v Durkheim, individualistic versus sociocentric – and the role of our righteous minds in creating human societies.
How to deal with the challenge of freeloaders?
Haidt’s moral matrices for Libertarians, Liberals and Conservatives.
Group discussions on each of these points.
Topic 3
We’ll discuss whether, as Jonathan Haidt, J. S. Mill, Bertrand Russell and others write, we should see a yin – yang relationship between liberals and conservatives: Do we need both for a healthy state of political life?
We’ll then examine the human mind and how it works. In particular –
Do we know as much as we think we do about the world and important political issues? Enough to justify the strong views we hold about some political issues? We’ll try some exercises to find out.
If not, how do we make our decisions on political issues? What role does our political tribe play in this?
Does it help to keep up with the news? Social media?
Do our senses and our mind give us a clear, objective view of the world out there?
Topic 4
We’ll continue to examine the human mind and how it affects our political reasoning and loyalties. Lots of discussions here.
Confirmation bias, groupthink, peer pressure, motivated reasoning, etc., etc.
Extreme partisanship may be literally addicting.
How good are our memories?
How well can we predict the future?
How will future generations look at the conventional wisdom and beliefs we hold today?
We’ll next consider and discuss Haidt’s views on the role of religion in creating and maintaining large human societies.
Finally, we will consider and discuss how we might move forward in our political relationships, taking into account what we’ve discussed.
Eventos próximos
1

We don't know as much as we think we do.
·En líneaEn líneaHow much time do we spend talking politics and cultural issues with people who disagree with us? That can be a difficult experience, because those people on the other side just don't seem to get it.
Obviously, we're right about these issues, and all our friends agree with us, so those other people must be wrong. What's their problem?
Maybe they just don't have the facts.
But even when we generously try to explain the facts to them, they still don't get it. Maybe they just don't care.
Or maybe they're just not that smart.
But wait -- some of those on the other side do seem to be pretty smart.
So maybe the only explanation is -- they're evil!!
Wait -- maybe we need to rethink this.
On Thursday, June 11, we're going to hear from one psychologist and cognitive scientist after another telling us that we -- yes, we -- don't know as much about political issues -- or anything else -- as we think we do, and as a result we can find ourselves passionately advocating for beliefs even when we don't know very much about what we're advocating for. They'll tell us that we'd be better off to dial it back, look for alternative approaches, and complexify things. And maybe be a little more humble.
As two of our authors (Steven Sloman and Philip Fernbach) write: "Proponents of political positions often cast policies . . . in values-based terms in order to hide their ignorance, prevent moderation of opinion, and block compromise."
And: "We’ve seen that careful analysis of the consequences of those policies matters a lot less than you might think and that the community one is embedded in matters a lot more."
And: "Apparently, strong moral reactions don’t require reasons. Strong political opinions don’t, either. Sometimes whether or not we understand the consequences of a policy is irrelevant. Such attitudes are not based on causal analysis. We don’t care whether the policy will produce good or bad outcomes. What matters are the values enshrined by the policy."
Please join us as we try to figure out how to be smarter -- and have some fun at the same time!
To get ready for our meetup, it would be great if you could watch these three entertaining and educational TED Talks -- about 15 minutes each:
Kathryn Schulz, On Being Wrong
https://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare
Phil Fernbach, The Illusion of Understanding
https://youtu.be/2SlbsnaSNNM?si=tDwZUCjhY4jnADwLPhilip Fernbach, Why do we believe things that aren't true?
https://youtu.be/jobYTQTgeUE?si=5re--c3_GOn_-DV0Hope to see you June 11 as we dig into these issues.
Bill
4 asistentes
Eventos pasados
68

