The concept of morality and ethics is surprisingly variable depending on their cultural settings. They seem to be relatively simple concepts on the surface. Treat people the way you want to be treated and aim to help one another. Simple, right? Well I guess researchers have studied morality and ethics and broken them down in various ways throughout the past few decades. Moral ethics is a concept I'd like to weigh in on tonight.
Moral ethics is broken down into 3 sub-ethics. Ethic of Autonomy, which aims to protect justice and individual rights, Ethic of Community, which focuses on an individual's interpersonal obligation within the social order and where things like group betrayal or failure to fulfill their social obligations are taken very seriously, and Ethic of Divinity, which is sort of a religious take on ethics, concerned with the so-called natural order of things and one's obligation to live according to the standards mandated by a higher power, usually God. Personally, my orientation is rooted most deeply in the Ethic of Autonomy, which is to be expected considering I'm from a WEIRD (Western Educated Industrial Rich Democratic) society, which are characterized by high individualism. But unlike some of my previous posts may be implied, while I may be quite sympathetic and even theoretically preferential to the collectivist model most of the time, in this case I adamantly believe that the most effective of these three models is the Ethic of Autonomy. I am quite aware that all three are present universally in pretty much every culture there is, but the Ethic of Autonomy does appear to have the strongest influence of the three in the West and it has affected to me to a great deal. The way I look it at it is to ensure that you have a functioning, cohesive whole, you need to take care of and ensure the safety of all of its constituent components or individuals. I also believe that individual rights and freedoms are among the most basic and important parts of living as a human in a society. Ethic of Community is very important as well, but I think an Ethic of Autonomy is more important and required to being to properly focus on the group and the Ethic of Community. To me, the Ethic of Divinity makes very little sense. You act good because God commands it as such. Why not act good for the sake of being good, not because God tells you to or that you're afraid of his wrath? I guess that I'm against it because my views of ethics and morality are based on biology and evolution. I think that, as a species, we owe it to one another to behave civilly and help one another out for the end purpose of propagation of the species. Humans are social animals and we live in groups for support and protection. We need each other. So therefore, doesn't it only seem logical that we protect and support one another because it's the natural thing to do? Nature determined we need each other, so it only makes sense to act in line with what we evolved to do. Be good for the sake of being good, not because God said we should or that we'll go to Hell if we don't. I find that this view is related to the Ethic of Autonomy more strongly than the other two and that the Ethic of Autonomy will logically flow into the Ethic of Community.
And that's it for tonight!
Saturday, 23 March 2013
Sunday, 17 March 2013
IQ and Learning
This will probably be a shorter entry tonight, but we'll see how it goes.
So I've spent a little bit of time thinking about the Flynn Effect in relation to Incremental vs. Entity theories of learning. The Flynn Effect is basically summed up as the observed phenomenon of the increase in IQ scores over time. An average or even gifted IQ score a century ago would, in today's standards, classify as mental retardation while conversely, a score indicating mental retardation today would classify as average or gifted a century ago. It's interesting to think about this in relation to the aforementioned theories of learning. The incremental theory of learning states that certain aspects of our minds or brains, such as intelligence, are malleable and be bolstered and improved with practice. On the other side of the fence, the entity theory of learning states that such qualities are largely innate and fixed, unaffected by practice. That particular sounds ludicrous, doesn't it? I mean, if intelligence was fixed, then what is the whole point of education? One of the main goals of post-secondary education is to gain advanced knowledge and to hone your executive processing abilities. Furthermore, contemporary learning theory tells us that the process of learning actually changes the structure of your brain by creating new neural connections and networks and strengthening those connections while trimming or eliminating unused connections. So the entity theory seems to be complete nonsense. But when you look at what research tells us, the majority of individuals from individualistic/Western cultures seem to operate under the assumptions of the entity theory. When people from these cultures fail a task, they're likely to chalk it up to lack of ability and their motivation to do well decreases. But people from Eastern or collectivist cultures show the opposite thought patterns. They, for the most part, subscribe to the incremental theory of learning. If people from these cultures fail a task, they're likely to react in a manner that would suggest that they simply need to try harder or study more or what have you in order to improve their performance. Even when they succeed, they don't gloat about it like us in the West do. But what does have to do with IQ test scores throughout history? The IQ test was originally a Western construct. In fact, the majority of IQ measurements would appear to be heavily biased towards a Western demographic and it's only been within recent years that a multicultural approach has been utilized in IQ test implementation. Taking the Flynn Effect into consideration, you might come to the conclusion that intelligence as whole, at least in Western standards, has vastly increased in the last century. But this conclusion would appear to contradict the entity theory of fixed intelligence that most people in the West subscribe to. It's contradictory when you think about. Then only explanation I can think about is that topics related to intelligence and learning are really under known by a small demographic existing within the larger Western culture. Most people aren't aware of the research and theories underlying the learning process, and this ignorance may be perpetuating the otherwise debunked entity theory of learning. It would seem that incremental learning really is correct, giving further credence to my previous rant where I outlined that collectivistic thinking just makes more sense than individualistic thinking. That's my theory, anyway. I'm probably wrong, but I think it's worth considering anyway.
Well, there you go. That's my post for tonight!
So I've spent a little bit of time thinking about the Flynn Effect in relation to Incremental vs. Entity theories of learning. The Flynn Effect is basically summed up as the observed phenomenon of the increase in IQ scores over time. An average or even gifted IQ score a century ago would, in today's standards, classify as mental retardation while conversely, a score indicating mental retardation today would classify as average or gifted a century ago. It's interesting to think about this in relation to the aforementioned theories of learning. The incremental theory of learning states that certain aspects of our minds or brains, such as intelligence, are malleable and be bolstered and improved with practice. On the other side of the fence, the entity theory of learning states that such qualities are largely innate and fixed, unaffected by practice. That particular sounds ludicrous, doesn't it? I mean, if intelligence was fixed, then what is the whole point of education? One of the main goals of post-secondary education is to gain advanced knowledge and to hone your executive processing abilities. Furthermore, contemporary learning theory tells us that the process of learning actually changes the structure of your brain by creating new neural connections and networks and strengthening those connections while trimming or eliminating unused connections. So the entity theory seems to be complete nonsense. But when you look at what research tells us, the majority of individuals from individualistic/Western cultures seem to operate under the assumptions of the entity theory. When people from these cultures fail a task, they're likely to chalk it up to lack of ability and their motivation to do well decreases. But people from Eastern or collectivist cultures show the opposite thought patterns. They, for the most part, subscribe to the incremental theory of learning. If people from these cultures fail a task, they're likely to react in a manner that would suggest that they simply need to try harder or study more or what have you in order to improve their performance. Even when they succeed, they don't gloat about it like us in the West do. But what does have to do with IQ test scores throughout history? The IQ test was originally a Western construct. In fact, the majority of IQ measurements would appear to be heavily biased towards a Western demographic and it's only been within recent years that a multicultural approach has been utilized in IQ test implementation. Taking the Flynn Effect into consideration, you might come to the conclusion that intelligence as whole, at least in Western standards, has vastly increased in the last century. But this conclusion would appear to contradict the entity theory of fixed intelligence that most people in the West subscribe to. It's contradictory when you think about. Then only explanation I can think about is that topics related to intelligence and learning are really under known by a small demographic existing within the larger Western culture. Most people aren't aware of the research and theories underlying the learning process, and this ignorance may be perpetuating the otherwise debunked entity theory of learning. It would seem that incremental learning really is correct, giving further credence to my previous rant where I outlined that collectivistic thinking just makes more sense than individualistic thinking. That's my theory, anyway. I'm probably wrong, but I think it's worth considering anyway.
Well, there you go. That's my post for tonight!
Thursday, 7 March 2013
[insert title here]
There have been a few things I've been thinking about lately, so I figured I'd sort of let loose my brain and see what I can come up with!
Cultural evolution and globalization are funny things, aren't they? Because of the massive influence that Western-based globalization has on the rest of the world (as the West practically runs the world), many previously "uncontaminated" cultures are evolving with ideas put forth by other countries and cultures. Multinational corporations, advertising, products, television, immigration, and probably a few other things I'm forgetting to mention exchanged between countries all of the world are slowly creating this one gigantic melting pot of multiculturalism, and previously separate cultures and fusing and combining into new cultures. Whether it be Gagnam Style from South Korea becoming a craze in the US, Italian cuisine being enjoyed in Australia, or McDonald's setting up shop in almost every country in the world, we're all affecting one another constantly and separate cultures are becoming increasingly intertwined. Before you know it, these intertwinings will be inseparable from one another. Messages and memes are spread throughout the world via the internet on a daily basis, and even the meaning of the word "meme" has seen evolution in recent years. I remember back in 2008 when I was just starting to become familiar with internet culture from lurking on 4chan, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and Know Your Meme (which catalogues memes). Back then, a meme, as far as the internet was concerned, was relatively unknown by general public or internet and served as familiar catchphrases, images, or identifiers of one's membership of certain cultural pockets of the internet. They started from something ridiculous posted on a message board, humours pictures that become popular, or even rather inconspicuous things that would otherwise not be notable enough to become a meme if its context wasn't notable. During the heyday of meme production on 4chan, so many memes were created on GET threads that someone said that if their post ended in some number which escapes me now, then Milhouse from The Simpsons would become a meme. This was seen as ludicrous by the community, and everyone started spouting off that "Milhouse is not a meme". This became so repeated that "Milhouse is not a meme" became a meme. I remember one particular post that went something like "'Milhouse' is not a meme. 'Milhouse is not a meme' is a meme". Back in those days, a meme was defined as an in-joke used by very particular communities on the internet that can also be used to identify one's group membership even when outside the usual website or message board. The phrase "I herd u liek Mudkipz", originally posted either in a Pokemon thread or Pokemon website, came to be the de facto phrase used by members of the group Anonymous to identify one another when outside of their usual websites like 4chan and Reddit. Nowadays, the whole concept of the image macro meme has become so widespread that even companies post random image macros with photos of animals and accompanying text on their Facebook pages. And they call them memes! In just a few short years, the definition and presentation of the meme has changed so drastically. It kind of ticks me off, to be honest. To me, a meme is still defined by it's pre-pop culture parameters and should only be used as an in-joke and identifying message. Which brings me to my next point.
The meme has sort of "globalized" in the past few years, and I can totally understand the whole tribalism counter to globalization, being a desire to return to traditional ways. In this case, the "traditional ways" are the mid to late '00s, when the internet meme was much more conservative and personally meaningful. I can't even stand looking at memes today. So many meme websites have been cropping up lately, trying to cash in on the meme and humous image bandwagon. Websites that use the words "lol", "fun", "gag" and the like are everyone and it sort of sickens me. Rageface and Trollface used to be cool and genuinely funny. Now I just can't stand them. When I start thinking about this tribalism counter, it makes me wonder what the proper way for cultural evolution really is and whether a desire to return to traditional values even makes any sense. Human cultural evolution is characterized by the Ratchet Effect, in which people learn ideas from other people and use that baseline and build upon, thereby causing changes in the original idea. The idea evolves into something more sophisticated and refined. But if that is the essence of cultural evolution, then why do so many people desire to return to traditional ideas? That's not building on anything, it's just rehashing past ideas and moving backward in time, not forward. Maybe it's because people are intimidated by change and want to go back to what they're used to. But if that were how we truly are, why does culture evolve at all? Why wouldn't we just choose to stay at the same level forever? Even given this desire to stay with the familiar, our curiosity is what leads us to learn new things an create new ideas that allow our cultures and societies to evolve. It's almost contradictory in a sense. And obviously just staying at the same intellectual and cultural forever doesn't work. Just look at the Dark Ages in Europe. Yeah, that went over well.
Anyway, that's my rant for the night. I'll be back soon with some more brain droppings. Peace out, y'all!
Cultural evolution and globalization are funny things, aren't they? Because of the massive influence that Western-based globalization has on the rest of the world (as the West practically runs the world), many previously "uncontaminated" cultures are evolving with ideas put forth by other countries and cultures. Multinational corporations, advertising, products, television, immigration, and probably a few other things I'm forgetting to mention exchanged between countries all of the world are slowly creating this one gigantic melting pot of multiculturalism, and previously separate cultures and fusing and combining into new cultures. Whether it be Gagnam Style from South Korea becoming a craze in the US, Italian cuisine being enjoyed in Australia, or McDonald's setting up shop in almost every country in the world, we're all affecting one another constantly and separate cultures are becoming increasingly intertwined. Before you know it, these intertwinings will be inseparable from one another. Messages and memes are spread throughout the world via the internet on a daily basis, and even the meaning of the word "meme" has seen evolution in recent years. I remember back in 2008 when I was just starting to become familiar with internet culture from lurking on 4chan, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and Know Your Meme (which catalogues memes). Back then, a meme, as far as the internet was concerned, was relatively unknown by general public or internet and served as familiar catchphrases, images, or identifiers of one's membership of certain cultural pockets of the internet. They started from something ridiculous posted on a message board, humours pictures that become popular, or even rather inconspicuous things that would otherwise not be notable enough to become a meme if its context wasn't notable. During the heyday of meme production on 4chan, so many memes were created on GET threads that someone said that if their post ended in some number which escapes me now, then Milhouse from The Simpsons would become a meme. This was seen as ludicrous by the community, and everyone started spouting off that "Milhouse is not a meme". This became so repeated that "Milhouse is not a meme" became a meme. I remember one particular post that went something like "'Milhouse' is not a meme. 'Milhouse is not a meme' is a meme". Back in those days, a meme was defined as an in-joke used by very particular communities on the internet that can also be used to identify one's group membership even when outside the usual website or message board. The phrase "I herd u liek Mudkipz", originally posted either in a Pokemon thread or Pokemon website, came to be the de facto phrase used by members of the group Anonymous to identify one another when outside of their usual websites like 4chan and Reddit. Nowadays, the whole concept of the image macro meme has become so widespread that even companies post random image macros with photos of animals and accompanying text on their Facebook pages. And they call them memes! In just a few short years, the definition and presentation of the meme has changed so drastically. It kind of ticks me off, to be honest. To me, a meme is still defined by it's pre-pop culture parameters and should only be used as an in-joke and identifying message. Which brings me to my next point.
The meme has sort of "globalized" in the past few years, and I can totally understand the whole tribalism counter to globalization, being a desire to return to traditional ways. In this case, the "traditional ways" are the mid to late '00s, when the internet meme was much more conservative and personally meaningful. I can't even stand looking at memes today. So many meme websites have been cropping up lately, trying to cash in on the meme and humous image bandwagon. Websites that use the words "lol", "fun", "gag" and the like are everyone and it sort of sickens me. Rageface and Trollface used to be cool and genuinely funny. Now I just can't stand them. When I start thinking about this tribalism counter, it makes me wonder what the proper way for cultural evolution really is and whether a desire to return to traditional values even makes any sense. Human cultural evolution is characterized by the Ratchet Effect, in which people learn ideas from other people and use that baseline and build upon, thereby causing changes in the original idea. The idea evolves into something more sophisticated and refined. But if that is the essence of cultural evolution, then why do so many people desire to return to traditional ideas? That's not building on anything, it's just rehashing past ideas and moving backward in time, not forward. Maybe it's because people are intimidated by change and want to go back to what they're used to. But if that were how we truly are, why does culture evolve at all? Why wouldn't we just choose to stay at the same level forever? Even given this desire to stay with the familiar, our curiosity is what leads us to learn new things an create new ideas that allow our cultures and societies to evolve. It's almost contradictory in a sense. And obviously just staying at the same intellectual and cultural forever doesn't work. Just look at the Dark Ages in Europe. Yeah, that went over well.
Anyway, that's my rant for the night. I'll be back soon with some more brain droppings. Peace out, y'all!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)