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

I suspect you are right about that brink, with quantum computing, graphene product development, and all the other game changers coming down the pike, a revolution in human relations would seem imminent. Discussing the possibilities here, a real pleasure.  Time to watch Leonard Cohen in his London concert.  Santa was good.

On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:32:28 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:

Max had a good time with a 6 year-old sheep dog (who insisted I threw
her ball) whilst I had a chat with a nice guy 'escaping' family.
Daughters have entered Xmas spirit - I 'forced' them to read some
Molly - and ended 30 year war!  Max is a massive treat with hardly a
bad bone in him - grandson much the same.

There's free economics book here - http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf
- it's faulty but at least throws some alternatives our way.  The guy
is more rigs' side of the political fence than me but anyone with any
sense surely knows GOP/Demo Left/Right is the problem not about
alternative solutions.

On 25 Dec, 15:55, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

--