We had a great discussion in the North Vancouver Ideas Cafe tonight.
Shula started off with the first point that it is the result that we admire, not so much of the reason as to whether it is talent or hard work. We appreciate good music and inspiring athletic performance on its own.
But what about Terry Fox and Rick Hansen, who had to overcome extraordinary obstacles. It is their persevering over these obstacles that is the object of admiration, not the result of crossing the finish line.
Mano pointed out that we do not need to look at things on an either/or exclusive of each other basis. We can admire someone for both their talent and their effort or a combination of both. We can also admire the end result on its own regardless of how it was achieved.
As the discussion went on, it became clear that the word "admire" is rather loose with several meanings. It can mean appreciation, recognition of extraordinary accomplishment, or just liking something that is good to look at, and to know.
Rafi pointed out that good looking people are known to get further ahead in society with less effort. It is similar to talent.
But then again, even the predisposition to work hard may also be a trait we are born with; in which case the desire to work hard to accomplish is no different than talent and beauty?
Blair thinks that hard work can only get so far, especially with something creative like music. However, he would still rather hire a hard worker over someone who is talented.
Leagh agreed that talent is not important as being dependable and hardworking for most jobs. However, as the discussion continues, it became apparent that there may be jobs where creativity is more important than being dependable and hardworking. It is just that the vast majority of jobs are better served by the hard worker.
Poets are a good example of creativity over hard work.
Steve Nash is an example of a successful basketball player in spite of not being a very tall person. Michael Jordan is an example of a tall basketball player who is successful not only because he is tall.
So we can admire the end result, the effort, the will, the normalcy of the artist or athlete in spite of their success.
We can also admire ordinary people doing their task against stiff challenges with little recognition from others.
But the admiration tends to come from something extraordinary and over our expectations. It is hard to admire people doing routine tasks such as making toast or boiling water (unless some challenging situation which makes this exceptional).
What we should not admire is the herd behavior of what is "popular" for no other reason than other people like it. This then branch off into a discussion of how to appreciate art and music that we do not currently appreciate. Is this an "acquire taste" that we should train ourself? or is our taste correct in judging it bad art no matter how many other people like it?
Topic for another day!
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
Angry Atheists
Shula moderated the Wednesday SFU philosophy cafe about the new wave of militant atheists. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Danial Dennet have done much to bring atheism to the main stage so that atheists can feel comfortable coming out of the closet.
While most in the group are non religious, there were a few who spoke for the religious side.
It is always quite personal when it comes down to religion.
However, the points I got out of the discussion was
1. For the average person not involved in academic scientific research, it is just as much an act of faith to trust scientist as it is to trust religion. It comes down to who they choose to trust because they do not know enough about science to see the scientific inquiry process in action.
2. Science itself is affected by human weakness like herd mentality and lack of independent thinking. There is definite favoritism involved in the publishing of papers and choice of research area as well as "accepted opinion".
3. Some attribute religion for the great art and culture in human history but Hitchens and Dawkins, the atheists would attribute it to the great wealth of the church over the ages and artists have a choice of working for the church or the monarch but not too many other people until the Venetian bankers came along. Michealangelo better walk the churches' line to paint what is appropriate for the church.
4. The religious side also attribute our morality from the bible and other religious teachings. This is where Hitchens and Dawkins point out all the other horrible episodes of slavery, unequal treatment of women, killing of the enemies etc to show that we have been just picking parts of the bible that fits our morals. Besides, the Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese, and other cultures have their moral code either before the new testament or independent of it.
5. While the religious texts do treat matters of morality, codes of behavior, and meaning of life which science does not, the objection is that it is a prescription without discussion or explanation. So it addresses the subject but do not shed any more light on it.
I think the biggest difference is that religion approach life from a know it all position because the supreme being know it all and we are suppose to listen and follow.
Therefore, the important thing in religion is finding the right authority to listen to. Which supreme being, if there is one, is the one we should listen to?
The scientific inquiry method and philosophical discussions starts from a position of ignorance and build knowledge from observations, logic, and repeat experiments. The path of discovery is filled with disagreements, setbacks, and new discoveries that contradicts previous findings.
And we never know how much more there is to discover.
We don't have to trust Newton or Socrates, we only have to repeat their experiments, or examine the logic of their arguments. Even if they both turned out to be fakes and they stole their ideas from someone else, it is their ideas that matter, not the person.
With religion, the choice of god is everything. Whether it is the Greek gods, the Christian, Jewish, or Islamic god, or the Hindu god, it is the deity that promise to provide the answers.
Whether there is a god or not, the religious approach certainly discourage independent thought and promote following without question.
Dawkins thinks we should not bring up children in only the religion of their parents but that children should be encouraged to think independently as well as be told about other religions as well as atheist perspectives so that they can make an independent choice when they grow up.
I would agree.
While most in the group are non religious, there were a few who spoke for the religious side.
It is always quite personal when it comes down to religion.
However, the points I got out of the discussion was
1. For the average person not involved in academic scientific research, it is just as much an act of faith to trust scientist as it is to trust religion. It comes down to who they choose to trust because they do not know enough about science to see the scientific inquiry process in action.
2. Science itself is affected by human weakness like herd mentality and lack of independent thinking. There is definite favoritism involved in the publishing of papers and choice of research area as well as "accepted opinion".
3. Some attribute religion for the great art and culture in human history but Hitchens and Dawkins, the atheists would attribute it to the great wealth of the church over the ages and artists have a choice of working for the church or the monarch but not too many other people until the Venetian bankers came along. Michealangelo better walk the churches' line to paint what is appropriate for the church.
4. The religious side also attribute our morality from the bible and other religious teachings. This is where Hitchens and Dawkins point out all the other horrible episodes of slavery, unequal treatment of women, killing of the enemies etc to show that we have been just picking parts of the bible that fits our morals. Besides, the Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese, and other cultures have their moral code either before the new testament or independent of it.
5. While the religious texts do treat matters of morality, codes of behavior, and meaning of life which science does not, the objection is that it is a prescription without discussion or explanation. So it addresses the subject but do not shed any more light on it.
I think the biggest difference is that religion approach life from a know it all position because the supreme being know it all and we are suppose to listen and follow.
Therefore, the important thing in religion is finding the right authority to listen to. Which supreme being, if there is one, is the one we should listen to?
The scientific inquiry method and philosophical discussions starts from a position of ignorance and build knowledge from observations, logic, and repeat experiments. The path of discovery is filled with disagreements, setbacks, and new discoveries that contradicts previous findings.
And we never know how much more there is to discover.
We don't have to trust Newton or Socrates, we only have to repeat their experiments, or examine the logic of their arguments. Even if they both turned out to be fakes and they stole their ideas from someone else, it is their ideas that matter, not the person.
With religion, the choice of god is everything. Whether it is the Greek gods, the Christian, Jewish, or Islamic god, or the Hindu god, it is the deity that promise to provide the answers.
Whether there is a god or not, the religious approach certainly discourage independent thought and promote following without question.
Dawkins thinks we should not bring up children in only the religion of their parents but that children should be encouraged to think independently as well as be told about other religions as well as atheist perspectives so that they can make an independent choice when they grow up.
I would agree.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Why do we gossip?
We had an interesting discussion Wednesday evening about gossip and this continued on in our first time North Vancouver Ideas Cafe on Thursday.
There seem to be several variations of what is gossip.
While I always thought of gossip as involving some sharing of secrets and often of a negative nature, a lot of people think gossip can be positive and also that it can be just conversation and small talk.
One of the definitions in my dictionary is that gossip is a conversation exchange without passing too much information......Then what is the point?
It is a typical male response as we males tend to be goal oriented. Now I see that gossip and conversation is not just about exchanging information but often more about socializing. It is about making people feel comfortable with each other, exploring whether they should talk about something more personal to get into a closer circle with the other person.
As to the sharing of secrets side of gossip, the secrets invoke drama, excitment, and a proposal of trust to the receiver of this shared secret. There is no greater social experience than sharing a common endeaver with another person and sharing a secret is a close second to that.
Bruce mentioned that 160 students is an optimal size for a school and that schools with more students need to take special efforts to improve coesion to stop the school from breaking up into factions.
This triggered my thinking that gossip is part of how a social group forms and grows and how smaller subgroups start forming within a bigger group that is loosing its grip on its members.
The sharing of confidences builds bonds among individuals sharing the secret and start making them feel that they have kinship with each other.
Ricki and Colleen said that they would not feel any closer to people who propose sharing other secrets with them as these gossipers are obviously not to be trusted.
Just like a lier that said he no longer lies, how do we know that a gossiper will not spread gossip about us as well?
That is very logical but the appeal of gossip is to the emotions, not logic.
Then, there is the gossip column in the newspapers. It is characterised by the reporting of social news that do not seem to have any real consequence to the welfare of the general citizen. Joseph said that this is an effort to make readers have a feeling of community, that they read about people they may know, making them feel they belong to the community.
It is what makes people feel a small town is friendlier than a city, where people know each other - where people gossip about someone you actually know.
Of course there is the preoccupation with the detail lives of the celebrities. Some thinks that this is a form of open gossip. The general public have a relationship with the celebrities through TV, film, music, and media. Gossip about celebrities' private lives make the public that much closer to the celebrities.
RJ commented that gossip in which the gossiper puts down their target is a classic indication of lack of self esteem of the gossiper and the gossiper is trying to elevate his/her own position by "social downward comparison" (a new term I learn from Joseph). Any psychology person out there who may care to comment?
I have gained a new respect for small talk.
There seem to be several variations of what is gossip.
While I always thought of gossip as involving some sharing of secrets and often of a negative nature, a lot of people think gossip can be positive and also that it can be just conversation and small talk.
One of the definitions in my dictionary is that gossip is a conversation exchange without passing too much information......Then what is the point?
It is a typical male response as we males tend to be goal oriented. Now I see that gossip and conversation is not just about exchanging information but often more about socializing. It is about making people feel comfortable with each other, exploring whether they should talk about something more personal to get into a closer circle with the other person.
As to the sharing of secrets side of gossip, the secrets invoke drama, excitment, and a proposal of trust to the receiver of this shared secret. There is no greater social experience than sharing a common endeaver with another person and sharing a secret is a close second to that.
Bruce mentioned that 160 students is an optimal size for a school and that schools with more students need to take special efforts to improve coesion to stop the school from breaking up into factions.
This triggered my thinking that gossip is part of how a social group forms and grows and how smaller subgroups start forming within a bigger group that is loosing its grip on its members.
The sharing of confidences builds bonds among individuals sharing the secret and start making them feel that they have kinship with each other.
Ricki and Colleen said that they would not feel any closer to people who propose sharing other secrets with them as these gossipers are obviously not to be trusted.
Just like a lier that said he no longer lies, how do we know that a gossiper will not spread gossip about us as well?
That is very logical but the appeal of gossip is to the emotions, not logic.
Then, there is the gossip column in the newspapers. It is characterised by the reporting of social news that do not seem to have any real consequence to the welfare of the general citizen. Joseph said that this is an effort to make readers have a feeling of community, that they read about people they may know, making them feel they belong to the community.
It is what makes people feel a small town is friendlier than a city, where people know each other - where people gossip about someone you actually know.
Of course there is the preoccupation with the detail lives of the celebrities. Some thinks that this is a form of open gossip. The general public have a relationship with the celebrities through TV, film, music, and media. Gossip about celebrities' private lives make the public that much closer to the celebrities.
RJ commented that gossip in which the gossiper puts down their target is a classic indication of lack of self esteem of the gossiper and the gossiper is trying to elevate his/her own position by "social downward comparison" (a new term I learn from Joseph). Any psychology person out there who may care to comment?
I have gained a new respect for small talk.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Fear in decision making
Last night, at the Ideas Cafe, we discussed how fear played in our decision making.
As usual, I learned some interesting ideas while the discussion moved in various directions.
I had thought of the topic as it seems to me a lot of times we decide on the basis of least harm done out of the options we have rather than the most good achieved. The attack ads in an election is a good example of this and buying something on the basis that it is least likely to break or cause maintenance issues is another.
Mano thinks it is just being practical to buy things based on it not breaking or being able to return it. But if that is the reason for not buying something that is newer, better, or different, then is being practical just an excuse for fearful of take a chance?
Mano also mentioned the Barry Goldwater election back in the 60s when the other side used an advertisement of a child pulling out petals from a flower that then turned into the mushroom cloud of an atomic bomb. This is the other side's way of saying we cannot trust Barry Goldwater with the power of a president and the responsibility of to use or not to use nuclear weapons. The advertisement was only used briefly but the image stuck.
Fear works more with older, conservative decision makers and can be used to confuse the situation so that the decision is not based on the overall picture but concentrated on avoiding a particular fear.
Shula thinks that fear is an emotional response to trigger fight or flight and therefore tends to be a fast reacting but not always resulting in a logical decision outcome. With training, soldiers, fire fighters and other workers facing fearful situations can be trained to make better decisions rather than follow the emotional reaction.
Rafi made the point that we need to be imaginative to be fearful. A less imaginative person cannot see what bad situations one can get into. It may be the reason why younger people are less fearful because they have experienced less negative experiences in life and do not imagine the various negative scenarios.
Mark said courage is required to conquer or suppress our fears. We had a discussion on what constitute a courageous act. Is it measured by exceeding normal modes of risk taking or would personal attempts to get over the fear of heights, flying, or crossing the road also be considered courageous. Maybe it needs to achieve a useful end for taking that risk.
Fear and worry in decision making are similar but perhaps differ in degree. The language is mixed here and sometimes confusing "I am afraid that..."expresses a worry.
Of course there were discussion of the political manipulation by using fear and that perhaps we should not trust groups that use fear to convince decision making as it unfairly concentrate on a narrow aspect of the choice selection.
Rafi also mentioned that fear is more prominent when we decide on issues we are not familiar with. We do not know or understand the whole situation and therefore we decide on the safest option. Shula pointed out that doctors are fearful of medical scenarios that their patients do not know of. Is that really fear or is it just language being use to say they know of negative outcomes that the patients do not know?
Christiana said that fear of heights is an innate response as babies have been measured to have a higher heart beat when placed on an elevated clear platform versus an opaque one.
Good fear is the response that concentrates our attention and get us out of a dangerous situation quickly.
Bad fear is irrational response of something that is not immediately harmful and also divert our attention from the overall picture at hand, concentrating only on one aspect.
Therefore, when we feel fear and we don't instinctively save ourselves, our rational side should ask if we really need to make a quick decision and if not, should we bring in other factors beyond what is right in front of us into consideration.
Don't bring your rational side in when you are about to fall down the stairs, grab the handrail instead.
Don't be afraid of what can go wrong in choosing careers, one does not know what good as well as bad things can happen until actually in it.
As usual, I learned some interesting ideas while the discussion moved in various directions.
I had thought of the topic as it seems to me a lot of times we decide on the basis of least harm done out of the options we have rather than the most good achieved. The attack ads in an election is a good example of this and buying something on the basis that it is least likely to break or cause maintenance issues is another.
Mano thinks it is just being practical to buy things based on it not breaking or being able to return it. But if that is the reason for not buying something that is newer, better, or different, then is being practical just an excuse for fearful of take a chance?
Mano also mentioned the Barry Goldwater election back in the 60s when the other side used an advertisement of a child pulling out petals from a flower that then turned into the mushroom cloud of an atomic bomb. This is the other side's way of saying we cannot trust Barry Goldwater with the power of a president and the responsibility of to use or not to use nuclear weapons. The advertisement was only used briefly but the image stuck.
Fear works more with older, conservative decision makers and can be used to confuse the situation so that the decision is not based on the overall picture but concentrated on avoiding a particular fear.
Shula thinks that fear is an emotional response to trigger fight or flight and therefore tends to be a fast reacting but not always resulting in a logical decision outcome. With training, soldiers, fire fighters and other workers facing fearful situations can be trained to make better decisions rather than follow the emotional reaction.
Rafi made the point that we need to be imaginative to be fearful. A less imaginative person cannot see what bad situations one can get into. It may be the reason why younger people are less fearful because they have experienced less negative experiences in life and do not imagine the various negative scenarios.
Mark said courage is required to conquer or suppress our fears. We had a discussion on what constitute a courageous act. Is it measured by exceeding normal modes of risk taking or would personal attempts to get over the fear of heights, flying, or crossing the road also be considered courageous. Maybe it needs to achieve a useful end for taking that risk.
Fear and worry in decision making are similar but perhaps differ in degree. The language is mixed here and sometimes confusing "I am afraid that..."expresses a worry.
Of course there were discussion of the political manipulation by using fear and that perhaps we should not trust groups that use fear to convince decision making as it unfairly concentrate on a narrow aspect of the choice selection.
Rafi also mentioned that fear is more prominent when we decide on issues we are not familiar with. We do not know or understand the whole situation and therefore we decide on the safest option. Shula pointed out that doctors are fearful of medical scenarios that their patients do not know of. Is that really fear or is it just language being use to say they know of negative outcomes that the patients do not know?
Christiana said that fear of heights is an innate response as babies have been measured to have a higher heart beat when placed on an elevated clear platform versus an opaque one.
Good fear is the response that concentrates our attention and get us out of a dangerous situation quickly.
Bad fear is irrational response of something that is not immediately harmful and also divert our attention from the overall picture at hand, concentrating only on one aspect.
Therefore, when we feel fear and we don't instinctively save ourselves, our rational side should ask if we really need to make a quick decision and if not, should we bring in other factors beyond what is right in front of us into consideration.
Don't bring your rational side in when you are about to fall down the stairs, grab the handrail instead.
Don't be afraid of what can go wrong in choosing careers, one does not know what good as well as bad things can happen until actually in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)