Wednesday 28 November 2012

The Danger of Adversarialism in Western Society


In an earlier entry (August 2012), I considered inter-personal argument and contrasted two alternative epistemologies that can underpin such exchanges; Arguing to Win (ATW) and Discussing to Reveal (DTR). I was making the case for DTR and against the ATW rules-of-engagement. I now want to go further and suggest that pernicious ATW has become the norm and is just one facet of a more general societal malaise; adversarialism. I define adversarialism as any system that encourages or tolerates participants acting to defeat the opposition by fair means or foul.

It is not just apparent in person-to-person exchanges. It is endemic to our justice system (contrast with France), our politics (watch/ listen to "Today in Parliament"), in Business activities (example: tax avoidance), in 'sport' (thankfully not all) and in our entertainment (film/ video games). With regard to 'sport' it is likely to be experienced  both on the field of play and on the terraces. Drug-taking and 'professional fouls' are just two aspects of adversarialism in 'sport'. In our culture, adversarialism is so blatant and ubiquitous that I don't feel it necessary to support these contentions with specific examples.

The most serious aspect of the adversarial tendency relates to the activities of children and young adults. They are often avid participants in sport; both as actual participants and spectators. They play video games that mainly encourage combat to the death and eschew fair-play. Adversarialism is becoming the norm for many of our children. Concepts like sportsmanship, live-and-let-live, credit-where-credit-is-due, cooperation, fair-play and good manners are being left far behind. Yet surely these are the essential markers of a truly civilized society.

I suggest that the decline needs to be stopped if we want to progress toward the civilized, contented and fair society that we all (?) want. Teach fair-play to the children and steer them toward the relevant role-models. Discourage ATW and encourage DTR in their discussions and always set them a good example in this regard.

If I were invited to leave just one piece of advice to the societies of the world to serve as my personal legacy, it would be this one.


Thursday 25 October 2012

Why I'm Not an Atheist!!

Religion's trump card is our inability to explain 'First Cause'. Since any suggested explanation will always encounter the infinite regress objection, I don't believe that science will ever explain how something came from nothing. If all the religions agreed to drop their scriptures and fairy-stories and simply regard God as the unknowable 'First Cause', in this sense, I would no longer be an atheist. Does anyone else feel the same way?

Friday 5 October 2012

THE ‘DRIVERS’ OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR

Introduction

Social psychology is concerned primarily with human behaviour and emotions. Behaviour is simply what we do. My dictionary defines it, curtly, as “How we conduct ourselves” but that implies that we are always in conscious control of our behaviour and we all know that this isn’t the case.  I will say more about this later in the note. Our behaviour is externally observable whereas emotions are how we feel; they are experiential. They cannot be experienced externally although their existence in an individual can sometimes, wittingly or unwittingly, become apparent to others, e.g. blushing, facial expressions. This paper addresses behaviour rather than any concomitant emotions. It therefore sidesteps the complications that would be introduced by a consideration of the emotions and the interaction between behaviour and emotions. The subject of social psychology is also concerned both with ‘normal’, healthy behaviour and with pathological behaviour. This note focuses on healthy behaviour. However, the issues it raises are just as relevant to the study of pathological behaviour.

The question under consideration in this note is “What are the root causes, or ‘drivers’ of our behaviour?”  This is clearly a seminal issue for social psychology. A clear exposition would have the potential, not just to clarify and provide an analysis of the determinants of behaviour, but also to integrate a number of disparate approaches to the subject of psychology itself. Both the theory and practice of social psychology is bedevilled by schisms euphemistically called ‘perspectives’. For example, we have biological psychology that concentrates on the role of genes/ hormones in generating behaviour, social-constructionist psychology that emphasizes social and cultural factors in accounting for it, the psycho-dynamic (notably Freudian) approach that majors on early nurturing in explaining behaviour, cognitive psychology centred mainly on the role of attention/ cognition and humanistic psychology that considers the role of human free-will in regulating behaviour. Some psychologists regard themselves as just that; ‘psychologists’. Many more in my experience will use an epithet to qualify their professional descriptor; Freudian psychologist, humanistic psychologist, cognitive psychologist, etc. Pity the poor client looking for assistance from a psychologist! She doesn’t know or care about the particular epistemology favoured by the practitioner, she just wants help from someone qualified to diagnose and treat an unwanted psychological condition. In passing I would suggest that the profession would do well to move towards greater integration in this regard.

If this is to happen, we need more integrated hypotheses, theories and experimentation. The only relevant work I am currently aware of is called ‘Trimodal theory’ and is described in Stevens (1998). The author distinguishes three ‘bases (or sources) for action’; biological processes, symbolic processes and reflexive awareness. He relates these to a number of perspectives. For example, he notes that both social constructionism and psychoanalysis depend on symbolic processes to provide a basis for action. He concludes that “  --  Given the argument here that human personal and social life involves a mixture of all three sources, this would imply that we need a broad range of perspectives in order to represent all three modes, and that such perspectives are therefore to be regarded as essentially complementary rather than mutually exclusive.” From my previous comments you will be able to anticipate that I agree enthusiastically with this latter conclusion. I believe Richard Stevens is right; the perspectives do relate to “bases for action”. I would add, however, that they often operate concurrently.

The Drivers

Using a physical analogy, I hypothesize that the individual drivers are like a set of forces acting on an object. In physics, the resulting direction and velocity of the object is called the 'resultant' of the contributory forces. In the same way, behaviour may be thought of as the resultant of a number of these drivers that may be acting on the individual. Any particular behaviour will be the resultant of one or more drivers. Drivers may act positively, encouraging action, or negatively, inhibiting action. What are these drivers? The following seven are proposed:-

Biological
1. Genetically mediated propensities
Propensities to express certain types of behaviour are the result of basic, common human drives (e.g. to assuage hunger, sexual desire etc) together with other psychological propensities that arise from particular gene/allele patterns.
2. Concurrent somatic condition
Behaviour will be affected by concurrent hormonal levels and the general somatic condition.
Social
3. Behaviour patterns learned from early nurturing relationships
Psycho-dynamic (Freudian) factors including ego defences.
4. Relevant learned social/cultural norms
The recognised norms within the culture and social 'milieu' in which the behaviour takes place.
Cognitive
5. Cognitively developed patterns of behaviour
Stereotypic attitudes that provide cognitive short-cuts to formulaic patterns of behaviour. These may have been 'inherited' from primary carers or from exposure to particular social representations during development. 
6. Free cognition
Free-thinking from basic principles and the detail of the particular situation. 
7. Reflexive consideration 
Critical reconsideration of past thoughts, feelings and actions.

An example will illustrate some of the points made.
I am walking down a crowded Oxford Street in London; on the pavement but close to the kerb. A man walking toward me does not appear to be giving me any room to pass. I don't think it's safe to step into the road so I push back at him as we collide and say, in a loud voice, "Why don't you look where you're going?" A few yards on I look back, and, for the first time, and to my horror and acute embarrassment, see he is carrying a white stick. I shout my apology and hope he hears me. Before I fall asleep that night I resolve to be more circumspect before losing my rag in future.
Walking down Oxford Street can be stressful and it is highly likely that my active stress hormones, such as adrenelin and cortisol, will be above ambient levels in the hypothetical scenario described above. If this is so, the 'Somatic' driver (Driver 2) will have played a part in my initial, somewhat aggressive reaction. The genetically mediated 'fight or flight' response (Driver 1) would also have played a part in this reaction. A Driver 1 component can be fast-acting and difficult to control; as in this case. It is also possible that a 'Cognitive Pattern', (Driver 5) was a component; e.g. "I won't be intimidated by inconsiderate walkers!"
My feelings of shame and embarrassment and my shouted apology when I see that the gentleman is blind, will have been generated from Driver 4, 'Social Norms' acting with Driver 6, 'Free Cognition'; while my nocturnal resolution to ensure that I have all the facts before engaging my big mouth would have involved 'Free Cognition', again, and 'Reflexive Consideration' (Driver 7). 
It is interesting to note that, at the time that the behaviour occurs, the model suggests that the only driver under full conscious control is ‘Free Cognition’ (Driver 6). I would suggest that this provides a possible answer to the time honoured question about the contribution of “freewill” to our behaviour. The possibility of engaging ‘Reflexive Consideration’ (Driver 7) at some later time is another aspect of freewill that enables us to modify relevant, subjective ‘Cognitive Patterns’ (Driver 5) and hence learn from our experience.

Conclusions

In this short paper I have suggested a model for approaching the aetiology of human behaviour. It may well need discussion and amendment. However, I believe that it makes a useful start and contend that the need for such a model is overwhelming in order to integrate the existing approaches to the discipline of psychology. As it stands, the various flavours – cognitive, psycho-analytic, humanistic etc are a source of confusion for our clients and a source of unnecessary discord within the profession.
It also suggests an answer to the question about how much free-will we have in the manifestation of our behaviour.

Reference.

Stevens, R (1998), ‘Trimodal theory as a model for interrelating perspectives in psychology’. In Sapsford, R (ed.), Issues for Social Psychology, Open University.



John Jacob Lyons, 17 Jan. 2012

CONSCIOUSNESS: TOWARDS A SOLUTION TO THE ‘HARD PROBLEM’?

The “hard problem of consciousness was formulated by David J Chalmers in 1996. Simply stated it concerns the issues; what is consciousness; why do we have it and how do patterns of neuronal firing in the brain generate the subjective experience of being conscious?

I think of consciousness quite simply as our subjective awareness of ourselves, our surroundings and the relationship between these two entities. I believe that consciousness evolved because it provided an adaptive integrated model of reality from the, individually evolved, sensory inputs we are able to receive from outside the body and from the body itself. Such a model is adaptive since it speeds up our evaluation of confirmatory/ contradictory evidence when making conscious decisions about the actions we need to take in response to the state of world and/or our physical needs. It is also an essential tool in making adaptive moral judgements. See Marc D Hauser, ‘Moral Minds’, p29.

In a moving, talking picture, the fact that the dynamic visual image is synchronized with the sound results in consilience between the words heard and the lip movements produced by the actors. This results in an emergent subjective experience that seems to the viewer to be an acceptable model of our usual real-life subjective model of reality. My hypothesis is that there is a similar relationship between our sensory inputs, which are, to all intents and purposes, also experienced in a synchronized fashion, and objective reality.

This emergent model of reality that we call ‘consciousness’ also enables us to take ‘snapshots’ of states of the world associated with emotionally charged experiences. These may then be stored in long-term memory and used, unconsciously, to pattern-match to real-time experiences and thus enable very fast, unconsciously mediated and adaptive actions to be generated when similar states of the world are encountered.

But how do we explain our subjective experience of being conscious in terms of its neurological basis? In other words, how do we explain the translation from a pattern of electro-chemical pulses in neural brain tissue to the subjective model of reality that we call our consciousness?  I have described consciousness as an integrated model of reality based on our sensory inputs. Since our experience of each of these inputs (sight, for example) is understood by science in terms of specific neuronal activity and the physiology of the sensory organs, the ‘hard problem’ seems to disappear when described in this way.

So, what is consciousness? It is a subjective model of reality. Why do we have it? We have it because it proved to be an adaptive facility that emerged spontaneously with the phylogenic development of the senses. How does neuronal activity generate subjective experience? Sensory input, the functionality of the sensory organs combined with appropriate neural activity generate synchronized sensory experiences that result in the subjective, integrated, emergent model of reality that we call ‘consciousness’. Where does this analysis leave the concept “unconsciousness”?

If one accepts the notion that neural activity mediates both my conscious processes such as deciding to write this note, and my unconscious processes, such as those controlling my somatic-homeostatic functions, I see no problem in hypothesizing that consciousness is a sub-set of brain processes. There appears to be constant movement, however, between the conscious sub-set and the unconscious sub-set; as when we suddenly become conscious that someone within ear-shot has mentioned our name. I accept that the explanation of consciousness I am putting forward in these notes leaves the neuronal source of ‘attention’, as yet, unexplained.

The question arises, “What distinguishes the conscious sub-set of neuronal activity from the unconscious sub-set?” I would hypothesize that the conscious sub-set is a logically distributed module within neuronal architecture that contains the results of synchronized sensory processing as previously described which has access to long-term memory/ reasoning and which allows input from emotional circuits. The unconscious sub-set also has access to emotional circuits in order to produce fast responses by pattern-matching. Any particular emotional event may, unconsciously, trigger a match with previous emotionally-laden memories. These memories will there-by be etched deeper. The emotion generated by the event will also be consciously experienced as ‘feeling’ thus allowing later reflection on the event, any action/inaction taken in response and the result.

Thursday 13 September 2012

Dawkins v Sacks: Science v Religion: A False Dawn?

Did you see the discussion between Richard Dawkins and Jonathan Sacks; "Rosh Hashanah: Science v Religion", 11:15 pm, BBC1, Wednesday 12 September 2012?

This was a very interesting and amiable discussion between two very intelligent men of goodwill. However, it ended on a note of false harmony that reminded me of the written 'agreement' between Chamberlain and Hitler immediately prior to World War 2. The only difference was that, in this case, both parties were being suckered into believing they had achieved 'peace in our time', not just the one.

During the discussion, Dawkins accepted that the application of science is capable of doing as much harm as religion. He affirmed that " Science can be hideously misused. Indeed, if you want to do terrible things, you need to use science to do it ---". Straight into the philosophical trap of confusing 'means' with 'motivation'. Yes, science has provided the means to inflect hell-fire and brimstone on one's enemies but religion has often provided the motivation to do so. The 'Social Darwinism' that, to a degree, underwrote the misdeeds of the Third Reich was the exception that proves the rule. Admittedly, this was a genuine motivational misuse of 'science'. However, it was not just a misuse of science; it was also a misinterpretation of science. It was incorrect science. So-called 'Social Darwinism' interprets the evolutionary theory, incorrectly, as meaning that nature works on the principle of 'the survival of the fittest'. The word 'fittest' in the last sentence is the usual one; the strongest, the best, the ones that can vanquish the weak. Natural Selection doesn't use the word 'fittest' in this way. In Natural Selection, the fittest refers to the individuals best suited to surviving and reproducing in the relevant environment. This makes all the difference since the ability to cooperate becomes at least as important as the ability to enforce. There is nothing truly Darwinian in so-called Social Darwinism. Dawkins is, of course, well aware of this. He should have ensured that the distinction was apparent to Sacks and thus cleared correct science - unlike correct religion - of the charge that it has ever been implicated in the motivation of harm.

During the programme, Sachs said "Belief in god doesn't require a suspension of our critical faculties". However he also said "My view is that god made us in his own image. He marked us out from other animals by giving us freewill, morality and conscience". I suggest that the claim of the first of these three sentences is 'called out' by the second and third sentences. Faith always involves a suspension of one's critical faculties. Of course, theologians can argue with each-other about the real meaning of bits of scripture; and that requires them to engage their intellect. However, this always takes place within the questionable epistemology of an unquestioning faith.

This brings us to the nub of the matter. At the end of the programme, Sachs claims that he and Dawkins have agreed that they can collaborate in a common pursuit of truth for the common good. He speaks of a breakthrough; even "an epiphany". Poppycock! However well-meaning and charming the proponents, science will never be able to cooperate with those that pursue truth with a methodology, an epistemology, that is based on faith rather than evidence. Sorry; no deal!


Tuesday 14 August 2012

DTR IS BETTER THAN ATW

Think about all the disagreements you've ever had with a partner, friend, colleague, relation, fellow internet-poster or even the bloke behind you in the queue. What proportion of these exchanges could best be described as 'Arguing to Win' (ATW) and what proportion would be better described as  'Discussions to Reveal' (DTR)? My guess is that your ATW figure is far higher than your DTR figure. Right?

We are all familiar with the ATW strategy. You put forward your view; then back it up with all the sub-arguments, examples/ illustrations and supporting evidence you can muster. You sidestep any good counter-arguments from your 'opponent' and rubbish his/her evidence. You are operating as an advocate rather than as a judge. We have all done it. It's such a familiar procedure that I don't think I need to give you examples.

The DTR strategy may be less familiar. Once again you state your opinion. But this time you are less dogmatic. This is your opinion at this time; you're prepared to modify or even change it completely if given relevant counter-evidence. You listen carefully to your 'opponent' and give him/her credit for points made that you believe to be correct. He/she does the same for you. You are on a joint enterprise to find the truth/ fairness. Of course, in due course, you may have to agree to disagree. This may not be a blanket disagreement. You may  well agree on some points, disagree on others and need more information on yet others. You have both been operating as judges rather than advocates.

I want to suggest to you that this is a very important distinction. Just imagine a world in which everyone used the DTR rather than the ATW strategy. What do you see? More harmony/ happiness or less harmony/ happiness? I see much more.

I think we would do well to teach DTR to our children. Of course, you may well have different ideas. I'm listening    --------------

Tuesday 22 May 2012

The Day My Mum and I Nearly Copped It!


World War II was beginning to turn in favour of The Allies by mid-1943. However, the Whitehall cinema and several other buildings in London Road, East Grinstead were hit by a cluster of bombs from a lone German raider on 9 July 1943 and I witnessed the attack at close hand.

I was exactly five and a half years old that day. I had been evacuated with my mother from the east-end of London two years earlier after our home had taken some bomb damage. My father had stayed in London to work and my elder brother had been evacuated with his school to Cambridgeshire. We had a room above a shop in London Road opposite Woolworth’s – part of the site now occupied by W H Smith.

All afternoon I had been nagging my mother to buy me a toy cardboard clock that I had seen earlier in Woollies. It was now almost 5pm and the shop was about to close. Persuaded by her irascible and tearful child she went to buy the toy while I watched from the window. I stared at the entrance to Woolies until my mother emerged a few minutes later. Just as she did so the sound of a low-flying aircraft could be heard coming our way and I saw my mother look up at the plane while running back across London Road to our street-door next to the shop. The sound of the plane became a roar and by the time my mother had mounted the stairs to our room the plane must have been overhead. Just as the bombs started to explode she flew into our room and launched herself at her precious son, knocking him to the floor and covering him with her body. Terrified by the noise and my mother’s strange actions, I was shouting ” It’s nothing Mummy, it’s nothing”. It was several minutes before she allowed me to emerge from underneath her. In 1944 the shop where we had lived opposite Woolworth’s took a direct hit from a ‘flying bomb’. Lightning did strike twice in the same place on that occasion.

Why Hitler wanted to get rid of my mother and I so particularly isn’t clear. However he was thwarted. We had returned to London earlier that year, only to be evacuated again, this time to Leeds, when Hitler began his ‘last-ditch’ flying-bomb campaign. I went to school in a Roman Catholic school and was taught by nuns. The local kids taught me to say "Ee by gum". The end of the war saw us back again in London and we were allocated a council flat in Hackney. My experience of peace-time had begun. 



Thursday 17 May 2012

Don't Spend! Invest for Growth!

Just suppose, I'm married with three young kids. I've lost my job and I'm heavily in debt. I sold my car some time ago. A fabulous job opportunity comes my way but I need a car to get there. Should I get into more debt in order to buy a new car. You're darn tootin' I should!

Dear Cameron/ Osborne. Please apply my little parable to the present state of the UK economy. What is your conclusion?


Saturday 12 May 2012

When an action IS racist!

Let me suggest a definition. "An action against another person is racist if it constitutes a verbal or physical attack that would not have been made if that person had been of the same race/ethnicity as the attacker." Fair enough? Now, simply apply the principle to the recent events in Salford/ Manchester.

What do you get? Finkabowdit.

Thursday 19 January 2012

Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and the 'Cuts'

Of course Ed and Ed were right about the cuts. In mid-2010, the Coalition committed themselves to a programme of cut-backs that were too deep and too fast. It was impossible to avoid stifling any nascent recovery with such a programme. The tragedy is that 'the market', at that point, would have accepted a more sensible cut-back programme over a longer period; interest rates would have stayed low. Now it is too late. Any 'Plan B' that eases the planned cuts at this stage will  be punished by 'the market'.

The Eds say that they will not commit to reversing the cuts if and when they are returned to power. The tabloids and some Trade Union leaders are, predictably, interpreting this as two-faced. It is, of course, nothing of the kind. Such a promise of action in 2/3 years time would be nothing less that irresponsible, stupid and an obvious hostage to fortune since it is quite possible that the fiscal position of the UK will be worse in 2014 than it is now.

Although the Eds have made this point in the media, they have used the wrong language to do so and are bound to be seen as inconsistent by the electorate. They should have said:-

"In Goverment, we will give priority to the reversal of these cuts and, in particular, to those that are unfair to those on low and middle incomes. The speed of such a programme will, of course, depend upon the fiscal position that we inherit."

Did they say that? No. They simply said that they could not commit to reversing the cuts because, at this stage, it was impossible to foresee the fiscal position at the next election. By omitting the first part of my suggested statement they put their heads fairly and squarely into this obvious trap.

Silly boys. They will pay the price.

Thursday 12 January 2012

'Stop and Search' Policy; How to cause Ben's bad behaviour!

Ben and his brother Willy are larking around in the lounge. Their Mum's favourite vase gets a direct hit and is smashed to smithereens. Mum hears the crash and comes flying in from the kitchen. "How d'ya manage to do that", she yells, grabbing hold of Ben. "Why pick on me and not Willy?", cries Ben. "Because it usually is you", returns Mum. She is right; it usually is Ben - But could her attitude be contributing to Ben's persistent bad behaviour? Is she part of the problem? After all, if she always assumes that Ben is at fault, then Ben has little incentive to be 'a good boy'. He can't win.

In London, black/Asian youths are six times as likely to be 'Stopped and Searched' (SAS) by the Police as their white counterparts. Remember that the Police do not need justifiable suspicion to SAS; if they just don't like the look of you, they can employ SAS. The, apparently reasonable, explanation offered by the Authorities and in the popular media is that this simply reflects statistical experience of the distribution of crime - A greater proportion of criminality is generated by black/ Asian youths. The Police are simply deploying their resources to where the problem seems to reside. Just like with Mum and her two lads, this sounds reasonable at first glance. But, as with Mum and the lads, could the policy be part of the problem? I suggest that it probably is!

There is no doubt at all that black/ Asian youths are alienated by this skewed SAS policy and many perfectly law-abiding lads complain bitterly of being repeatedly subjected to random and unjustified searches. Additionally, although attitudes have improved over time, racist bigotry is still alive and well in our society and non-whites do not always enjoy equal treatment with their white brothers - Either in everyday life or in the workplace. So why should we expect Ben to improve has behaviour when we don't treat him as an equal and always assume that he is probably the culprit when an offence is committed?

Give him a chance. Get rid of your racist attitudes. Show him equal treatment with his brother. In time, Ben may surprise you.