These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Atticus Fynch
#1 - 2012-01-11 17:16:23 UTC
Quote:
Many will recall the plaintive call of Rodney King, the man whose vicious beating by members of the Los Angeles police department was caught on video. Mr. King cried out, “Why can’t we all just get along?” The reason we cannot always get along seems to be based, in part, on our brains.

Recent advances in the neurosciences have established an irrefutable fact: Human beings are emotional, not rational. Nevertheless, on the strength of Descartes’ rationalist philosophy, the Enlightenment opened the doors to modern empiricism and led humanity into the Scientific Revolution. No one doubted the power of rational thinking to solve problems and unravel the mysteries of the observable universe. From these observations came the belief that humans were distinguished from all other creatures because of their rationality. To be irrational was to be something less than human.

This belief deeply influenced English and American law, foreign policy, and economic theory. Legal standards were set by comparison to a prototypical rational person. Foreign policy was based on the assumption that rational beings could sit together and work through international disputes and conflicts. Economists built an entire field of study on the assumption that consumers acted “rationally” in maximizing their utility. People engaged in peacemaking, from the interpersonal to the international level, assumed that despite the emotions of conflict, people fundamentally were rational.

The truth is that we are 98 percent emotional and about two percent rational. Thus, the assumptions underlying many disciplines and practices, especially peacemaking, need significant revisions. Much remains unknown, but the implications of the research so far demonstrate that we must be far more aware of neuropsychological factors of human conflict. These factors explain much about conflict behaviors. They also provide insights about new interventions in serious and intractable conflicts.

To understand how our brain deals with conflict, consider a simple emotional model. In this model, conflict starts with some problem. The problem is serious enough to cause anxiety, reflected in a feeling of insecurity. When anxiety or insecurity is first experienced, we have a choice between reactivity and reflection. If we do not make a choice, our default mode is to be reactive.

By being reactive, we might reject the problem, give up, or feel inadequate to deal with the problem. If the problem is persistent, we might struggle or exit. As the conflict develops, we perceive it as a threat, and we may blame, attack or withdraw. These behaviors constitute our fear reaction system. I like to call it our self-protective system. The brain systems associated with fear reaction are very, very old, dating back to the earliest vertebrae animals. Although highly adaptive in the uncertain and dangerous environment of 20,000 years ago, the system is largely maladaptive in our modern, complex culture.

If the choice for reflection is made, we have learned to reflect, relate, and relax. The insecurity arising from a conflict situation is recognized as pointing to a pathway of growth towards greater peace and self-realization. We are led by our curiosity to discover something new, find what is lost, or complete unfinished business. Success leads us to wholeness, authenticity, power and wisdom.

The path, however, is not easy. From anxiety and insecurity, we experience inadequacy (we don’t know what to do) and a drop in self-esteem (we don’t feel good about self). We ride on a broad emotional river and often experience fear of death, a drowning sensation, being shaky, or cold. Along this journey, our fear reaction system could pull us off the path of peace.

At the end of this emotional drop, we end in a calm pool that represents the essential peace within us. In this state, we hold an unshakable foundation of belief in ourselves. We are authentic; we are present in the moment. We exhibit a full spectrum of self as robust, rainbow colored, and multi-faceted. From this place, we can be compassionate, tolerant, exhibit loving-kindness, and embrace peace. This is what I have observed many people experiencing as they engage in conflict resolution and achieve peace.

These behaviors come from our brains’ altruistic, cooperative social attachment systems. The social attachment system in the brain controls pair bonding, such as the mother-infant dyad, pair bonding, and the formation of families, extended families, and communities. It is the system that allowed us to become highly social and create complex, interdependent societies. However, our self-protective system will override our altruistic system unless we choose otherwise. Because it is not the default choice, mobilizing the social attachment systems in conflict situations is challenging. The last thing a person wants is to feel altruistic towards her conflict cohort. As has been said to me many times, “I don’t want to sit around a campfire and sing Kumbayah!” Yet lasting resolution of difficult conflicts can only occur when our brains altruistic systems are fully operational. Thus, one challenge for peacemaking is to recognize when and why a person’s fear response system is dominating them, then craft an intervention that will allow the altruistic brain systems to take over.

http://www.mediate.com/articles/noll9.cfm


Just sayin. Straight

[b]★★★Cargo Pilots Unite!!!★★★ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=668132&#post668132[/b]
Zagam
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2 - 2012-01-11 17:26:18 UTC
Atticus Fynch wrote:
Quote:
wall'o'text


The truth is that we are 98 percent emotional and about two percent rational.

more wall'o'text
http://www.mediate.com/articles/noll9.cfm


Just sayin. Straight


The part I left in is true, except in EVE Online. In EVE, we are 9% emotional, 1% rational, and 90% interested in completely screwing over everyone else.
Froz3nEcho Sarain
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2012-01-11 19:21:53 UTC
Humans are just selfish animals. Nothing more and nothing less.

[i]~ When everything fades away, an echo is the only sound that will remain ~   ~ Chaos is a name for any order that produces confusion in our minds ~[/i]
Telegram Sam
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2012-01-11 23:00:27 UTC
Interesting. Currently there seems to be a lot of theorizing about altruism vs. regular selfish-ism as a species survival mechanisms. In other words, deconstructing altruism down to a game theory strategy. I don't know, somehow the whole approach to the question seems whacked. Actually classic game theory itself seems whacked. It was only about 10 years ago that economic game theory discovered that people do not always make rational decisions.

Like, in this experiment: A is insulted by Z. Then the research team then has A and Z play a competitive game. If A (the insulted guy) beats Z, he gets $10. If he intentionally lets Z win, he gets $20. Results: "Omigosh, 80% of people chose to beat Z and take less money! They're acting against their own best interests! That's irrational!" So now irrational economic game theory is an emerging science. Sheesh. Anyway, this recent game theory analyzing on altruism seems about the same to me.
Taedrin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-01-11 23:53:33 UTC
Telegram Sam wrote:
Interesting. Currently there seems to be a lot of theorizing about altruism vs. regular selfish-ism as a species survival mechanisms. In other words, deconstructing altruism down to a game theory strategy. I don't know, somehow the whole approach to the question seems whacked. Actually classic game theory itself seems whacked. It was only about 10 years ago that economic game theory discovered that people do not always make rational decisions.

Like, in this experiment: A is insulted by Z. Then the research team then has A and Z play a competitive game. If A (the insulted guy) beats Z, he gets $10. If he intentionally lets Z win, he gets $20. Results: "Omigosh, 80% of people chose to beat Z and take less money! They're acting against their own best interests! That's irrational!" So now irrational economic game theory is an emerging science. Sheesh. Anyway, this recent game theory analyzing on altruism seems about the same to me.


If they were true economists, then they would realize that they are running into an issue of values. People aren't thinking irrationally per se - they are merely valuing their pride over $10.
Telegram Sam
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2012-01-12 15:10:06 UTC
Taedrin wrote:
Telegram Sam wrote:
Interesting. Currently there seems to be a lot of theorizing about altruism vs. regular selfish-ism as a species survival mechanisms. In other words, deconstructing altruism down to a game theory strategy. I don't know, somehow the whole approach to the question seems whacked. Actually classic game theory itself seems whacked. It was only about 10 years ago that economic game theory discovered that people do not always make rational decisions.

Like, in this experiment: A is insulted by Z. Then the research team then has A and Z play a competitive game. If A (the insulted guy) beats Z, he gets $10. If he intentionally lets Z win, he gets $20. Results: "Omigosh, 80% of people chose to beat Z and take less money! They're acting against their own best interests! That's irrational!" So now irrational economic game theory is an emerging science. Sheesh. Anyway, this recent game theory analyzing on altruism seems about the same to me.


If they were true economists, then they would realize that they are running into an issue of values. People aren't thinking irrationally per se - they are merely valuing their pride over $10.


[/quote]

If they were true economists, then they would realize that they are running into an issue of values. People aren't thinking irrationally per se - they are merely valuing their pride over $10.[/quote]

It would seem so. Common sense would say that psychological benefits can be a valuable to people as $ benefits. Pretty incredible economic game theory didn't recognize that until just a few years ago. In these guys' world, a young single guy at a party, surrounded by eligible young ladies, would always bend over to pick up a quarter he spotted on the floor. It was in his best interest to maximize his benefits by getting a free quarter. But the behavior/ethologist game theory people might object: No, he would only take the quarter if his biological objective of survival outweighed his biological objective of passing on his genes. The quarter is good for his individual survival as an organism. But it could lessen his esteem among female potential mates, thereby lessening his chances of mating with the most healthy and attractive female, thereby lessening the chances of having healthy offspring to carry his genes into the future. As an organism, he's got a tough rational choice to make-- go for the immediate survival benefit, or forego it in favor the possible future gene-passing benefit.

Sounds kind of nice, be able to reduce complex human behaviors into decision tree, if-then mathematical models. Somewhat useful, I guess, as a very broad framework for thinking about complex human behaviors. But these guys consider it a hard science that can be further theorized upon, refined, quantified and ultimately formularized. That's what's going on now with the altruism vs. selfish-ism theories. And this game theory forecasting stuff is also what a big factor in the 2008 financial market crash. There was a proprietary mathematical market prediction being used that was pretty good, but not good enough. It didn't take into account enough "irrationality" in the market. But probably worse, it was being misused by users who didn't understand it, and on a day-to-day basis the data fed into it was less than accurate and less than real-time up to the minute.

I don't know, trying to mathematically model human behavior is an interesting exercise, but I personally think these guys are p****ing up a rope. Just because Western science believes Descartes's theory that universe is a vast machine, and all of its components can be broken down and individually analyzed, doesn't mean its so.