651. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111813 by Radesq on January 15, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Don_Quix There you go again...why don't you give half of that to the poor.

But on a serious note DasSquid I think we understand hypothetical situations...it just shows that happiness in terms of financial security is relative. These "insights" are not new, I'm not trying to tear down Shermer...he seems like a nice enough guy I suppose. However, this is the third or forth thread about his homo economicus theories.

652. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111793 by Radesq on January 15, 2008 at 7:20 pm

I'm not as worried about Huckleberry because I don't think he can garner enough votes outside the Bible Belt. It's Mitt Romney "the Stormin' Mormon" that I worry stands a chance of getting elected. He just won the Michigan primary.

653. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111787 by Radesq on January 15, 2008 at 6:36 pm

What justice are we talking about? Vengeful justice as in eye for an eye? Fairness? One man one vote? Univerals (not the work out machines) appear to me to be man made truisms that only apply to the affairs of sentient beings. Or basically what Don Quix said...

654. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111786 by Radesq on January 15, 2008 at 6:27 pm

I'm not sure what you mean. Well, I think people empathize/sympathize with those who are suffering because most of us have suffered at one time or another and it was not a pleasant experience. Nobody becomes a success on their own - we all have help. There are no true by my own bootstraps alone stories. People will be accountable for their poor decisions (even if they are not entirely responsible for their failings) There are those who even when you try to help them (either by hand up or hand out) will fail and that is accountability itself.

655. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111775 by Radesq on January 15, 2008 at 6:01 pm

I suppose that's not the only thing we differ on Dr. Steve. I cannot say I am happy to pay taxes -- more like resigned that it is necessary to the betterment of all in my society and worth doing (if the rates of taxation are in line with the benefits gained and if the benefits are widely enough distributed). However, perhaps you would agree that an unemotional life (like an unexamined one) is not worth living.

656. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111772 by Radesq on January 15, 2008 at 5:54 pm

Scooter on another thread didn't you say something to the effect of most people make most of their decisions based on emotion or "gut feeling" and then just rationalize them afterwards? I think that is likely pretty close to the truth. In as much as I don't think we have time to think through completely most of the decisions we make. Don't we usually make a thumbnail sketch of a logical decision and then fill in the blanks later?

657. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #111768 by Radesq on January 15, 2008 at 5:46 pm

On the other hand if your hypothesis is wrong God is probably a huge fan of reality TV shows.

658. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111763 by Radesq on January 15, 2008 at 5:40 pm

Scooter & Steve: I think I come down on this somewhere between the two of you on the emotional decision making spectrum. Steve are you really "happy" to pay taxes or content to do so? I suspect that your finding emotions useful in making decisions is really your reason looking back on what you think are good decisions with an emotional element to them. You've made poor decisions based on other emotions right (jealousy, anger) were those useful? As for you Scooter I keep expecting one of your posts to consist of nothing more than a Spockian "Fascinating". There must be something that can get you fired up enough to let go of your cold logic a little bit right?

659. The Mind of the Market

Comment #111755 by Radesq on January 15, 2008 at 5:18 pm

al rawandi I take back the w00ter thing, you don't deserve that - sorry. I stand by the rest of it though and would like to hear your response.

660. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111750 by Radesq on January 15, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Emotions are like Alcoholism - I'll drink to that Scooter!

661. The Mind of the Market

Comment #111747 by Radesq on January 15, 2008 at 4:57 pm

WOW al rawandi I can't think of anything I have disagreed with more that hasn't been posted by w00ter. And I don't insult you lightly because I have read many of your posts and can appreciate your point of view; but I find this one too much. Are you saying that a majority of the violence perpetrated by Muslims is a product of poverty and lack of self-determination and freedom of opportunity? Well of course it is, at least in some part! But it is the religious fundamentalism that allows this to jump off the rationality track and become a crusade or jihad if you will (this level of insanity can be achieved by means other than religion -- see Fascism -- but religion with its already tenuous grip on reality just does it so much more easily). I emphatically do not find indifference to the suffering of others worse or even equal to the deliberate targeting of civilians for violence. I understand your arguments about guerrilla warfare and using the tactics that are available to you. I think there is a qualitative difference however between al queda and the fight against an occupying power such as the USA in Iraq or Israel. Give al queda what they want(which seems somewhat amorphous to me to begin with)and they will just find something else to feel wronged about. F them. Breaking down the religious divisiveness will be a necessary step to reaching any rational diplomatic solution in the middle east (and that will mean breaking the power of Islam itself -- no small feat). As long as the goal to have a growing Islamic empire (is caliphate the right term?)governed by sharia persists there will be next to no chance of reaching a peaceful equilibrium. Islam is as much to blame for the problems of Muslims than the West is (what good is a revolution against an unjust dictator or an election for that matter if you end up "choosing" to be governed by religious doctrine enforced by new dictators?) Meet the new boss...same as the old boss. As to Africa no one is blameless there, least of all Africans. The Gulf States have plenty of money -- what have they ever done for anybody - apparently brown people are indifferent to the suffering of black Africans too. Worse than that really -- look at Sudan over the last half century. Finally it is not white lives that I consider most valuable it is American lives and more specifically my life. Must be my selfish genes.

662. The Mind of the Market

Comment #111439 by Radesq on January 14, 2008 at 3:29 pm

al rawandi: Is your point that we aren't afraid that Hutu's or Tutsi's are going to try to cut down the Empire State Building or the Sears Tower with machetes? I think that might be why we pay more attention to the violence committed in connection with Islam and why it is more dangerous to the West.

663. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111386 by Radesq on January 14, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Best wishes to you Mr. Scales for all you have done and all that you may yet do for freedom and reason! Please get well soon!

664. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111377 by Radesq on January 14, 2008 at 1:07 pm

All this stuff about words and concepts is taking my mind back to Plato/Socrates in college philosophy class and "forms" and the shadows on the cave wall...is this where we're heading with this?

665. The Mind of the Market

Comment #111312 by Radesq on January 14, 2008 at 9:33 am

JDAM - Thank goodness when Mormon Mitt gets elected we're going to close the border so we won't have anymore of those multi-multi millionaires coming into the USA anymore stealing my million dollar job.

666. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111154 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 6:51 pm

Damien -- the Batboy appreciates utility as he has a whole belt dedicated to it. But what difference does it make to Shermer's points whether you are using utility units or monetary units?

667. Fish out of water: Your Inner Fish

Comment #111134 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Yeah, that's why Methuselah and Noah and all those guys lived for hundreds of years -- good clean livin' off the land.

668. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111130 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 4:58 pm

I don't think the instinctual part of the brain understands money as anything but a zero sum arrangement. If you have more I have less. That might in part explain the 50K versus 100K test. So perhaps people who answer the question just don't think it through (is that really that hard to believe?)or maybe they over thought it (if I'm getting paid twice as much as the others in this scenario maybe I'm really good at my job and vice versa, etc.) As far as the monkeys being risk averse to 50/50 bets even a monkey knows that a coin flip can come up heads 12 times in a row then you would have no food and no tokens -- hell hath no fury like a hungry monkey. Finally on the 90/10 split...if you didn't have the decency to offer me half then I'll be happy to fore go my ten to deny you any of it (if that's not logical enough I could just hit you over the head and take your 90% when your not looking). When I say you I don't mean you of course -- I'd never do that to you because you would share.

669. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111046 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 11:54 am

Artful Dodger

Looking on the West, and many other Africans, were horrified. Why should we have been?

670. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111020 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 10:51 am

Would that be Eric Burdon Diacanu? At any rate even if morality is relative and merely a construct it is useful and therefore there could be a benefit for it being a genetically reproducible phenomenon at least in part.

671. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110982 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 10:14 am

Ack! Don't count me a troll also but you can't use unnecessary harm as a modifier in your explanation as we can all differ on what is or is not necessary harm.

672. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110962 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 9:43 am

Not illusions Henri. Agreed upon frameworks, even if some of the agreement is garnered at the point of a bayonet. The power relationships you argue for are real but people can endlessly fight against the establishment of civilization and its morality if they choose to -- if they don't succeed it may be because evolution has already selected behaviors that are the most successful. Time will tell.

673. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110950 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 9:20 am

>If God is dead, everything is permissable [sic].
Henri: You have just provided perhaps the best justification of the rule of law and the organization of the nation state (such as they are).

674. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110944 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 9:08 am

Oh come on Dr. Steve, nobody is very gay or very straight or very bisexual unless you include sexual appetite in the equation (in which case how very immodest of you). Otherwise you must be including some other traits which are far more likely to be culturally learned ("chosen")behaviors as part of the definition of being gay. Unless there is a gene for gay and another one for very gay. Jeesh, I hate going down this road...in fact the floor is yours contradict me if you will.

675. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110934 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 8:50 am

Phew! That's a relief. I thought I might have to take issue with you about homosexuality; something with which you are "intimately" more familiar than I. ;)

676. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110929 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 8:43 am

HB Are you homosexual?
SZ Very.

Not on topic but what do you mean very? That does not seem like something I would expect you too say, Dr. Steve.

677. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110916 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 8:10 am

Will to power sounds of megalomania to me. Unless it is the power to tell other people to mind your own business.

678. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110908 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 7:44 am

I think sarcasm is often the most honest form of communication.

679. The Group Delusion

Comment #110906 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 7:41 am

Many people on this site have engaged w00ter in discussion reasonably at first but have over time learned from his inane cutting and pasting of non-responsive materials that he is not interested in serious debate but rather "de-baiting". So when a well reasoned inquiry or statement is posted by him it will get due respect. Until then he will get sarcasm from me. Americans might recognize my reworked jingle -- "call robo w00ter, that's the name -- and away goes reason down the drain..."

680. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110901 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 7:28 am

Just as a sci-fi hypothetical: What if a genetic mutation (man made or otherwise)caused humans to become carriers of a contagious disease or other problem that was deadly to children under a year old? Let's say it took around 40-50 years to develop this condition. Would it then become moral to commit suicide or to kill all adults by age 38? Would selection favor new generations that did not have a genetic predisposition against killing adult humans, even family members?

681. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110894 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 7:08 am

In response to Dr. Steve If it only takes a minor change -- why do you think some morals will last indefinitely? Are you predicting there will be no environmental change to select new morals? Which ones do you think have staying power?

682. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110893 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 7:05 am

I should leave this alone, but I can't help myself. Just like the Shermer book thread -- I think the Gates thing is a systemic issue with Corporate Capitalism. The ethos of maximizing corporate financial return leads to predatory behavior. It does not seem possible to provide a "fairly" priced product or service these days (perhaps it never has been and there were no good old days). Somebody is always taking it on the chin (it may be the consumer or it may be labor); but most corporate directors (and by extension shareholders)seem to be unwilling to make a nickel less than they can squeeze out of whatever it is they are selling. Does it have to be that way? Are margins so slim? I'm thinking of Walmart, ExxonMobil, MicroSoft, etc. here. Should Gates give MS products away -- no -- maybe he should sell them for cost plus a "reasonable" profit meaning not as much as the market will bear. Then he could consider the money his customers save as charity.

683. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110887 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 6:45 am

Dr. Steve -- There would only have to be a really powerful or really prolonged environmental change for long ingrained instinct to be overridden by selection -- right?

684. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110882 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 6:31 am

Or maybe I should read the title of the piece "The Moral Instinct" (sorry) Sometimes these threads get me side tracked from the starting point of discussion. So if we evolve traits that lead to successful social interactions - are these inherent morality? That makes sense to me. But as Steve said above these can be (and are, I think regularly) overridden by culture. Not only that, but can be changed by selection over time as the environment requires and therefore are not absolute. Even morality carved in stone tablets will not withstand erosion given enough time.

685. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110880 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 6:20 am

OK but I thought there might be a moral difference between something that is "good" and something that is "useful". A survival instinct is useful (and "good" compared to dying) but not what I think of as good for the sake of being good; that is to say what I thought morally good meant.

686. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110875 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 5:56 am

I'm not following the discussion here. To say there is an objective morality (genetic?) that says it is wrong to kill -- that can't be right. Humans kill all the time (especially other species, but also other humans in "defense of" self, family, property, country, religion, way of life,etc...)Do you mean to say we have a genetic predisposition not to kill those that we like or who at least do not seem to be a threat to us? That doesn't seem like morality to me but rather survival instinct.

687. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110726 by Radesq on January 12, 2008 at 7:38 am

Bill Gates could certainly afford to buy some church indulgences if not sainthood -- so he's got that going for him -- which is nice.

688. New attempt to end blasphemy law

Comment #109764 by Radesq on January 9, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Interesting that we don't have such a thing in Puritan USA. If you are being honest over there in Britain is this action (to remove legal protection for religion) made more possible by rationalism or by a growing Muslim population? Go ahead and shoot the messenger if you will, I think it is worth arguing. Also "tabling" an amendment in the USA essentially means killing it. Funny isn't it?

689. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109589 by Radesq on January 9, 2008 at 8:39 am

To Roger at 370 -- w00ter has already won an award for his submissions on this thread. See my 118 -- and he apparently hadn't even warmed up yet. w00ter is as w00ter does -to me it's entertainment.

690. The Mind of the Market

Comment #109344 by Radesq on January 8, 2008 at 10:09 pm

This book looks like it could be good. I read the review and it talked about some interesting propositions about capitalism. I can't honestly say I would pick this up with an open mind though. I've just played the Monopoly board game too many times. Plus I live in the USA which I think favors the hyper capitalist rather than the free market.
edit --
I just looked up hyper capitalist and that may come with more philosophical baggage than I intended. All I meant to imply is that the ethic seems to be make as much money as possible for it's own sake, not for any other particular purpose.

691. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109336 by Radesq on January 8, 2008 at 9:42 pm

For whatever you think it's worth, I agree with AndreG as far as he goes. Being atheist does not confer any special goodness on a person. I'm certainly not shy about my imperfections. But I think one of the things that Dr. Steve is saying is that atheists do not have to accept the morality of the Bible or whatever Holy book you choose -- in total. Those books (and the religions that spring from them) come with both good and bad. Atheists can choose to agree with all, some moral precepts or none (do they always choose wisely -- probably not) that flexibility is important in an ever changing world. On a related note the sun must be about to come up in Coventry and Dr. Steve is still typing away. Amazing!

692. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #108879 by Radesq on January 7, 2008 at 7:04 pm

Now I understand what you are saying. However, as silly and counterintuitive as it may seem I think voters actually understand and accept that some candidates are simply paying lip service to theism and don't really believe what they are saying. So are these voters rewarding politicians for lying to them. Yes, in a way, or at least excusing them because they know that it is impossible to get elected President of the United States without mouthing certain words. Is this hypocritical, irresponsible, uncourageous? Absolutely, and entirely necessary.

693. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108870 by Radesq on January 7, 2008 at 6:49 pm

Perhaps we should use "submit" to evolution -- that might work with the folks I know.

694. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #108867 by Radesq on January 7, 2008 at 6:47 pm

I suppose if you are a one issue voter, then yes if theism/atheism is your one issue then you would vote for an atheist candidate of another party. I am not a single issue voter, and there is no atheist candidate to vote for. Shall I just take my ball and go home? Should I not vote for the candidate least likely to appoint a fundamentalist to the Supreme Court? In a strictly binary world your point makes sense but it is not pragmatic or politically useful.

695. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #108860 by Radesq on January 7, 2008 at 6:34 pm

Wrong, you are seeing the mirror image of what has actually happened. The American Republican party has been overtaken by the religious right...so Liberals and Democrats wrongly assume that Republicans and Conservatives have no interest in atheism as they are too busy trying to get school boards to teach ID and allow prayer in schools.

696. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108818 by Radesq on January 7, 2008 at 4:52 pm

I saw the War of the Roses -- Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner -- crap. By the way which one is the Specific Ocean again?

697. Blind Faiths

Comment #108806 by Radesq on January 7, 2008 at 4:02 pm

That worldview built the west

698. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #108378 by Radesq on January 6, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Wasn't it Thomas Hobbes who said the life of man in the state of nature is like many of qster's posts?

699. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108366 by Radesq on January 6, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Paula: I don't know if it is a better idea. But I find it intriguing that Brian Coughlin often drops in on Christian blogs and does his thing there. I am considering doing the same thing but I am going to create another e-mail address to do so - in case they want to spam me with a bunch of Evangelical email.

700. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108363 by Radesq on January 6, 2008 at 2:44 pm

I want to add another reason to the list. I am watching American Football right now and when this game is over somebody will be interviewed and almost certainly say "first I want to thank God for this victory". (Make that reason 6.5 maybe) As if an omnipotent God would take sides in a sporting event. I notice however that when the losers are interviewed they never sarcastically say "thanks a lot God for helping the Giants win". This got me to thinking about when the Israelites would claim in Judges that God let some heathen tribe or other conquer them in war because they had "sinned in the eyes of God". How did the "chosen" manage to commit more sin than the unwashed? Would they really be comparatively deserving of death and enslavement (even if temporary) as opposed to their oppressors who had the temerity to believe in other than the one true God? Is this progress or backsliding? I'm not sure.