Mind's Eye Re: A Book At Xmas or two

What I'm after is is something better than virtue ethics Molly - the
psychologists miss the point that language already posits multiple
meanings. People rely on assessment of character and this turns out
to be a dreadful fiction.. We end up in fantasies of the competitive
advantage of creativity Allan describes (or Habermas). Ariely gives
me a big feeling that we already knew his 'discovery' and Molly's
critique above - in short we could do better than this in here. My
own feeling is we're on the brink of cracking the arguments open to
see new outcomes. In most of the games played in classrooms like
'negotiation' someone reasonably bright (there turn out not to be
many) can see the fault lines in the game - much as in Molly's 'kind
of rubbish' above.

My thesis is we may be far enough down the road to a human science now
for the material and its thinking to challenge the current status quo
as science once challenged 'the church'. Much academic work seems
part of the wrong side to me in insisting we have to be so ludicrously
clever to do it and basing what can be done in politesse and etiquette
that prevent us calling a spade a spade to distinguish such from a
shovel (important as shovels serve a different purpose). I think we
can already embody a lot of clever work in machines that can't break
rules and would encourage us to move away from chronic worship of the
golden calf and fear that cleverness is just how we are governed by
flim-flam. Must walk dog.

On 25 Dec, 12:25, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder if the researchers took into account that a truly ethical person
> would not participate in the kind of rubbish that presents predictable
> limited outcomes as fact.  There may, indeed, be a correlation between
> creativity and ethics, but I suspect it is more inclusive and requires
> examination without the limits designed to define results. I keep going
> back to the model of spiral dynamics, one that allows and understands that
> we all move up and down and between memes during our lives given the
> circumstances of our experience.  Someone who does not have enough money
> for food may cheat in this experiment more than someone who has never
> known financial stress or hunger.  Here is a pretty good explanation of the
> original Graves material, although I've seen better, its the best I could
> find online this
> morning.http://www.edumar.cl/documentos/SD_version_for_constellation5.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2012 5:58:21 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
>
> > A free paper with the ideas is at
> >http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/11-064.pdf
> > I was interested because I find professional ethics and religious
> > morality collapse under circumstances of self-interest and become
> > rationalisation.  WE need creative solutions - but there is a dark
> > side to creativity.
>
> > On 24 Dec, 22:03, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >  "The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone —
> > > Especially Ourselves" by Dan Ariely asks a seemingly simple question —
> > > "is dishonesty largely restricted to a few bad apples, or is it a more
> > > widespread problem?" — and goes on to reveal the surprising,
> > > illuminating, often unsettling truths that underpin the uncomfortable
> > > answer. Like cruelty, dishonesty turns out to be a remarkably
> > > prevalent phenomenon better explained by circumstances and cognitive
> > > processes than by concepts like character.
>
> > > Work like this is challenging traditional economics - the genre is
> > > 'behavioural economics'.  My own take on this book and a lot of work
> > > from brain science and history is that we are at a tipping point in
> > > respect of the possibility of a human science.  I'd like to see a
> > > broader literature take up this challenge beyond current drivel on
> > > black and white hats.
>
> > > So what are you guys reading?

--