rigsy. We often think something special about ourselves will beat the
average - that our ownb free will or determination etc. will defy
statistical reality - as in
Ask a bride before walking down the aisle "How likely are you to get
divorced?" and most will respond "Not a chance!" Tell her that the
average divorce rate is close to 50 percent, and ask again. Would she
change her mind? Unlikely. Even law students who have learned
everything about the legal aspects of divorce, including its
likelihood, state that their own chances of getting divorced are
basically nil. How can we explain this?
Psychologists have documented human optimism for decades. They have
learned that people generally overestimate their likelihood of
experiencing positive events, such as winning the lottery, and
underestimate their likelihood of experiencing negative events, such
as being involved in an accident or suffering from cancer. Informing
people about their statistical likelihood of experiencing negative
events, such as divorce, is surprisingly ineffective at altering their
optimistic predictions, and highlighting previously unknown risk
factors for diseases fails to engender realistic perceptions of
medical vulnerability. How can people maintain their rose-colored
views of the future in the face of reality? Which neural processes are
involved in people's optimistic predictions?
We have some fair answers to some of this, but Catch 22, telling
people is unlikely to affect them!
On Jan 10, 3:41 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Which reminds me of a quote (Liz Taylor?) that she would do the same
> things all over again but with different people.
>
> How are you measuring these societies? Certainly seems like evils
> persist in secular societies as readily as the religious. (Eco has a
> great paper on fascism- "Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at
> a Blackshirt" http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html).
>
> I love certain authors- Eco being one- lust after them, in fact- even
> the dead ones!
>
> On Jan 9, 4:37 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Thanks for the new Eco book.
>
> > I likewise respect deterministic forces simply because I know that if
> > placed again in all the
> > decision making positions of my past I would, given the social
> > circumstances, have made the same choices.
> > There are no "If onlys" in my life.
>
> > However, it seems to me that secular authority has tried much harder
> > to create fairer, more ethical guidance for societies than
> > those created in the non secular realm. What do you all think?
>
> > I must get hold of a copy of 'The prague cemetary'.
>
> > Malc
> > On Jan 10, 2:10 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Eco was on Charlie Rose (a tv interviewer in the USA) the other night.
> > > His latest book is another mythbuster- the "Protocols"- entitled "The
> > > Prague Cemetary".
>
> > > I respect deterministic forces-fate-weakness. I was rereading
> > > "Robinson Crusoe" where there is a good deal of debate as Crusoe
> > > adapts/accepts his circumstances- but that was the 18th C- still quite
> > > religious. One must wrestle with accountability- it is so easy to
> > > blame or deny.
>
> > > On Jan 5, 3:33 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Humanity has always, for some reason, felt the need to support his
> > > > world view with a series of myths commonly termed beliefs in order to,
> > > > in some way, justify its behaviour. We must not, however, believe that
> > > > these myths are always spiritual or mystical in nature. Many are not.
>
> > > > The legitimacy of a myth depends on many features. Umberto Eco in his
> > > > excellent tome 'Foucault's Pendulum' quietly draws our attention to
> > > > the requirements needed for the creation of a robust myth and there is
> > > > no doubt that within most religious and philosophical beliefs the
> > > > required elements are found.
>
> > > > Secular myths, however, are somewhat harder to pin down. This may be
> > > > because they are founded little more than intuition. They are
> > > > therefore difficult to identify as myths in the first place. Also,
> > > > such myths can often serve a very useful purpose.
>
> > > > Let us take as an example the idea of freewill. The idea is so
> > > > embedded in our psych that most of us believe it to be a reality. Even
> > > > so, an in depth study soon reveals the fragility of the idea. So
> > > > fragile is it that philosophers have argued over the question of
> > > > determinism v free will for generations; time which could have been
> > > > more usefully employed on other ventures. Indeed some eminent
> > > > philosophers believe that free will and determinism can sit
> > > > legitimately together – the so called Such is the nature of a myth.
>
> > > > We can only suppose that such an idea must appear rational to us in
> > > > order to give it legitimacy. After all, our ideas of virtuous
> > > > behaviour, responsibility and justice are founded on the idea of free
> > > > will; that we are responsible for our actions and must accept our
> > > > responsibilities. Yet, there is no doubt that free will defies the
> > > > tenets embodied in modern physics, the idea of cause and effect. It
> > > > seems to be extremely difficult for us to accept that some things just
> > > > are.
>
> > > > I am interested in this dilemma because if we eventually discover, if
> > > > we have not already, that determinism is beyond dispute how should we
> > > > react? How could we possibly recreate our society to live with such a
> > > > 'truth'?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário