<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Hannes & Christian:<br>
The view I am working from is somewhat like Alice Andrews: It
appears that around 50% of our behavior is from gene expression, which
can be modulated by environmental triggers. The other part is probably
quite modifiable.<br>
The dilemma as I see it is unforeseen consequences of attempts to
modify behavior, a common phenomenon. I.e.: Children rewarded for
reading lose interest in the reading because they focus on the
reinforcers. <br>
Because of the unintended consequences it appears that socialism
and welfare state economics are very tricky and difficult to impliment.
So some prefer to have a lower level of social welfare programs because
they often backfire. Arguably Bush's policies contain many of these.
Bush put barriers up for steel imports, saving steel industry jobs but
costing many more jobs because of the ripple effect of raising steel
prices. Bush passed a Medicare drug benefit that now appears to vastly
accelerate the social security crisis. Bush passed "no child left
behind" and may have harmed education by costing school districts new
resources because of the burden of complying with this program. <br>
So it appears government can help or harm, but often harms because
we aren't smart enough to view the consequences of our actions. Bentham
is wrong, because we cannot know what is the greatest good for the
greatest number.<br>
In my humble opinion,<br>
Lynn<br>
<br>
Christian Rauh (from webmail) wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid1105966700.41ebb66ccd195@rauh.net">
<pre wrap="">Lynn and Steve,
If man cannot be "perfected" by changes in the environment, it follows that it
cannot be "imperfected" by changes.
If you assume the above then you shouldn´t bother with how society is structured
at all.
However, both of you have your takes on how things OUGHT to be so that men
(individually or socially) are BETTER (more perfect).
Christian
Quoting "Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D." <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ljohnson@solution-consulting.com"><ljohnson@solution-consulting.com></a>:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Steve,
You asked me to reflect on your hate speech. Fair enough. I feel:
- sadness: You are a talented person who engages in reckless talk
that cheapens dialog.
I am obligated to oppose hate speech. Deontological obligation. Never
again Jewish gas chambers, never again Cambodian killing fields, never
again Saddam's mass executions. Every person is obligated to oppose hate
speech from whatever source.
Buddha said: Thoughts become speech; speech becomes actions, actions
become habit, habit becomes character. Take care therefore for your
thoughts.
So I speak against hate, and in favor of thoughtful and
compassionate dialog.
About the perfection angle: Read "Radical Son" by Horowitz, where he
discusses that. That notion is also behind the infamous 'politically
correct dialog' that feminists and constructivists championed about 20
years ago. It is also behind the attempts to end poverty, as Johnson's
great failure, the "War on Poverty." It is also behind Stalin's embrace
of Lysenko. The idea is that by changing society we can fundamentally
change people. So there is a substantial body of evidence for that as an
implicit idea, perhaps not espoused but more a theory-in-action.
Steve Hovland wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">As a card carrying liberal, I do not think that
people can be perfected if we have the right
kind of society. I have no idea where you
get this formulation.
Steve Hovland
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.stevehovland.net">www.stevehovland.net</a>
-----Original Message-----
From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:SMTP:ljohnson@solution-consulting.com">SMTP:ljohnson@solution-consulting.com</a>]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 9:08 PM
To: Alice Andrews; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</a>
Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: An Evolutionary Mind...
Alice,
Wonderful! I am glad for you. It is always worthwhile to share something
you clearly worked hard on. I also read the Dembski review in the same
issue, and had fun with that.
You said, The feminist academic psychologist also asked me if it was
not dangerous to our students to teach that "motherhood is innate and
that the only way to be happy is to be a mother."
You have identified the problem I have with feminists, namely that
they ignore data that contradicts their theory, and they believe that
only ideas that support their theory should be taught.
At another level, you have identified a classic difference between
modern conservatism and modern liberalism. The conservative believes
that people cannot be perfected by society, the liberal believes that,
given the right society, people can be perfected. Every contrary example
is explained away.
And I liked your description of your reaction to the dutch treat
date where the man wanted to kiss you, even though you were raised not
to have just that reaction. Sounds innate! So I think your article was a
thought-provoking one and I hope it is widely read. I will forward it to
the paleo list and encourage people to look it up.
Lynn
Alice Andrews wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Lynn,
remember that piece you read some of....re me and the economist,
etc. "An Evolutionary Mind,"?...well it's a lot longer (i'm afraid)
but published!
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/index.asp">http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/index.asp</a>
Thanks again for your encouraging words...they definitely inspired me
to continue on writing!
All best!
Alice
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><< File: ATT00000.html >> << File: ATT00001.txt >>
_______________________________________________
paleopsych mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych">http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
_______________________________________________
paleopsych mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych">http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>