Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

It's why I'm away from Ameripol (well, that and the inglorious death of my computer.) There was the whole "someone managed to successfully prank call the President on Air Force One". Thing, I suppose.

[Frumple]

More than prank call, they apparently got cadet bonespurs to call them from the plane. Not even getting their foot in the door, so to speak, they got him to walk out of his own accord.

Mostly just yet another sign the state department et al is kinda' fucked at the moment, really.

[sluissa]

Not strictly Ameripol related, but has significant implications for the polarization of politics on both sides.


http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6396/1465

[Reelya]

Not strictly Ameripol related, but has significant implications for the polarization of politics on both sides.


http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6396/1465

Do we think that a problem persists even when it has become less frequent? Levari et al. show experimentally that when the “signal” a person is searching for becomes rare, the person naturally responds by broadening his or her definition of the signal—and therefore continues to find it even when it is not there. From low-level perception of color to higher-level judgments of ethics, there is a robust tendency for perceptual and judgmental standards to “creep” when they ought not to. For example, when blue dots become rare, participants start calling purple dots blue, and when threatening faces become rare, participants start calling neutral faces threatening.

This fits with what scholars such as Jonothan Haidt have said about phenomena such as microaggressions: they arise in places which have the most established equality and respect (such as liberal++ college campuses), rather than in places of high inequality.

 Outrage is thus the "constant", not things to be outraged about. Take away the actually outrage-worthy things, then people invent new pettier things to be equally outraged about:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise-of-victimhood-culture/404794/

[redwallzyl]

That might also explain the constant ranting of the conservative media about the comparatively rare extremest liberals. They just end up seeing "SJWs" and such everywhere even though such people are very uncommon.

[MrRoboto75]

I'd say american conservatism in general is fueled by fear and outrage.

No real reason to keep things the same if change isn't horrifying.

[Trekkin]

scholars such as Jonothan Haidt

I guess when scholars become rare, Templeton Prize winners look like scholars?

[Reelya]

Huh? Not sure what you're implying.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/scholar

scholar: a person who studies a subject in great detail, especially at a university

How is that rare, or some sort of stretch to call someone with a PhD, who teaches at a mainstream college and has published research a scholar? Calling someone who has a PhD in an area, conducts research, teaches, and writes books about it a "scholar" is less wanky than an alternative choice such as "intellectual". Being a scholar is what you do, being an "intellectual" implies the person is innately better than everyone else.

Or, I guess you're saying that because someone else decided to give him that award, then that devalues all the work he's ever done?

The guy is a liberal atheist, who's area of study is on the psychology of ethics and morality. That crosses over into studying the psychology of religion, which is probably why he won that prize, but it's very unfair to say that winning the prize means he cannot be taken seriously as a scholar. It looks like trying really hard to find the one thing you don't like about that guy then implying it defines his entire career.

This short article kind of sums up the deal, cutting out some quotes:

https://www.edge.org/conversation/jonathan_haidt-moral-psychology-and-the-misunderstanding-of-religion

as a secular liberal I agree that contractual societies such as those of Western Europe offer the best hope for living peacefully together in our increasingly diverse modern nations ... I just want to make one point, however, that should give contractualists pause: surveys have long shown that religious believers in the United States are happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people.

If religious people are happier and healthier than non-religious people it's definitely a worthwhile goal to study the in-depth reasons for that, which is one of Jonathon Haidt's areas of study, which he won that Templeton award for. If you can unravel why religion makes people happy then you can use that to make a better atheism, too: being miserable but right about everything is of limited pragmatic value, so it's worthwhile to work out how religion makes people happy.

[scriver]

I immediately thought of "War on Chtidtmas" rhetoric. Fifty years ago "Happy Holidays" was a neat way to sum up both Christmas and New Years into one greeting. Today (or maybe 10-ish years ago? I might not be entirely up to date on this aspect of American culture) saying it is a direct attack against Christianity or something?

[hector13]

Can’t acknowledge there are other religions celebrating things at the same time, man.

[redwallzyl]

It's perceived as an attack on there "rights." The reality is however that it's not. It's an attack on their privilege by finally extending all the rights enjoyed by Christianity under freedom of religion to, gasp, other religions. Happy holidays seems to just be a focal point for the backlash.

[Andux]

That might also explain the constant ranting of the conservative media about the comparatively rare extremest liberals. They just end up seeing "SJWs" and such everywhere even though such people are very uncommon.

Man-bites-dog journalism and the human brain's availability heuristic: Making people worried about the wrong things since time immemorial.

[Egan_BW]

If religious people are happier and healthier than non-religious people it's definitely a worthwhile goal to study the in-depth reasons for that, which is one of Jonathon Haidt's areas of study, which he won that Templeton award for. If you can unravel why religion makes people happy then you can use that to make a better atheism, too: being miserable but right about everything is of limited pragmatic value, so it's worthwhile to work out how religion makes people happy.

Actual question because I'm curious: is there evidence that the causality actually runs that way, as opposed to, for example, people more predisposed to unhappiness being more likely to choose atheism?

[SalmonGod]

If religious people are happier and healthier than non-religious people it's definitely a worthwhile goal to study the in-depth reasons for that, which is one of Jonathon Haidt's areas of study, which he won that Templeton award for. If you can unravel why religion makes people happy then you can use that to make a better atheism, too: being miserable but right about everything is of limited pragmatic value, so it's worthwhile to work out how religion makes people happy.

Actual question because I'm curious: is there evidence that the causality actually runs that way, as opposed to, for example, people more predisposed to unhappiness being more likely to choose atheism?

Determining stuff like that would be the purpose of further study.

[Frumple]

Last I paid much attention it's primarily the socialization aspect generally involved, though there's some other things. Not so much religion itself save insofar as its bitsies lend themselves well to forming the sort of in-groups human neurology tends to react well towards.