Best social psychology & interactions books according to redditors

We found 1,336 Reddit comments discussing the best social psychology & interactions books. We ranked the 293 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Popular Social Psychology & Interactions:

u/structuralbiology · 854 pointsr/AskReddit

It's an interesting phenomenon. People often mirror the people around them to fit in. People will amplify any stereotypes they have about a social group they want to belong to and downplay attributes that do not belong to a certain group.

For instance, black kids will perform worse on a test when they're told it is to measure their academic ability. They do better when they're told it's a strategic test. Student athletes do worse on an exam when they're told all of their jock peers did worse on this exam than non-athletes.

Source: Whistling Vivald: How Stereotypes Affect Us by Claude Steele. The second is from this paper from Stanford. This analysis on the self is very broad overview.

u/mwobey · 480 pointsr/pics

Something about the disruption of routine and forced interaction with people outside your normal social sphere has a very powerful impact on us. It's a sociological phenomenon that's finally beginning to receive a decent amount of research; if you want to do some reading on the subject, the phrase often used is "disaster utopianism". There's an actually-fun-to-read book called A Paradise Built in Hell that does a great job of chronicling some cases where these acts of selflessness became temporarily commonplace, and musing on some of the potential reasons why disaster utopias crop up in times of need -- I cannot recommend it highly enough. It's one of those books that I keep buying for myself to re-read, then loaning it out to friends and family when one of these conversations comes up or when someone insists that people must be inherently evil.

u/jbrs_ · 417 pointsr/politics

Here is a graphical representation that is easy to share

Some highlights from the article (didn't realize how short it is, this is basically the whole article):

> The economy added an average of 181,000 jobs a month in Obama's last six months in office compared to an average of 179,000 a month in President Trump's first six months. That's a statistically insignificant difference — and a negative one at that — which shows that Trump hasn't made a diffference on the economy. And why would he have? He hasn't cut taxes or increased infrastructure spending or done anything else that would meaningfully boost GDP. (Going golfing and tweeting #MAGA a lot don't count.)

===

> This, in a lot of ways, is the archetypal Trump story: trying to take credit for something he inherited. [...] It's been the same with the economy. Trump hasn't actually done anything other than cut a few regulations, but he's made it sound like he's passed a new New Deal. (“No administration has accomplished more in the first 90 days,” he rather ludicrously claimed.) He brags about a “surging economy and jobs,” despite the fact that the economy and jobs are growing at exactly the same rate as before he took office. And, after disparaging the official unemployment rate as being “fake” and “phony” and “totally fiction” while Obama was president, he has apparently decided that it's “very real now.” In other words, Trump has done nothing and has congratulated himself for the economy Obama left behind.

===

> Well, it's not just him doing the praising. Trump's new propaganda channel is, too. Those, at least, are jobs he really can take credit for.

---

Edit: Also want plug Jonathan Haidt's book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Religion and Politics because it is extremely relevant to what is going on. A central theme in the book is that intuition (emotion being a large part of intuition) comes first, reasoning second: that we have not evolved reason to arrive at truth, but rather as a means of justifying our behavior to others and persuading them to join our side. Thus reason is a strategic mechanism that we employ to justify the opinion we already have-- there are exceptions, of course, but this is the general case.

===

This helps to explain why people hold even more strongly to their opinions in light of disconfirmatory evidence. In this case, Trump supporters are not going to be moved by these facts and figures when employed in arguments. I have not yet finished the book, but this video does a good job explaining one of the main tactics to overcome this problem: speak to the elephant (a person's intuitions) first.

u/Sproutedonthenumber9 · 382 pointsr/todayilearned

The problem is very complex, I think. Police are like the bag you use to pick up shit and keep your hand clean. They have a side which interacts with the 'normal' public and a side which just as much interacts with the criminal world. I don't think you'd find many psychologists who would be surprised at people who live in this interface 8 hours a day find the behaviour on the shitty side to become normalised.

A criminologist for whom I do not have a reference is quoted as saying "When men first come into contact with crime, they abhor it. If they remain in contact with crime for a time, they become accustomed to it, and endure it. If they remain in contact with it long enough, they finally embrace it, and become influenced by it."

We look at individual, micro actions of misbehaviour by Police and have trouble understanding them. They look like cases of 'why would they do that?' and the conclusion that most people reach is that the Police Officer is a bad person. The funny thing with human behaviour is that at the micro level, we make sense of things by consciously projecting ourselves into that position. We involve our own mind emotionally and personally in what we're assessing. For any species wide assessment or large scale group behaviour, the notion of the individual unit as a free, sentient, thinking, living wildcard is the first thing to go out the window. There's no humanity at the macro level. Once we 'zoom out' far enough, human behaviour is quite predictable and not really surprising and we behave just like any other animal. Look at the obesity problem in America. You put rats in a cage with too much food, they get fat. I'm sure human population growth and spread mimics many other species over evolutionary time periods, too.

So should we really be surprised that these people who we have living in this interface, institutionalised from other facets of society, develop behaviour patterns that have elements of each world they're exposed to? It is a very institutionalised life, it's more than a job and becomes a part of who you are. You're never off duty, really. There is always a part of you which remains switched on and you know you're responsible if anything happens. It's very hard to relate your stresses to non-Police, too. I found it very hard to have relationships with women because they especially being my age (late teens/early 20s during this) were immensely virginal in the ways of the world compared to what I was having trouble processing from work.

The criminals you deal with hate you. The public, for the most part, hates you (or at least the ones you deal with who shape your personal knowledge of how the public feels towards you are often horrible). The media is AWAYS out to fuck you and the people you're out there taking on all this shit for are the first ones to get out the pitchforks if you make even an honest mistake or error or judgement. But you know that your fellow Officers have your back and even the ones you don't like, you have a bond with. Sometimes, within the department, people won't get along (as I elaborated on a bit in my previous post), but when it's 'us and them' versus the public, you've got your fellow Officer's back first and foremost. Kind of like how people will bicker with someone from the town over about a sporting team, but gladly band together when it's an interstate rivalry.

I'm in Australia, so it's no where near as bad as it seems in America, by the way. But still here, I think all the ingredients are there. It looks like Police in America are being used by illegitimate interests and getting primed to become the authoritarian militia and when you look at it from a system wide point of view, it's very easy to see how this slide could happen. Your Officers are essentially a captive population that can be gradually re-trained and purposed without them even realising it, or having real need to question what they're doing. Their whole family is doing it, after all. Most of them are trapped in that line of work, too. Mortgage, families depending on them. I was lucky I had no debts or dependents and could spontaneously resign.

It's easy to say 'well why wouldn't they just resign, or refuse to do that', but it's really not that simple. Unfortunately, to argue against that is a very difficult and complex problem that most people who just want to bitch about the Police won't stick around to listen to.

There is a very good book (which I have to confess to not having finished) called The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide by Robert J Lifton. Though it says many other things, it explores the psychology behind how people change from being 'normal' to becoming able to commit horrible acts. Clearly I'm not comparing a decline in Police behaviour to this level of extreme, but it's interesting to look at militarisation of Police in this light.

What's a viable solution? Perhaps one place to start is to change how we view our Police. Yes, they still need to be accountable for their actions. But we should look at them as our peers who need our help and support to keep going out there and fighting the fights for us so we don't have to. They're good people, they're your friends and they want to help you. But they are also just simply human at the end of the day and if you think you'd be immune to having your personality skewed and distorted by the things they experience every day, you may be in for a very rude shock. Don't react with anger, react with empathy at what has happened to that formerly keen, idealistic person to make them behave less than admirably. You won't have to scratch far below the surface to find some pretty dark and upsetting shit. Again, it doesn't excuse bad behaviour, but we can't be surprised when we throw someone into the septic tank and they come out smelling like shit.

Our efforts should really be concentrated on the laws and policies that are resulting in parts of our society being so fucked up. I think massive drug law reform and legalisation of pretty much everything would change the landscape so much for the better that hypothesising past that point would just be guesswork.

u/[deleted] · 276 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

You've kind of answered your own original question there. African's don't dominate sport, because black people are not genetically superior sports people.


This is covered at length in the book Bounce, but i'll summarise the key points here.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bounce-Myth-Talent-Power-Practice/dp/0007350546
Also, this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14679657

1. Few actual genetic differences.
Skin colour is not a good indicator of genetic difference. There's far more genetic deviation within races, than between them. So, skin colour, is not indicative of very different DNA. 2 white guys from different European countries, are as likely to be different as 1 white guy from Europe and 1 white guy from Africa. Race is a social construct, not a biological one. http://astro.temple.edu/~ruby/opp/racesnyt.html

2. Economics.
Growing up as a black kid in the US, on average, you're going to crappier schools, and have fewer professional role models. Therefore, for many people sports are seen as the way out. White kids have sport, but also many other options.

3. Racism towards whites/for blacks.
People have the belief that you share, therefore if two equal athletes are presented, one is black and one white, on average, people rate the black athlete higher. Aggregate this over time, and you see more black people getting the breaks, and increasing this misconception. http://aom.org/News/Press-Releases/Study-finds-clue-to-scarcity-of-African-American-top-executives-in-the-way-news-reports-assess-Black-and-White-quarterbacks.aspx

4. Generalization
There's a common belief that 'black people' are better at running than white people. If you look at the history of the 100meters, and long distance running, it almost seems impossible to deny. However, break it down and you'll find it's not black people, but countries. e.g. Caribbean islands have dominated sprinting. Similarly, people say black people are good long distance runners, but it's not. It's mostly Kenyans. But actually it's not, it's mostly those from the Nandi region. Which brings me to point 5.

5. Environment
Many long distance runners are from the Nandi region of Kenya. This is an interesting region. We could assume that for some reason they genetically evolved to be better runners in this region. However, there's some interesting facts about this place. Namely, there's very few schools and children who want to go to school need to run many kilometres to and from school. Secondly, it's a high altitude region. Essentially, kids are training to be marathon runners from a young age. This is not a black thing, it's a regional thing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympic_games/world_olympic_dreams/8886705.stm



Read these articles, read the book above, and then do your best not to perpetuate this 'positive' racism, it's wrong, and it's dangerous.

u/austex_mike · 261 pointsr/TrueReddit

A good compliment to this is Jonathon Haidt's The Righteous Mind.

Also, the article said:

> That’s exactly what Americans did after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. People began flying less and driving more. The result, estimated Gerd Gigerenzer, a German risk specialist, was that 1,595 more Americans died in road accidents during the 12 months after 9/11 than would have otherwise.

I don't think more people are driving merely because they are afraid of terrorism. I hate flying now because of all the stupid security theater we are now subject to. I much prefer to get in my car and drive versus going to the airport two hours early, get felt up, make sure all my bottles are tiny, etc. I have made several long car trips because I simply didn't want the hassle of flying.

u/christianjb · 132 pointsr/funny

Read Harvard Prof Steven Pinker's new book 'The Better Angels of our Nature' in which he shows that the homicide rate has been decreasing throughout history and that the homicide rate in modern societies is much lower than that in primitive societies, despite the myth of the 'noble savage'.

Of course, none of this can excuse the treatment of native Americans and nor does it mean that native Americans had their condition improved upon colonization.

u/EricAllonde · 97 pointsr/MensRights

This is an excellent book which explores the lengths people will go to cling to a disproved idea that they're emotionally invested in:

Mistakes were made (but not by me)

There were lots of similar stories from the time when DNA testing was first invented and people started doing tests on convicted rapists who insisted they were innocent. It turns out that there lots of cases where the DNA in the sample of semen taken from the victim didn't match the DNA of the man who'd been convicted of the crime.

You'd think that would be conclusive, end of story, he didn't do it. But the news that they'd jailed the wrong man was confronting to police, prosecutors and judges. So in many cases they opposed attempts to overturn the man's conviction and they invented bizarre, implausible scenarios to "explain" why the convicted man was still guilty even though the DNA didn't match.

This situation is another example of the same thing.

u/SunAtEight · 85 pointsr/todayilearned

First this comment ignores that North and South Korea as separate entities didn't exist until 1945 when the US enforced a border. There are no "twins" to speak of. Then this comment ignores that the US bombed the shit out of North Korea under UN aegis. Then this comment totally ignores both North Korea's economic success up to the 1960s (higher GDP than South Korea). This isn't "North Korea = Best Korea" 4channing, since clearly North Korea is a de facto absolute monarchy with immense levels of fucked-upness, it's the fact that the "uppity US" is not some neutral party that gave Namhan a bit of help here and there. For the level of shitholery, I speculate that Kim Jong Un and whatever his support base may be is eyeing a large amount of reform on the Chinese model. I also speculate that with the migration between North Korea and China, for one thing, average North Koreans know more about the world and South Korea's standard of living than we're led to imagine from NK government propaganda.

As for Namhan's help, South Korea had US-backed dictators from the end of the Korean War, with significant popular movements that finally brought the dictatorship down in 1987 along with massacres and mass imprisonments up to that point, and still is part of the US empire of military bases. The party of the current president is a successor of the groups that ran South Korea under the dictatorships. It is still illegal to say things that interpret history or the current situation differently, e.g., blame the US or SK elite instead of NK for the division of the peninsula, particularly when talking to other recruits in that mandatory military service (the "National Security Act".

East Germany today has massive unemployment compared to the West, a burgeoning neo-nazi movement (alongside electing many members of the current incarnation of the former ruling party to the Bundestag in the hopes of restoring some of the things they lost) and depopulation. It's not all hugged out. East and West Germany was a far more unnatural division for Germany than North and South would have been, but they had the experience of being a patchwork of states for centuries, unlike unitary Korea. Gorbachev had a lot more to do with the ending of the Cold War than that "uppity American dude" Reagan.

Also, you seem to view North Korea and North Koreans as children because of your "personification" approach to history. (Although I do really want to read The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters, which from reviews I've read claims North Korean internal propaganda is heavily influenced from Imperial Japanese propaganda and that the propaganda presents the ruling Kim as a maternal figure and the North Koreans as a race childlike in their innocence - indeed, too childlike for this world)

u/Tahoeclown · 75 pointsr/wholesomememes

I donno if this us the book but "Enlightenment Now" by Steven Pinker goes into why things aren't as bad as they seem. In tons of ways its the best its ever been and that trend continues.

u/rockthemike712 · 73 pointsr/news
u/darthrevan · 66 pointsr/changemyview

I can understand that, and I honestly used to think that way too; but the problem with that kind of thinking is two-fold:

  1. History doesn't repeat itself identically like that. The world today is so dramatically different from what it was in the 1930s - 1940s that to expect the same outcomes this time around would be folly. All you'd guarantee is that a whole lot of people will suffer again, but with no guarantee of whether that will lead to anything good this time around. Is it worth risking the future of millions of people on a hope that everything works out the way it did last time--even though we know almost nothing is the way it was back then?

  2. Wouldn't it be more valuable to seek a more permanent solution to escape the cycle based on our improved knowledge of economics and human psychology, rather than cynically assume we have to break it the same way to fix it the same way? I admit this is extremely challenging, but human beings are not just continuous identical copies of previous generations. We adapt, we evolve, and overall we do improve. Just look at violence: we are in no way like our predecessors and have come a long way. So I believe we should look forward, not backward, for solutions.
u/TorsionFree · 58 pointsr/philosophy

> This is why politics fails often, people can not let go of their dogmatic views.

It's not necessarily that their views themselves are dogmatic; it's often that their underlying premises are inflexible. For example, someone who holds the view that the U.S. should deport all undocumented immigrants may think that their position on the issue is fixed, but what's more likely to be fixed is their underlying moral philosophy, such as

  • Fairness (immigrants should pay taxes just as citizens do), or
  • Monoculturalism (preference against difference), or
  • Purity (correlated to nationalism/racial supremacy).

    In other words, their beliefs on individual issues are slow to change no in themselves, but because they're consistent with a much less fluid set of underlying epistemic preferences. Jonathan Haidt makes a similar case in "The Righteous Mind" -- that political liberals and political conservatives disagree because they have different sets of moral "taste buds."
u/mikeaveli2682 · 52 pointsr/hiphopheads

Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.

Edit = I've listed some of the best books I've read on the subject below. Just ask if you want to know anything about them:

[The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard J. Evans] (http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Third-Reich-Richard-Evans/dp/0143034693/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1457904650&sr=8-3&keywords=third+reich+at+war)

[The Third Reich in Power by Richard J. Evans] (http://www.amazon.com/Third-Reich-Power-Richard-Evans/dp/0143037900/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1457904650&sr=8-2&keywords=third+reich+at+war)

[The Third Reich at War by Richard J. Evans] (http://www.amazon.com/Third-Reich-at-War/dp/0143116711/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1457904650&sr=8-1&keywords=third+reich+at+war)

[Maus by Art Speigelman] (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Maus-25th-Anniversary/dp/0679406417/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1457904780&sr=8-2&keywords=maus)

[Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics by Frederich Spotts] (http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Power-Aesthetics-Frederic-Spotts/dp/1585673455/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1457904821&sr=8-1&keywords=hitler+power+of+aesthetics)

[Art of the Third Reich by Peter Adam] (http://www.amazon.com/Art-Third-Reich-Peter-Adam/dp/0810919125/ref=pd_sim_14_2?ie=UTF8&dpID=21WGRYFWN5L&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR115%2C160_&refRID=1VRZ6QYR6PG5XXXMYTPN)

[Hitler's Empire: How the Nazis Ruled Europe by Mark Mazower] (http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Empire-Nazis-Ruled-Europe/dp/014311610X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1457904865&sr=8-1&keywords=hitler%27s+empire)

[State of Deception: The Power of Nazi Propaganda by Susan Bachrach and Steven Luckert] (http://www.amazon.com/State-Deception-Power-Nazi-Propaganda/dp/0896047148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1457904916&sr=8-1&keywords=state+of+deception+nazi)

[Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris by Ian Kershaw] (http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-1889-1936-Hubris-Ian-Kershaw/dp/0393320359/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1457904967&sr=8-2&keywords=hitler+kershaw)

[Hitler: 1936-1945 Nemesis by Ian Kershaw] (http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-1936-1945-Nemesis-Ian-Kershaw/dp/0393322521/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=01WJ9WDS06KZ1AX79B3M)

[The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide by Robert Jay Lifton] (http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Doctors-Medical-Psychology-Genocide/dp/0465049052/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457905061&sr=1-1&keywords=the+nazi+doctors)

[The Destruction of the European Jews by Raul Hilberg] (http://www.amazon.com/Raul-Hilberg-Destruction-European-third/dp/B008UYLG6K/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457905115&sr=1-4&keywords=destruction+of+the+european+jews)

[Heinrich Himmler by Peter Longerich] (http://www.amazon.com/Heinrich-Himmler-Peter-Longerich/dp/0199651744/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457905176&sr=1-1&keywords=heinrich+himmler)

[Hitler's Hangman - The Life of Heydrich by Robert Gerwartch] (http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Hangman-The-Life-Heydrich/dp/0300187726/ref=pd_sim_14_1?ie=UTF8&dpID=51FT1ecdFQL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR104%2C160_&refRID=084WSKT05G4GB1FGE1SY)

[Nazi Germany and the Jews: Volume 1: The Years of Persecution 1933-1939 by Saul Friedlander] (http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Germany-Jews-Persecution-1933-1939/dp/0060928786/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457905269&sr=1-3&keywords=nazi+germany+and+the+jews+saul)

[Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945: The Years of Extermination by Saul Friedlander] (http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Germany-Jews-1939-1945-Extermination/dp/0060930489/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=0DQYMK2GMYNVJK794F03)

[Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland by Christopher R. Browning] (http://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Solution/dp/0060995068)

[KL: A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps by Nikolaus Wachsmann] (http://www.amazon.com/KL-History-Nazi-Concentration-Camps/dp/0374118256/ref=pd_sim_14_6?ie=UTF8&dpID=41yRIhssGkL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR106%2C160_&refRID=0BSM1HJ13NDQ46VKENQK)

u/CowboyFromSmell · 50 pointsr/esist

This is an excellent book that goes to great depth to explain the problem, how we all suffer from it, and what can be done about it. Highly recommended.

Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts https://www.amazon.com/dp/0544574788/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_GOAozbP594PHG

u/metsuken · 48 pointsr/asianamerican

> North Korea isn't hiding shit. Everyone knows it's horrible there. Everyone knows about the camps and brainwashing and horrendous garbage. Just because it's not the topic at hand doesn't mean they've pulled any wool over any eyes.

They deny the existence of their concentration camps and claim it's a state that offers freedom of religion. So I think it's safe to say they hide things.

And I did acknowledge everyone knows about the camps and the brainwashing. I said as much in my post and I'll quote it again here:

> There is so much information out there about how horrible and dangerous North Korea is but the international community doesn't receive pressure from their constituents to do anything about it because everyone looks at North Korea as a joke.

But the point is there's no pressure to actually take steps in dismantling the country because they know exactly what to say and do to relieve that pressure.

> Just because it's not the topic at hand doesn't mean they've pulled any wool over any eyes.

I disagree. I think they have because people have a terrible grasp of North Korea. I see misinformation about DPRK all the time, both on the Internet and in my regular life, and the crazy thing is that it all derives from DPRK state propaganda. My friends involved in the North Korean liberation movement have always told me that the misinformation is by far the biggest obstacle they face when trying to raise awareness about what the DPRK is actually like and how they operate.

Even world leaders don't understand the DPRK which is why the DPRK has been able to run circles around them in negotiations. In many ways, it's also the difficulty that the West has in dealing with and understanding China. Western political scientists have constantly been proven wrong with all their predictions about China. First it was assuming that there's no way a communist country can adopt capitalism. Then when that was clearly wrong, it was believing that a capitalist society could not co-exist without a one-party state (in other words, that capitalism and democracy are inevitably paired). Then it was that a one-party government cannot possibly eliminate corruption. Well, that's being proven wrong now, too. Just this month, Zhou Yongkang was arrested on charges for corruption, charges that are over a decade old. This guy was a member of the politburo, the highest political authority in China. It would be like Dick Cheney getting arrested and tried for war crimes. A few years ago, something like this was completely unthinkable, but it's because the West's view of China was wrong yet again.

North Korea is no different. In fact, it's an even more extreme example. They're able to keep up this charade because the DPRK understands how the West works. Their elites are educated in western institutions. Kim Jong Un spent his entire adolescent life in Swiss boarding schools.

> Portraying this as about the movie and not about Americans getting pushed around and being told what they can and cannot do by NORTH KOREA is dishonest.

I don't think a private movie company deciding to pull a movie can be compared to relationships between nation states.

> This could be Spongebob Squarepants being canceled there would still be outrage. This could be some shitty porno flick being canceled there would still be outrage. It's not the what, it's the why.

Well I wasn't debating the what or why. I was pointing out that the DPRK is fully aware of how ridiculous they sound and it's an intentional PR move to continue propping up the regime, and the international community is playing right into it. There are horrible things happening in North Korea right now and everyone knows it, but it's shoved into the back of everyone's heads now because it's so much funnier and entertaining to keep talking about the DPRK as cartoon villains.

Like I said, this is the nation that has successfully brainwashed and oppressed 24.9 million people for almost 70 years. If you think they're not self-aware or the statements they make to the West are not calculated mind games, I don't know what to tell you except that you're playing right to their toon. Brainwashing is a lot more than drilling you with state slogans in school and waterboarding until you recite the right answers. It's also about conditioning subjects by preying upon their biases and prejudices, then reinforcing those things.

Think about what the controversy about this movie and the DPRK's statements just did. Think about how much more press and angry responses this has gotten over even the CIA torture reports or the countless news stories we've seen about human rights abuses in North Korea. When people think of North Korea for the next few years, what are they going to think about? Are they going to think about the concentration camps, hostage abductions, forced abortions, gulag gang rapes, and summary executions? Or is the first image that pops into their mind going to be pornos and some funny movies?

That is brainwashing. That is indoctrination.

> The level of protest over this movie is... Getting angry about it on the internet. Just like with the CIA report. This is just the news cycle. Things get replaced with the next big bit of news. Ferguson to Garner to Torture to North Korea.

Except Ferguson, Tamir Rice, and Eric Garner had palpable effects. People marched against police brutality. They organized against it. The president pushed forth legislation for police body cameras because of it.

But with North Korea? Crickets. Because people don't take it seriously. If you don't want to take my word for it, talk to anyone from LINK. Read to Dr. Andre Lankov. Read to Dr. Bruce Meyers. Read The Cleanest Race. This is not some fringe theory. There is a very clear difference between what North Korea tells the world and the internal propaganda their citizens receive and it's because the DPRK knows how to play both sides of the fence.

> You're trying way too hard to make it look like people care about the movie itself more than anything else in the world.

Let's do an experiment. Googling CIA Torture Report comes up with 78.4 million results.

Googling The Interview gives us 914 million results. Nearly 1 billion results.

I didn't have to try very hard to demonstrate that yes, people really care about this movie.

u/minibuster · 40 pointsr/worldnews

Check out The Righteous Mind, a great and deep analysis of morality.

One of the takeaways I found fascinating is not that liberals and conservatives align differently on morality -- that's not really a surprise -- but that conservatives overall consider multiple different categories very important (e.g. sanctity, authority), while liberals HEAVILY consider fairness as a category that far outweighs the other moralities.

The short version is, it may feel satisfying to say that "Democrats will be fine with all that shit" and just sweep it under the rug, but I don't think that statement is true. I think the Democratic approach to leadership has plenty of its own flaws, but fairness is not one of them. I think Democrats tend to hold their own to higher expectations of fairness behavior than what we're seeing in the GOP.

u/AuroraSinistra · 40 pointsr/news

Ironically we are living in the least violent time in human history.

(It's a thick read, but tl;dr a lower % of people die by violence now than ever did)

u/falsehood · 39 pointsr/AskSocialScience

(mods, please remove if my source is bad)

I like the book The Righteous Mind and its discussion of morality. One of the points it makes is that being loyal to one's tribe and obeying authority are deeply moral matters for some people - and that those are more important then being nice, or being fair. The President is the head of a group they identify with and thus they are loyal.

u/barnabomni · 37 pointsr/exmormon

Read better books. Stop watching the local news and definitely don’t believe what Mormons say about “the world”.

Read this

https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570


Nobody is coming to save us. But what would they save us from? You see, on the whole, we’re doing a pretty good job of making our lives better. Objectively speaking. At the individual level a person feeling terrified when they actually live in a very safe environment and are extremely well protected ... well that to me sounds like something the individual needs to understand and deal with.

u/PanickedPoodle · 35 pointsr/politics

This is not about thinking. There have been studies showing that education can make you better at defending incorrect information.

We spread and defend incorrect information because it reinforces a pre-existing bias, often subconscious. Information that is shared virally tends to align with one of humanity's trigger points:

  • Tribalism (racism, they tuk me jobs)
  • Authority (support for police, borders, force)
  • Purity ("dirty" immigrants, "bleeding from her whatever")
  • Sexual dominance ("I just didn't like Hillary", "Pelosi is a bitch")
  • Fairness ("Republicans are hypocrites", welfare queen myths)
  • Loyalty (ok for my guy to break the law)

    When we focus on intelligence, we are demonstrating the Democratic bias toward rules. Education = competence = success. The Republican brain wants to reward personal exceptionalism. "I succeeded, not because of how hard I worked, but because of who I am."

    If we don't understand these triggers, we will continue to be manipulated by them.

    Edit: thanks very much to my anonymous gilder, but the ideas are cribbed from Jonathan Haidt's work. Highly recommend you check out either his book or his TED talk.

    https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind

    https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777/ref=asc_df_0307455777/
u/ravennaMorgan · 35 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

Yep, the book Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do does a good job explaining this. Regardless of whether you feel it's fair to merge at the end it is faster for everyone and when people try to block people from merging or merge way early it creates backups that can echo for miles.

u/Ardonpitt · 33 pointsr/AskAnthropology

Best I could offer off the top of my head would be The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt. He's been doing some particularly interesting work with the psychology that makes up the differences in liberals and conservatives.

u/jub-jub-bird · 30 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

You might be interested in The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt which has to do with the moral psychology of the left and right.

The main gist of the book is that people have several different hard wired foundations for morality... things that we are predisposed by human psychology to see as good vs. evil. He tentatively identified five of them as: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Sanctity/Degradation (and he later added another: Liberty/Oppression). He ran a variety of studies to get people to rank how important each of these foundations were to them and discovered that people on the left prioritized Care/Harm over all others (Fairness/Cheating was also important to leftists but less so... the other three were not important at all). The right surprisingly was almost as compassionate ranking Care/Harm only slightly lower than the left did but they ranked all others much higher to the point where all five (and later six) moral foundations are ranked roughly equally in the right wing world view. In instances where left and right disagree there is almost always one or more of the other moral foundations which the right is balancing against compassion and which the left is disregarding as unimportant.

The book is of course much more involved that that discussing where and how he came up with his thesis, the experiments he did and his speculation about the social utility of each of the moral foundations and why they appear to be hard-wired in our heads and changes he made to his theory along the way. It's definitely worth reading.

u/Socky_McPuppet · 30 pointsr/mildlyinfuriating

Stop projecting, and educate yourself.

When two lanes go down to one, study after study and simulation after simulation shows that the best way to get the maximum number of cars through in the shortest period of time is to use all the available roadway - the merge point is supposed to be at the end of the lane that is "going away", not when you first see the "lane ends" sign.

Source: Traffic

u/brasslizzard · 29 pointsr/collapse

Collapse offers the possibility of freedom from the life-numbing boredom and vapidity that pervades modern existence:

https://youtu.be/xDGh58khe_c

Collapse is exciting, dangerous, risky.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Force_That_Gives_Us_Meaning

In collapse suddenly our families mean more, our friends mean more, our daily activity means more. Our decisions matter in a deep way. We aren't just shuffling meaningless things around like most jobs.

It is the possibility of a world where I have to be adaptive, freethinking, risk-taking, clever, heroic, noble, self-sacrificing. The possibility of a world that I live in, a new approach to the physical world. To possibility. To no schedules. To the end of consumption for the sake of consumption.

Maybe even a little bit of utopia in the chaos:

https://www.amazon.com/Paradise-Built-Hell-Extraordinary-Communities/dp/0143118072

u/backtowriting · 29 pointsr/news

Fair points and good comment, thanks. It seems there have been times where she consciously and deliberately lied in order to manipulate people.

What worries me though is that she found herself surrounded by feminist activists and a journalist who were all egging her on to produce a story which fit into their 'rape culture' narrative. And in those conditions it wouldn't surprise me if her lies started to take a life of their own till it got to the point that she really believed them.

There's a great book by Lawrence Wright (author of the Scientology expose Going Clear) about false memories in a Satanic ritual abuse case, which has a lot of similarities to this story. (Activists convince girl she's been subjected to horrific abuse.) That and the psychologist Carol Tavris' book on cognitive dissonance really changed my mind about these sorts of cases and I'm now much more open to the possibility that people who appear to be sociopathic liars are often fantasists who genuinely can't tell reality from their own stories.

u/CaptainCalpin · 27 pointsr/IDontWorkHereLady

There's a great book that explains so many people who end up on this subreddit. "Mistakes Were Made (Not By Me)". It's a pretty entertaining read on the psychology of these people.

u/stonerbobo · 27 pointsr/politics

oh man.. just read /r/AskTrumpSupporters.. its depressing.

It really doesn't matter what arguments you make at all. Their intuitions come first, arguments come second. Intuition says Hillary is snobby/rich/evil and Trump is not, end of story.

There are people justifying Trump Jrs collusion with Russians! Anything can be justified with enough mental contortion and denial.

Really, the sooner you realize critical thinking means nothing to a huge group of people the better. Arguments don't form opinions, they are formed after the fact to justify them. Social pressures (what do my friends think?) & intuitions inform opinions.

EDIT: If this is interesting, checkout The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. Its where i stole most of this from. Theres also other related stuf in behavioral econ & psychology - Thinking Fast & Slow by Daniel Kahneman, Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely. Its the tip of an iceberg

u/Crest_of_Tull · 26 pointsr/booksuggestions

Hey, no problem: Here's a couple I really enjoyed that helped me learn how to really articulate what I think and understand what others were saying about politics in those sorts of discussions:

  1. The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. This contrasts how liberals and conservatives think about politics in a way that I think makes sense of what can often be really frustrating arguments.
  2. Justice by Michael Sandel. This walks you through different ways you can reason about politics so that you can develop sharper and more consistent opinions.
u/dkl415 · 26 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

Yep. Traffic Everyone merging too early slows the overall flow of traffic, and simply causes the congestion earlier.

u/theocritius · 26 pointsr/lewronggeneration

There is! sorta.

It has a bit more of a positive spin to it though. It's about how violence has gone down despite many people thinking otherwise.

u/pinksphinx · 24 pointsr/philosophy

The most insightful/mind-blowing book I've read in the past few years was "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt. It was phenomenal and challenges the long discredited in academic debate idea of cultural impact on our genes. How the success of certain religions/ideas/cultures has directly altered our genes in a far faster manner than had previously been thought.

The book also does a phenomenal job at describing the fundamental moral differences between the most divided people out there today in such an amazing way.

Highly recommend.

u/imVINCE · 23 pointsr/atheism

Religion probably served a really important evolutionary function, as well, by ensuring social cohesion around a shared set of beliefs and identities, allowing for tight group bonding which gave some groups a selective advantage. Of course, in today's world this can actually become harmful- particularly when the shared beliefs require a suspension of the sort of objective and reasoned thinking necessary to function in this modern society, or when they inform or motivate antisocial economic or political activities- but I'm not sure it's fair to say that humanity would be better off without it. Maybe on net today, but it's also possible that we may have relied on it in our evolutionary past.

Source, a wonderful book which can really aid in understanding those with whom our worldviews disagree.

u/FilterOutBullshit3 · 22 pointsr/todayilearned

Well, his father also supposedly does not poop, and according to The Cleanest Race he is often depicted with maternal qualities.

u/Bluedevil88 · 21 pointsr/baltimore

Roads are like the Field of Dreams, "If you build it they will come" and fill up all the lanes.

Great book on Traffic and Traffic design: https://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194

u/DashingLeech · 19 pointsr/science

Wait a sec. From the article:

> The survey included two statements to measure sexism: "On the whole, men make better political leaders than women do" and "On the whole, men make better business executives than women do."

From a purely scientific perspective, isn't this a biasing assumption. What if, on the whole (i.e., statistically speaking), men are better at these things. I'm not saying they are, but there are certainly equality-based theories and frameworks that make this entirely plausible. For example, Roy Baumeister's research (and book Is There Anything Good About Men demonstrates how men have a wider variance in many innate drivers (motivations, perhaps capabilities though not necessary), and provides the evolutionary math to show why this could be the case. Men are more at the top and bottom, and innately driven by different strategic goals than women (statistically speaking), such as higher risk and return activities and competition in larger social structures than collaboration in smaller ones. (Again, with good evolutionary explanation and data to back it up.) The research shows how the different strategies address trade-offs given the nature of our different behaviours that maximize reproductive success, and hence every "better than" for one sex has a corresponding "better than" in the other.

Without judging that work, just supposing it could be true would invalidate that these above questions as being sexist. Making decisions on who to hire or work with based on it would be sexist, as a statistical trend doesn't make all cases true. But that's not what it says.

I call scientific foul on this one.

u/witchdoc86 · 19 pointsr/DebateEvolution

Well. Like humans that we are, we do human things. Some of us make fun of creationists here, and some of them make fun of us at /r/Creation.

I try to be civil, as I like to be nice, and hopefully get someone with an opposing view to read what I write, but like most IRL debates, one side swaying the other is very rare.

Beliefs do not occur in isolation - see the foundationalist or coherentist models of knowledge, for example. To change one, often it is necessary to also change other beliefs.

For example, to change one's views on gay marriage, one may need to change one's beliefs on biblical inerrantism and whether sex is dualistic or a spectrum.

To change a YECer's point of view, again, it may be necessary to change their view on biblical inerrantism/belief that Satan in in charge of this world, clouding scientist's eyes/what the context and purpose of Genesis 1&2 is.

To flip my view (back to creationism), YECers need to change my beliefs on the evidence, purpose of Gen1&2, and biblical inerrancy, amongst others.

This is difficult as this is complicated by confirmation bias and the backfire effect which are very real phenomena.

In addition, although we think we are rational, we [are not] (https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777) ; our passions direct our beliefs to a great extent.

u/peenoid · 19 pointsr/KotakuInAction

I love Jonathan Haidt. His book "The Righteous Mind" is, I think, one of the most important books written in the past century and should be required reading for all high-schoolers and then read again yearly for anyone going into the social sciences or humanities.

u/cwenham · 19 pointsr/changemyview

> We need to abandon the fear of being wrong before we will accept the possibility of being wrong.

I'm reading a book right now by Jonathan Haidt called "The Righeous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" that has an interesting metaphor: humans are 90% chimps and 10% bees (not literally, of course--we're 99% chimps ;-) We evolved in an environment that made us competitive with other individuals, but were able to form groups and hives outside of kinship to become much stronger through cooperation.

So in addition to pride and the avoidance of humiliation, we have the urge to stay loyal to the hive, even if it means hypocrisy.

/r/changemyview is sorta kinda like a hive where your identity and status is determined by how much you relax your grip on fixed viewpoints. If this sort of thing actually works, and gets copied to other forums and institutions, it might begin to permeate human culture and get people to re-base or re-form their hives on different precepts.

u/kumay · 18 pointsr/suggestmeabook

May not be exactly what you're looking for, but I read this book (The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion) over the summer and it really helped me get into the heads of people with different ideologies than my own (liberal). Worth a read!

u/idkydi · 17 pointsr/Ask_Politics

Alright, it's not a "convervative" resource, but I read Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind and it made me less politically angry. What I previously saw as callousness and bitterness I now see as responding to different moral cues. Here's the TED talk summarizing part of the book, and here's the Amazon link.

u/kepeca · 17 pointsr/GetMotivated

There's a great book about this topic:

Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice by Matthew Syed

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bounce-Myth-Talent-Power-Practice/dp/0007350546

u/ofblankverse · 17 pointsr/TwoXChromosomes

Anthropology discovered this like a hundred years ago, yet the discussion and consideration is completely absent from pop culture. If you have a basic 8th grade understanding of biology (egg and sperm) it does seem like men have a motivation to fuck and flee. But when you consider human evolution, it doesn't make sense. But pop culture always gives in to the lowest common denominator (most people don't even believe in human evolution, let alone have studied it).

Human children are born dependent and stay dependent for many years, requiring multiple caregivers. Fuck and flee would ensure the death of a man's children in most cases, so there is no incentive to do that. Humans are extremely social and community is very important for our survival, happiness, and intellectual satisfaction. Fuck and flee severs trust and closeness, which are important to someone who relies on altruism for survival.

If men were programmed for infidelity, our early ancestors would have lived like lions (all the females together raising the kids, while an occasional male would stop by and knock them up). But that's not how we have ever lived. There is evidence of pair bonding in our ancestors back 4 million years, before the Homo Sapiens even existed.

For more reading on this, check out The Origins of Virtue. I read it in one of my anthropology classes in college, and it was a student favorite. It discusses the evolution of community in many species.

u/mulch17 · 17 pointsr/ShitPoliticsSays

Asking redditors to explain conservative goals and values is the perfect political Turing test. The answers are always awful.

The more time I spend online, the more I keep agreeing with Jon Haidt's research. He's a self-described liberal that uses his moral foundation theory to explain the underlying moral values of each party, and why it leads to the "Conservative Advantage" - that conservatives are way better at understanding liberals than vice versa. In other words, conservatives generally think liberals are naive and misguided, while liberals generally think conservatives are evil, insane, etc.

He wrote a whole book about it called The Righteous Mind, but this is a good intro if you're interested in learning more. I've never been able to look at politics the same way after reading Haidt's work. He was a life-changer for me.

u/naraburns · 17 pointsr/TheMotte

> We pretty much all feel like something's fucked, we just don't know how to fix it.

What boggles me about this feeling is that human beings have never had it so good. Evidence that "something's fucked" is shockingly thin, unless it's evidence that what's fucked is people's expectations, and the whatever-it-is-we're-doing to give them those expectations. There is definitely suffering out there, there are winners and losers, and it is difficult to hear that "the world is better than ever" when you're the one whose ship never seems to come in (so to speak). But ideologies built on the idea of impending apocalypse are at least as ancient as Christianity, and they historically appeal to society's worst-off for precisely this reason--this feeling that "something's fucked."

I call that feeling "the human condition." It's okay to want to make the world better. And we should definitely do that where we can. Following that feeling is how we built the amazing world we live in today.

The trick is to also be grateful for the amazing world we live in today, too. It's possible to do that and still want to make things better. It's that gratitude, I think, that staves off a tumble into nihilism--which I suspect is a much better name than "socialism" for what the teenagers calling themselves "socialists" today are feeling.

u/OuRR_World · 17 pointsr/IAmA

Interesting...ever read The God Virus? :D

u/FS959 · 17 pointsr/sweden

Jag vet att folk gillar nordkoreansk propaganda, men varför inte läsa något ur en nordkoreans perspektiv istället för samma trötta charterresa? Det bor över 20000 nordkoreaner i Sydkorea, och en majoritet av dem har flytt dit under det senaste decenniet.

Här är några bokrekommendationer:

  • Nothing to Envy: Fokuserar ganska mycket på svältkatastrofen på 90-talet men också många skildringar av vardagen i Nordkorea. Släpptes nyligen på svenska.

  • Escape from Camp 14: Biografi om den enda person som fötts i ett nordkoreanskt koncentrationsläger och lyckats fly landet. Över 200 000 personer tros sitta i dessa läger och Camp 14 är det absolut värsta, i klass med Auschwitz-Birkenau vad gäller grymhet. The Aquariums of Pyongyang handlar om ett annat läger.

  • Några bra böcker som inte är skrivna av/med "avhoppare" (dvs nordkoreanska flyktingar) är The Cleanest Race (om Nordkoreas interna propaganda; väldigt bra för den som undrar "hur de kan tro på det där"), North of the DMZ, och Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader (nästan encyclopedisk bok om nordkoreas historia).
u/spektor211 · 16 pointsr/AskWomen

I listened to an audio book called Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker. the author wrote the book for this very reason. its empirical evidence of how the world is getting better in several ways. I was feeling really pessimistic about the state of the world until this book gave me some perspective. Top 3 best books of my 2018.

​

https://www.amazon.ca/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570

u/SewHappyGeek · 16 pointsr/AskHistorians

Re: the supernatural aspects. It seems this was an evolutionary process. For example, in the early days it was normal to refer to Stalin in NK propaganda and put him on a similar pedestal as KI-S. but as time went on and the policies proved egregious, it became more pressing to present Kim as a sort of spiritual leader/demigod as well. All mentions of Stalin were quietly retired. At the same time, the pictures and stories about Kim start to become more and more godlike - he has supernatural ability to understand what a factory's problems are and solve them in 2 seconds. So things like the story of how he kicked Japanese ass near Mount Pikchu started evolving too, because that further demonstrates how godlike he is and how his destiny was mapped. Then, when KJ-I needed to be groomed for the leadership position, stories about his 'birth at Mount Pikchu' started circulating, and his astonishing output of important Juche/Communist essays started getting larger.

When KJ-I went to uni, he seems to have kept himself aloof and was always intensely private. So he didn't show up in photos, or was largely inconspicuous in the background. But when he was coming to the fore as future leader, suddenly we need to explain why he's not in the centre of the photos!! Ah! We have the answer! He was so humble (echoes of Jesus here?) that he refused to be in the centre, no matter how much his astonished classmates begged him. So they first make a virtue out of it, then that transforms into proof that he's the Chosen One.

So it was a slow process, and probably wasn't intentionally planned or mapped out. Circumstances demanded further 'proof' of why it was absolutely imperative for the Kims to stay in power, and one easy way to do that is take advantage of the fact that the communist ideology had suppressed traditional religion by substituting it with a Kim religion - all the while increasing The Kim political grip on the country as shit gets worse and worse. You should read Bradley Martin's Under the Care of the Fatherly Leader. Also see B. R. Myers The Cleanest Race for a discussion of the propoganda. It's short and scary as hell.

Hope that sets you on the track! It's fascinating and extremely disturbing to read.

Edited for clarity as the kind aubgrad11 pointed out.

u/Juko007 · 16 pointsr/OneY

If you´re interested, Roy Baumeister (social psychologist) wrote a book about "how societies flourish by exploiting men". I thought it was a pretty interesting read because it highlights the other side of the coin in the ongoing debate about discrimination against women.

Basically, Baumeister says that men are overrepresented in at the upper end of the societal hierarchy, but also (and perhaps even more) at the lower end. He argues that our society heavily relies on prototypically male competetiveness and a stream of expendable individuals who are willing to take risks to ensure constant growth. You can find the book here:

https://www.amazon.com/There-Anything-Good-About-Men/dp/019537410X

u/Bluedevil1945 · 16 pointsr/baltimore

It is basically garbage and a waste of my hard-earned taxdollars. The reason it is garbage is because the assumption is that building highways reduces congestion. This is not true. What it does is increases capacity which means more people will then drive as the capacity has increased...so you end up back where you started...a congested road. This is what will happen in the short-term.

This, coupled with trends of one-car ownership and the beginnings of driverless cars, means this is a waste of taxpayer dollars as the demand won't exist either so there is not a need to build more highways. This is what will happen in the long-term.

Indeed, sticking what what already exists may be enough to meet the demand of a reduced car culture and more efficient and computerized driving patterns.

Arguably, a better solution is to build out more efficient regional public transportation such as trolleys, busses, rail, bike lanes, etc for a more long term solution. In the short-term shore up what already exists.

Great book on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194

u/streamentry · 16 pointsr/slatestarcodex

The Perilous State of the University: Jonathan Haidt/Jordan B Peterson
>I recently traveled to New York University to talk with Dr. Jonathan Haidt about, among other things, disgust, purity, fear and belief; the perilous state of the modern university; and his work with Heterodox Academy (https://heterodoxacademy.org/) an organization designed to draw attention to the lack of diversity of political belief in the humanities and the social sciences. Dr. Haid is Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University's Stern School of Business and a social psychologist. He studies the psychology of morality and the moral emotions. He has been described as a top global thinker by both Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines. Dr. Haidt is the author of three books: The newest is The Coddling of the American Mind: How Bad Ideas and Good Intentions are Setting up a Generation for Failure (http://amzn.to/2AN87a6). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion (http://amzn.to/2yOOQnU) The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom (http://amzn.to/2hJ0TzT) His writings on diversity viewpoint for the Heterodox Academy are at (http://righteousmind.com/viewpoint-di...)

u/noodles0311 · 15 pointsr/AskLibertarians

Would you rather have your landlord be able to send you off to die in war and be both judge and jury if you got accused of a crime, or do you like a volunteer military and having 12 peers be your jury? To anyone who legitimately thinks things are no better than during the middle ages, try reading Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress https://www.amazon.com/dp/0525427570/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_e-5WBbC8QTWX0


I guess the definition of centralization needs to be discussed as well. A lord would be your military leader, judge, legislature, essentially your whole government. Is that decentralized just because his geographic span of control is small?

u/emptyheady · 15 pointsr/TrueAtheism
  • What is humanism?

    >Humanism is a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually, and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism).

  • Why atheists often mention humanism:

    >As the ethical movement began using the word in the 1930s, the term "humanism" became increasingly associated with philosophical naturalism, and with secularism and the secularisation of society. The first Humanist Manifesto, formalised at the University of Chicago in 1933, identified secular humanism as an ideology that espouses reason, ethics, and justice, while specifically rejecting supernatural and religious ideas as a basis of morality and decision-making.

    So humanist (and atheists) prefer reason over (religious) scripture to look for (moral/human) values.

    -----------------------

    I relate to this, since I reject any authority on human values. I encourage intellectual discussions. I am open to religious scriptures to function as starting point or inspiration, but never (!) as authority. Same goes for god's words. In that sense, I am pretty in line with Christopher Hitchens, an anti-totalitarian himself and seeing god as a dictator.

    -----------------------------------

    >I ask mostly because browsing around this sub-Reddit, it seems most people are utter twat waffles when it comes to being humanists, by definition.

    Is that so...? How can you tell whether someone is being a humanist or not, by just reading their comments?

    >It seems the most humanistic behavior happens after tragedy or when species-driven comforting needs to happen.

    Is it after tragedy or after the attention in media? I suspect the latter.

    >but damn are we some villainous creatures.

    I assume that you are pointing at the fact that we can do evil, implying that we can also do some good.

    Throughout the history, violence has declined and we are now living in the most peaceful time, ever - Steven Pinker.

    Our nature has not really changed that much. So that means that more people choose to do good (or more people choose to do less evil).

    ---------------------

    Your post is rather resentful philippic towards humans. Why? You seem to completely ignore the good side of men and the decline of violence.
    Suggesting that we live in a society that looks like that of Game of Thrones. Empirically false. :-/
    I am quite optimistic about the development of humanism in society, for good reasons: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1455883115
u/skadefryd · 15 pointsr/AskHistorians

B.R. Myers (author of this book and this book) would argue that North Korea is much closer to being a fascist state than a communist one. It successfully co-opted communist imagery and rhetoric, but Juche is a sham ideology devoid of content, and references to Marxism-Leninism are now more or less absent from North Korean rhetoric and founding documents. Juche exists to cover up the country's right-wing nature, including veneration of a "parent" leader who is believed to have supernatural powers (Myers would argue this is directly borrowed from fascist imperial Japan), ethnocentrism (the reverence of the Korean people as morally pure but needing a strong leader to protect them), erratic, belligerent military posturing aimed at projecting an image of strength to their citizens, and so on. The fascist state has survived, it seems, by convincing the world that it is not fascist at all.

I would be interested to know from other North Korea experts whether Myers' thesis is generally accepted.

u/stillnotking · 14 pointsr/TumblrInAction

Just as a starting point of comparison, you might want to read this.

If you're really interested in the topic, and it is an interesting topic, I'd highly recommend this book.

As bad as things are for some Americans, the everyday realities of life for nearly everyone in medieval Europe were much worse in every conceivable way.

u/spinozasrobot · 14 pointsr/politics

Not sure why you got downvoted... this has certainly been established.

u/Bilbo_Fraggins · 13 pointsr/progressive

We have one of if not the freest healthcare market in the developed world. The systems that are much further from free market health care are the ones that are 1/2 the cost with better outcomes. When you can only fathom applying more of what doesn't work, you're stuck in an ideological bind.

"Watching politics" is about the least accurate way of understanding why people act the way they do. You might try reading moral and political psychology where they actually study why people believe and push for the things they do with scientific methods. I highly recommend picking up a book like The Righteous Mind or Moral Tribes if you want to begin to understand current political realities more deeply.

u/amnsisc · 13 pointsr/ChapoTrapHouse

In case anyone ever wants to refute these arguments--which, I hope no one has any doubts how BS it is, but if you want to know just HOW bs it is, I recommend:

1.Intersectional Inequality by Ragin & Fiss

A very small book, from 2017, it details how only the addition of a small number of variables totally undercuts notions of race & ethnicity being related to test scores, shows how social aspects class, gender, race, education etc. all combine.

2.What's the Use of Race ed. Whitmarsh & Jones

A summative book that details all the contemporary debates on race in science and the critique thereof, including the American Anthropological Associations public statement that race is a social construct, the population genetics of it, the bias inherent in research, the role of race in forensics, the role of race in medicine, and the like. In basically shows in sum nothing explanatory is added by the addition of race to any of these (and, indeed, often reduces explanatory power) and the sheer number of analytic, empirical, moral, political & rhetorical issues with the concept should force us to abandon it entirely (except as an analytic social & political category--i.e. in discussions of racism, discrimination, racial policy, nationalism, etc.).

2a.Here's the intro.



3.Inequality by Design, ed. Fischer et al.

An earlier book, this one throws in a massive number of variables to totally quash the Bell Curve. It shows how inequality reproduces itself and affects academic achievement., how "intelligence" is already culturally laden, how intelligence differences even within that are artifactual, about zero sum contests over scarce resources & services, about structural imperatives to reproduce inequality, about the policy choices which continue to do this, about educational solutions, about public investment solutions & a statistical analysis of the Bell Curve.

3a.Intro Chapter on Ethnicity & IQ

3b.Chapter published elsewhere

3c.Related Paper

4.Whistling Vivaldi, a popular press book by the Claude Steele

This popular press book shows how cultural conceptions, frames, roles & priming explain a TON of variance in education & other things. Less sociological, it explains the social psychological micro underpinnings of racial inequality. I also have a source for the same thing but for gender.

We basically know the following:

  1. IQ is not a good predictor of educational achievement

  2. IQ is culturally laden and itself is biased and therefore problematic af

  3. IQ is predicted by macro-social variables

  4. IQ is at least 50% explained by environment & upbringing

  5. Small interventions change it, including adulthood

  6. As time goes on, the number of genes IQ is attributed to has expanded so substantially, that no group variation is plausible

  7. The entire relationship between race & IQ and race & school achievement is explained by inequality, discrimination, class, anti-black policy & so on.

  8. It only takes a small number of variables to prove the above

  9. Race is a political category

  10. Within group genetic differences in ethnicities is larger than that of between group

  11. For race its even weaker--genetic diversity is the highest in Africa of anywhere & in the Americas most people attributed to a 'race' are mixed ethnic, geographic & other ancestry

  12. Common environmental stimuli--dairy eating, disease, urbanization, agriculture, climate, culture--have developmental & evolutionary effects everywhere and ascribing "race" to them is absurd

  13. Priming & social psychology frame effects explain MASSIVE portions of all kind of micro-inequality (gender, race, class, sexuality, mental illness) and behavioral differences

  14. On top of this, enculturation & socialization obviously explain a massive portion of individual behavioral differences

  15. On top of this, class & inequality operate on people through kin, culture, upbringing, situations, geography & explicit policy

  16. On top of this, 80% of all behavior is explained by situations, only 10% by personality, and the rest the interaction thereof or unexplained

  17. Humans share between 99% & 99.9% of genes in common, on top which epigenetic variation, development, life course, illness & experience alter gene expression, making it a moot point anyway

  18. Genes display high degrees of pleiotropy, epistasis, geneeplexs, co-option, pre-adaptation, downward epigenetic selection, cultural co-evolution, structural imperatives, direct to RNA coding, non-functional & change expression both developmentally & situationally. Genetic determinism is total nonsense.

    There's more than that but you get the point.
u/zoink · 13 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

The Righteous Mind - Jonathan Haidt

>The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with questions such as “One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal” or ”Justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan [i.e., conservative] narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. He’s more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives.

u/BarryMDM5757 · 12 pointsr/ireland

A regular perusal of the news can falsely lead one to believe that the world is going to shit. In reality, it's getting better. Media outlets much prefer to report negative happenings and glance over most of the positives. The fact that the news is dominated by 'bad' stories should tell one that 'good' or 'neutral' events are the norm, and not the other way around.

​

On the Late Late Show last night there were three guests talking about the 'homelessness crisis' in the country. It was pretty much all negativity. While I'm not ignoring the fact that there are people struggling in this country in many ways, compare the situation now to 100 or fewer years ago. Read about the Tenements in Dublin before the 1960s, for example.

​

Quality of life is increasing pretty much all over the world. This is a good book for anybody interested in learning more about that fact. I'm not surprised by the sarcastic comments here: people really take for granted just how lucky they are to live in a Western European country in the 21st century, and Ireland is a great country to live in. If only we had time machines that could transport people back 200, 150 or 100 years ago so they could see how much life has improved and how lucky they are.

u/checkChaCheckItOut · 12 pointsr/atheism

While these videos are very good at explaining real experiments and citing them, I'd like to point out that they vastly simplify the psychology of beliefs.

For further detail you should check out Jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion", or for a tl:dr, check out his interview with Stephen Colbert.

u/nilstycho · 11 pointsr/AskSocialScience

You might be interested in Jonathan Haidt's Moral foundations theory and his book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. He finds that both progressives and conservatives value fairness. Here's his TED Talk if you prefer that.

u/BadLaziesOn · 11 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Yes. This was my first Haidt content ever - and I'm into his work ever since. I also highly recommend the book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.

u/PunjabiPlaya · 11 pointsr/IAmA

My best friend got me this book for my birthday because he said I'm too pessimistic. It's a really good read that reflects that letter.

https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570

u/adamsw216 · 11 pointsr/Art

For Korea in general I took a lot of East Asian history courses, including courses on relations with the west, in college. I studied abroad in South Korea for a time where I studied Korean history (ancient and modern) as well as Korean culture and sociology (mostly South Korea). I also had the pleasure of speaking with someone from North Korea.
But if you're interested to know more, these are some sources I can personally recommend...

Books:

u/Prince_Silk · 10 pointsr/slatestarcodex

If you haven't read Jonathan Haidt's, The Righteous Mind, I would recommend checking it out. It's a fabulous book that looks into the psychology of people with different political beliefs. What qualities do people value more and how those qualities translate to supporting one belief or another.

u/ehaaland · 10 pointsr/psychology

It depends on what types of things you're interested in!

Over time, you'll come to know certain people who research in different areas and you can go to their personal webpages and access their Curriculum Vitae. Through that, you can find all the work they've done and many times they link to PDF copies of their papers.

But psychology is a very broad field. Here are some suggestions I can come up with:

For dealings with moral political psychology (the psychology of how people on the right and people on the left feel about moral decisions - includes religions and other aspects to our deeply-rooted conceptions of 'self'), see Jonathan Haidt - He just wrote a new book called The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

For dealings with the extent and limits of human rationality, I'd suggest Daniel Kahneman. He also just wrote a new book called Thinking Fast and Slow.

Stuffisnice suggested William James. James' Principles of Psychology is remarkable and very fun to read. It's quite dated both in science and in language, but his writing is impeccable.


In fact, James didn't just do psychology. He did philosophy as well. His later philosophy was at odds with the picture provided by most mainstream psychology that takes the brain as the source of our mental experience. These philosophical aspects have recently been brought into the empirical realm in the branch of Ecological psychology. This is my personal preference for psychology reading as I feel it is much more willing to ask harder questions than traditional psychology; it is willing to do away with assumptions and premises that are generally taken for granted.

This ecological framework deals more with perception and the role of the animal's action in perception. Instead of the traditional way of looking at perception (cells react to stimuli in the environment, feed this encoded stimuli into the brain, the brain processes things and makes sense of them, recreating a picture of the world through its activity, and finally sending out directions to the body to move), the ecological perspective focuses more on how the animal perceives the world directly and does not require internal processing to make sense of the world. It's much cleaner and much simpler. The brain is still crucial for the lived experience, but it is not the whole story.

For readings in ecological psychology, I would recommend Ed Reed's Encountering the World and Eleanor Gibson's An Ecological Approach to Perceptual Learning and Development.

After you get your bearings, then you can get into some really deep stuff that tries to synthesize biology, psychology, and the essence of human/animal experience (phenomenology). For that, Evan Thompson is my go to guy. His work is heavily philosophical and is sometimes overly dense, but you may find it interesting.

PM me if you have any questions!

u/simmelianben · 9 pointsr/sociology

Try the book below by Tom Vanderbilt. It's a decent look at some of the social issues that come up in driving along with the mathematical background that makes them problems. Very interesting and changed my driving patterns substantially.

Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307277194/ref=cm_sw_r_em_apa_RqvpzbQK98J47

u/Tangurena · 9 pointsr/AskMen

That sort of toxicity has permeated pretty much all discourse in the US. Everything about politics, race, sex, sexuality and equality. Much of it comes from alienation, much from lack of exposure to other viewpoints. The end result is that people tend to use inflammatory language to denigrate opponents. I could write a long essay about this sort of issue, and folks have written whole books on the subject.

A lot of the issue is lack of empathy for "the other side". If they aren't human, then it doesn't matter how they get treated/killed. This is one of the first things done in warfare - dehumanize the enemy. You can see it when the media has such intense coverage about beheadings in Syria or the riots in Ferguson - the intent of the media is to make the audience feel that those people are rabid animals who have to be put down. No coverage of how they got there, why the folks do what they do, nothing about their families - just horrible coverage to inflame the audience to support overwhelming and crushing violence against them.

> actually addressing the issues and engaging in good-faith discussions

To begin with, not everyone agrees that X is a problem, let alone that it should be "fixed". Or even that it is a bad thing. You can see that in the political debates over global warming.

Some books on having intelligent conversations (in no particular order) include:
Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole. Helps identify BS in conversation/debates.
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Explains how different people come to different political philosophies based on their values.
How to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable. The author has written a number of books with "gentle art of verbal self defense" in the title. Most are about how to identify verbal attacks and to side-step them.
Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language. Gives lots of examples of bad rhetoric.
Wie man mit Fundamentalisten diskutiert, ohne den Verstand zu verlieren. How to have a discussion with a fundamentalist without losing your mind. In German, I think I should do a translation of the book.

The formal subject of making arguments to convince others used to be called rhetoric. And it has been taught since the days of Plato and Aristotle.

u/RIO_XL · 9 pointsr/worldnews

Your observations are bang on, the extreme conservative values they hold are self defeating in the face of today's progressive societies. I'll get back to this.

The how: they're intentionally manipulated by people with an agenda who seek power. Either political power or physical dominance by force. They feel safe in their group because of the hive-switch. Jonathan Haidt goes into this pretty heavily in his book The Righteous Mind.

As for helping, you have to talk with them. I know it's easier said than done. I myself get nervous and intimidated when I come across someone with that mentality. They're scary. But they're also people. They sleep, snore, eat, laugh. They had a first kiss and experienced deaths in their families. See, I'm being empathetic. It's what allows me to understand other's viewpoints and put things into perspective. It's also what they lack. But that doesn't mean it can't be learned.

So the societies thing: imagine for a minute that the alt-right magically gets their demands: all "immigrants" leave North America and head back to their mother land. Also, no outsourcing of labor. This is the part when they rub their fingers in delight right? I mean, look at all the land with natural resources they're left with! Look at the potential. Well, let's just say the economy will collapse. It may be obvious but: major companies will have lost their talent, also their customer base. The labor force will have to be massively redistributed, new skills learned (which is already a big challenge for fixed-mindset people, whom from my observation are predisposed to being alt-right) to get essential services back in working order, Trade with other countries will suffer (for obvious reasons) so the nation will have to be self reliant. In the meantime progress WILL CONTINUE in other countries and will outpace this regressive, uncooperative and undiplomatic nation.

Seriously just writing this feels ridiculous. Okay, let's back track. "Let the immigrants stay but they'll be living by our rules, values and beliefs. I like my way of life, it suits me good and I sure as hell don't see a reason to change. And they sure as hell better be okay with being second class citizens. This here is not a meritocracy."

And there's that detail about the First Nations. Yeah the First Nations. When they demand all immigrants vacate, they don't include themselves. Is it really a matter of sovereignty or who came here first? Because... never mind. For arguments sake, let's say it's instead a matter of contribution to the making of modern society. Nation building if you will. Europeans came to this land on the premise of commerce. The Canadian fur trade. But these Europeans had associates in this business. Where the natives not contributors to the fur trade? Did they not help these newcomers with food, warmth, information? By the way this is completely ignoring their already existing society and way of life which, had someone asked them at the time, they might have said something along the lines of "Let the immigrants stay but they'll be living by our rules, values and beliefs. I like my way of life, it suits me good and I sure as hell don't see a reason to change." Probably.

I'll leave you with a fantastic book that will hopefully illuminate this topic better than I ever could: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Religion and Politics Check out Jonathan Haidt's TED Talks for a glimpse on what he covers in the book. The real bombshell I took away from his book is that: conservatism isn't exclusive to any one nation and it exhibits itself similarly across the globe. The real tragedy is that conservative groups hate each other when they belong to different nations, despite how much they have in common as far as the values they hold dear.

u/wmup · 9 pointsr/StopGaming

Time enjoyed is time invested

Either you’re enjoying yourself or working on yourself. Now that you’ve noticed its your choice; go take a run, read a book (bill gates yesterday recommended Enlightenment now by Steven Pinker ), don’t regret the past, rather plan your future.

Good vibes

u/AfterSpencer · 9 pointsr/mormon

I disagree that them not recanting is strong evidence.

People don't like to be wrong or admit they made a mistake, etc. People will often double down on their stories instead of admitting they made a mistake.

This is a great book on the subject:

Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts https://smile.amazon.com/dp/0544574788/ref=cm_sw_r_other_apa_i_vrLJDbFYWM4SX

u/Shiner_Black · 9 pointsr/Libertarian

Your experience is a good example of Jonathan Haidt's findings in his book, The Righteous Mind.

A person's mind is kind of like a rider on an elephant. The rider is Reason and the elephant is Passion. The rider just follows wherever the elephant wants to go. As David Hume said, reason is a slave to the passions.

To get someone to change their mind about something important in politics, you have to talk to the rider. If the person talking about the moral case against the Drug War had mentioned libertarianism positively, that would've immediately caused your elephant to dig in its heels and not listen any further, and that would prevent the rider, Reason, from doing anything else.

u/Ohthere530 · 8 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Read a book on the psychology of politics. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt is a good one. (Here's an NY Times article on the book.)

He argues that liberals and conservatives process moral questions very differently. In particular, conservative people often focus on "disgust". Does something feel unclean or gross? Gay sex, especially between men, triggers this feeling. To get a sense of "disgust", think of other religious taboos. Don't touch a woman on her period. Don't each "unclean" food. And so on.

Liberal people focus more on fairness. They don't focus much at all on disgust. It's not that conservative people don't value fairness at all. They do. It's just that disgust out-ranks it.

Me? I'm in favor of gay marriage. Classic liberal. So I'm not defending the conservative mind-set. Just trying to give you a sense of it.

u/HeTalksToComputers · 8 pointsr/civ

Totally. I am reading Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker which makes exactly this point.

u/All-Iwantisthetruth · 8 pointsr/exjw

I remember feeling the same way when I first started learning things, it's painful to realize how extensive the deception goes. One thing that's helped me understand the lies and how the cult is run without thinking it's some huge conspiracy is to try to understand our brains capacity to self-deceive and rationalize horrible things, some have more to lose, others are better at self-deception. If you enjoy reading I would try Mistakes Were Made But Not By Me or if you prefer videos you can search YouTube for videos with Carol Tavris. It will get easier but the frustrating thing that remains is that none/most of your family will accept that they're being lied to by watchtower, they are more than likely to say you're lying or have been lied to about the information you're learning.

u/aykontakt · 8 pointsr/atheism

The author of this book takes similar approach: The God Virus, Darrel W. Ray. So do I, religions are the scourge of humanity, a purveyor of ignorance and intolerance.

u/psycho_trope_ic · 8 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Your evidence was not directed at your premise. The evidence that we have advanced as a species and are more peaceful is from history.

You did not condemn any system, you complain about humans. That is not the same thing.

u/NoMoreIllusions · 8 pointsr/exmormon

I think that if she can learn to critically examine her own thinking and beliefs, and understand how and why people come to believe what they believe, that this will definitely be more effective than addressing just the factual problems.

Here are some book recommendations that I think can accomplish this, if she's willing to read them:

Why We Believe What We Believe - Newburg and Waldman
Mistakes Were Made - But Not By Me - Tavris and Aronson
The Outsider Test for Faith - John Loftus

I have a section on this in a PDF I recently wrote: Examining Church Claims

But take your time; pushing things will only create more resistance.

Good luck!

u/MegasBasilius · 8 pointsr/neoliberal

I agree the focus has been on women because they're the ones making less. You may enjoy the book Is There Anything Good About Men? by Roy Baumeister, who details the ways in which the average Joe has contributed to society.

> And is it really wrong that men are expected to do more dangerous/physically demanding tasks?

Personally? No; men are naturally stronger.

For the sake of an equitable society? Many would say yes.

u/Mankowitz- · 8 pointsr/ottawa

If you are interested by this video, I would highly recommend the book Traffic. It is aimed at a layperson, and it touches on this and other sometimes counterintuitive concepts in Traffic. It is actually a really good read with a lot of academic sources (although they are just listed at the end of each chapter without direct citations).

The hook of the book: is it better for traffic flow if, when faced with a lane that will soon end, you merge over as soon as you can, or wait until the lane ends? (Spoiler: either works as long as everyone agrees, but no matter what, late merging is more efficient).

The synopsis says a lot more about it so I'll copy paste it:

>In this brilliant, lively, and eye-opening investigation, Tom Vanderbilt examines the perceptual limits and cognitive underpinnings that make us worse drivers than we think we are. He demonstrates why plans to protect pedestrians from cars often lead to more accidents. He uncovers who is more likely to honk at whom, and why. He explains why traffic jams form, outlines the unintended consequences of our quest for safety, and even identifies the most common mistake drivers make in parking lots. Traffic is about more than driving: it's about human nature. It will change the way we see ourselves and the world around us, and it may even make us better drivers.

u/kodheaven · 8 pointsr/IntellectualDarkWeb

Seeking Truth

Do your best to stay away from YouTube reactionaries or YouTube Personalities, the truth is rare there and often distorted.

Some other recommendations:

u/Amp4All · 8 pointsr/AcademicPsychology

There are a few titles I really love. I hope you like a few things on the list, if you have any questions let me know.

u/alecbenzer · 8 pointsr/ShitPoliticsSays

I wouldn't claim that conservatives are universally logical and rational, but all people resort to emotion. We're more or less built to deal with morality and politics via intuition, not reasoning (see The Righteous Mind). And I'd say this applies to liberals quite a lot as well.

u/neepuh · 8 pointsr/SRSDiscussion

Hi carbuyer throwaway, a lot of people have mentioned that it's hard to get racist people to stop being racist. I agree. However, you might want to read a book called Whistling Vivaldi - It is a book about racial stereotyping in the Unites States and small steps you can take to overcome them. Truly enlightening book. Also, I'm so sorry about your experiences - from one American to another. It's important to remind yourself that you are not defined by what other people say and do to you. Much support.

u/TheAlchemyBetweenUs · 7 pointsr/CollapseSupport

I think this book might help sort out political differences.

Trump was surprisingly cogent during the election. He mentioned that the US economy was in a bubble. He pointed out that not provoking war would be a good thing. On the other hand, his energy policy and circumlocution on climate change should have made him a non-starter for most humans. He tapped into the despair and sense of betrayal that many Americans rightfully feel.

But then he started bombing Syria without adequate proof, applying reverse Robin Hood policies, and rolling back years of hard fought environmental regulations that protect the greater populace.

You might be able to get through to your SO. I mean Trump is probably collapse-aware on some level (esp. with Bannon on board), so maybe talking about collapse topics would be fruitful. If he's a climate change denier and can't fix that after an intervention, it suggests a level of infantile stubbornness that will be a challenge in other areas.

Bottom line, is this someone you want to raise a child with? If you listen to your intuition and the answer is no, move on. If yes, perhaps it's a viable project.

u/puppy_and_puppy · 7 pointsr/MensLib

I'm not sure if this would work or not, but I would try redirecting people who have conservative or right-wing leaning views at least toward better thinkers than Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson and toward optimistic views of the future of society, to cull some of the us-vs-them and zero-sum thinking that plagues these discussions.

Sometimes it feels like men, especially, feel existentially threatened by other modes of thought, so being at least sympathetic to the good bits of their ideas and offering something similar but that promotes openness and liberal ideas may help.

Hans Rosling's Factfulness presents a pretty optimistic view of the world. It's all getting better! Seriously!

Jonathan Haidt (and Greg Lukianoff for the first book)

u/robbed_irl · 7 pointsr/brasil

Estou lendo o livro mencionado logo no início do artigo, do Steven Pinker, e não fiquei nem um pouco surpreso ao encontrá-lo nesse texto. Digo isso pois vejo um contraste muito grande entre o artigo e os textos do Pinker.

Não sei se é por conta da minha ignorância no assunto (extremamente provável), ou se está relacionado à forma como abordo discussões sobre a condição humana, mas tenho bastante dificuldade em levar a sério um texto desse tipo. As quatro qualidades do ego quieto e a tal da escala proposta são tão arbitrárias e subjetivas que, a meu ver, tiram toda a credibilidade de se tentar encaixar essa teoria como algo suficientemente distinto dos conceitos amplos relacionados à filosofia humanista.

Dito isso, acho que o problema está em mim mesmo. Se parasse para ler tudo que foi mencionado e apreciar o trabalho que deve ter sido empregado por trás do artigo, provavelmente teria uma opinião diferente. Vindo de um campo técnico, minha visão certamente está muito enviesada a favor de argumentos objetivos e pautados em dados, e, voltando ao início do comentário, é justamente isso que me atrai ao trabalho do Steven Pinker.

u/workingtothescope · 7 pointsr/survivinginfidelity

Your ex is really cruel. I'm sorry he's doing this to you, that's bullshit. He cheated and it was not your fault. He was a disloyal asshole and is now trying to blame you and continue rationalizing his actions to himself.

As for telling the kids, yeah that is hard. As someone said above, it could really backfire on you. :/ If you can get therapy and work out the right option for you with a trusted professional, that's the best route. I will say, however, that there has been research done that shows that children of divorces wherein the reasons are unclear do WORSE long term than children who are told the reasons. https://www.amazon.com/Unexpected-Legacy-Divorce-Landmark-Study/dp/0786886161 I am one of those cases. My parents divorced and I wasn't told much about why at the time or even when I was past university. In my own case, I very much wish I had been told when I was 16. Ha, maybe it could have helped me avoid becoming a poster here. ;) That is sort of a joke, but I do think the unresolved and deeply confusing trauma of the divorce probably had some small part to play in choosing men who treat me like shit, over and over again, and push away the good ones. :/

But, yeah, we cant't really know your situation, we don't know you or your daughter. We do know that your husband is a raging asshole, though! ;) But you do need to really think hard on this and getting a lot of support from people who DO know you is key.

u/darkcalling · 7 pointsr/atheism

The Marxist explanation is the simplest I think: They wish to control (and regulate) the means of production. Specifically the means of production of more hosts for the god virus.

Also, by making something that all humans can't help to avoid a sin... they ensure that sin is committed, guilt and furtherance of their control over them through that guilt.

These two together I believe form powerful reasoning.

I'll add that in the case of women, virginity is valued because traditionally, especially in the time period the bible was written, they were considered property. Therefore... in an awful way a product that has been opened and used is less valuable than one that is still in the packaging. There is of course the old, more practical consideration that a woman who isn't a virgin may be bearing another man's children, thus her husband would expend resources raising children that weren't his and didn't advance his line.

I mean there are so many things at work here it is ridiculous. Original intent is one thing, but over time it gained other advantages. Still, you have to notice that the burden and pressure on women is much greater than men, it's about controlling women.

If you want an in-depth explanation I would suggest the great book "The God Virus" by Darrel Ray. He also has a podcast called secular sexuality, but that's more about exploring sexual behavior(s) than explaining the religious effect on it. If you don't want to buy it, check it out from a library, it really is enlightening when you examine religion in the way he does. (And in fact is one of my top book recommendations for atheist literature after "The God Delusion" and "God is Not Great")

https://www.amazon.com/God-Virus-Religion-Infects-Culture/dp/0970950519/

u/Philo_T_Farnsworth · 7 pointsr/forwardsfromgrandma
u/kissfan7 · 7 pointsr/GetMotivated

>Simple, lustful, non thinking people are akin to animals.

Humans are animals. We are members of the animal kingdom. "Animal" is not an insult.

And you're assuming all three of those descriptors automatically go together. You're certainly assuming a lot about a woman from just one picture.

If you're not into sex for the sake of sex, fine. Don't have sex for the sake of sex then. Just don't shame other people for wanting what you don't want. It doesn't help them, it doesn't help you, and it's just a waste of electricity.

>They seldom render any great service to their fellowmen. They are just very small, weak creatures that draw blood and reproduce.

You must be a hit at parties.

>well we are already reaching the point where we are counting the straws that will break the camels [sic] back.

And this woman is one of the straws?

Read this book. It won't turn you into a Pollyanna, but it'll make it slightly harder for you to come off like a pseudo-intellectual, pessimistic cliche.

>A big war could break out any day, we don't know.

There's already a petty big war going on right now.

>Do the world a favor and care a little.

And now we're getting personal.

I work at a non-profit law firm that does foreclosure defense, prisoner's rights, bankruptcy protection for the indigent, and consumer debt. I keep families in their homes. I still find time to volunteer outside this job. This job, by the way, gets me less than $900 per month, 10% of which I donate to charity.

I'm not exactly Jonas Salk, Baynard Rustin, Susan B. Anthony or [insert your own hero here], but I carry my weight and still like to occasionally get laid. I care as much as you, more than you, or maybe slightly less than you. But caring about things and caring about the sex life of a woman you've never met isn't the same thing.

>It's complacence with crime to perpetuate this ideal, which is underscored in this very image, this is the sapience of the ego distilled in this image.

Put down the thesaurus and listen up.

First, "crime" does not mean what you think it means. Second, there are many accomplishments that may mean a lot to one person, but nothing to another. This man, through hard work and discipline, looks super fine. You have not established a connection between his fineness and the fact that many people are "addicted to drugs" along with the other random stuff you listed.

There are many things wrong with the world. His six pack and her admiration of his six pack isn't one of them.

Sex-negativity, on the other hand, is one of them.

u/copy-kun · 7 pointsr/japancirclejerk

Please remember to 上vote! Alligator dezaimas!

----
Weekly Complaint Thread - 26 January 2017

> As per every Thursday morning- this week's complaint thread! Time to get anything off your chest that's been bugging you or pissed you off.
>
> Rules are simple - you can complain/moan/winge about anything you like, small or big, it can be a personal issue or a general thing, except politics. It's all about getting it off your chest. Remain civil and be nice to other commenters (even try to help).
>
> > /u/2catsinjapan:

>>Had to go to a different hospital for a bunch of tests (next Friday I'll find out if I'm gonna live or be forced to have vital bits chopped out so I can live) and the docs there decided that since I'm clearly a foreigner they were going to speak really loud and really slow.
>>
>>Told them that I'm foreign, not deaf.
>>
>>They seemed very surprised by it.
>>
>>And continued talking to me like I was a hearing impaired brain damaged person.
>>
>>Finally stopped when I started responding to them in the same manner.
>>
>>Now, keep your fingers crossed for me.
>>I don't want to end up being forced to do an Angelina Jolie.
> > > /u/luxeguard:

>>> Japan has an aging population and hospitals tend to have an even larger percentage of oldsters visiting them. Because of this hospital staff have gotten into the habit of speaking loudly. It is necessary. Check the nurse's station. You will usually find a megaphone sitting there because they use it often. I know this because I spent two weeks in the hospital last year and many of the nurses and doctors used really loud voices with me. When my (Japanese) wife visited me they used that same voice with her.
>>>
>>>You said you were foreign not deaf? Is that polite in your country?
>>>Why complain about others when you can't control yourself?
>>>
>>>It is best to be polite and patient even when others aren't.
>>>
>>>
>>>
> > > > /u/2catsinjapan:

>>>>Due to my condition I visit different medical establishments pretty often. You're not the only person familiar with hospitals here, but nice try.
>>>>
>>>>When the staff uses normal voices and normal Japanese to other people, including older Japanese patients, shock and horror (so much for your excuse) but switched to loud kindergarten Japanese when they saw a foreign person, yeah I was triggered. Because despite what you want to believe , that's not normal.
>>>>
>>>>And no, there wasn't anything rude in my response to them.
>>>> I simply pointed out an obvious fact.
> > > > > /u/luxeguard:

>>>>>Not trying to do anything but explain my experience.
>>>>>I don't want to believe anything in particular. In fact I believed as you did before I spoke to the staff about it and watched how others were spoken to. I was pretty pissed because it fit nicely with my preconceived notion about Japan and the Japanese. It felt really good to find yet another example of how culturally ignorant, childish and downright rude Japanese people can be. Damn these people!
>>>>>
>>>>>Except it didn't fit and I was man enough to admit it. Everyone yells in hospitals here my friend.
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't need to fire back with a personal attack. Check [this book] (https://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/1491514132) out, it helped me (is helping me) a lot.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
> > > > > > /u/gude_gudetama:

>>>>>>> Not trying to do anything but explain my experience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then why hijack her post in a complaint thread to "prove her wrong"? You could make your own post in the praise thread??
> > > > > > > /u/luxeguard:

>>>>>>>Not praising anyone or anything. Why would I do that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I can't comment on or disagree with a sweeping generalization?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Some complaints are undeserved - just my experience. If someone wants to believe that Japanese doctors see non-Japanese speaking people as children that must be yelled at so be it. Enjoy yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My experience is that the ONLY time I have had people consistently use a loud voice with me over the last 22 years in Japan was in hospitals and clinics. I investigated and found out the reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you are yelled at when going into a clothing store, convenience store, town hall, train station, Hello Work or community center I would be very surprised. Must be a reason for the difference huh? The reason is that old people have bad hearing and they are in the overwhelming majority in hospitals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you are not invested in your complaints and gripes maybe, just maybe you'll find out you were wrong. It happens.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Notice I didn't "downvote" your comment? :)
> > > > > > > > /u/gude_gudetama:

>>>>>>>>> Not praising anyone or anything. Why would I do that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I mean praise of your own attitude readjustment because you were 'man enough' thing? Or reducing 'investment' in complaints and gripes, which I have no idea what that is even supposed to mean. Good for you?
> > > > > > > > > /u/luxeguard:

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Some people think that every unpleasant experience they have in Japan is proof that Japan is out to get them (confirmation bias). Anyone that works in a hospital anywhere in the world is laughing at the OP's experience.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The reason the doctor slipped into using a loud voice again is the same reason that people that return home from a noisy factory job talk loudly in their livingrooms - it has become a habit! Japanese people are not out to get you. LOL.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Done here, bye bye.
>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > /u/gude_gudetama:

>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone that works in a hospital anywhere in the world is laughing at the OP's experience.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Interesting that you should mention that, as I have worked in hospitals, and I know a few Japanese nurses, doctors and pharmacists that work in hospitals here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I wasn't actually talking about any of that, though, but I guess you're missing my point.
> > > > > > > > > > > /u/luxeguard:

>>>>>>>>>>>1. God only knows what your point is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>2. Pharmacists don't work in hospitals in Japan.


----
^(Check out copy-kun on) ^github!

u/EDI-Thor · 7 pointsr/centrist

There is a book called "Everybody makes mistakes... except me" "Mistakes were made (But not by me)". It outlines different cognitive biases and the rationalisation process of individuals to justify their mistakes instead of owning up to it. It was years ago when I first read it but iirc one topic it mentioned is doubling down on the belief when challenged and we all know too well about that in both personal and sociopolitical level.

The book is eye-opening and personally I think it made me wiser and more mindful of my thoughts and decision making than before and therefore I really think that people should read it even just a couple of chapters to improve their decision making based on sound judgement rather than by emotions. I know too many people who behave based on emotional and irrational instincts and it grates me when they impose their irrational, instinctual beliefs. All too often, many people lack the introspection and we would go a very long way if people would read the "Everybody makes mistakes..." "Mistakes were made" book.

Edit: So, initially mentioning the title of the book was mistaken, but not by me.

Edit: also grammar

u/Parrallax91 · 7 pointsr/worldnews

Comments like this are why /r/worldnews gets the reputation for being anti-west no matter what the cost and turns us into Encyclopedia Dramatica fodder. There is no way in hell North Korea will ever give up it's nukes and to think differently is silly. For them to dump their nukes would take away a good chunk of their weight internationally and take away legitimacy from their government. North Korea will never be peaceful as long as the Kims run the show because they need to demonize the west and South Korea to remain in power. If they ever went to a hippy, drum circle strategy of diplomacy and governance their people and/or the army would knock them out very quickly. Where is Christopher Hitchens to give you a good Hitch-slap?

Before you comment back, I highly suggest you read The Cleanest Race by B.R Meyers to get a good idea of what we're dealing with. Educate yourself.

u/wolframite · 7 pointsr/IAmA

Yeah - Hibachi is a charcoal brazier. And, even in the US, often used to refer to those small charcoal Japanese-style BBQ grills.

It's kind of funny when you have ethnic Koreans - who otherwise tend to have a huge amount of nationalistic pride - running so many fake Japanese restaurants in the US. Of course, most Americans could not care less (as they can't tell the difference) but to anyone who knows the real thing (whether Japanese or an expat), it's disappointing.

A few immediate clues to the fact a Japanese restaurant might not be authentic:

  1. The name. Something stereotypical with references to "Mt. Fuji", "Samurai" or "Geisha".

  2. The line-up of food. For example, sushi and Korean BBQ.

    I've even had one nationalistic Korean - after they found out I was stationed in Japan - try to convince me that sushi was invented by Koreans and stolen by the Japanese. The same guy also went into great detail on how the Korean language was the most scientific language in the world and how theirs is the purest race in the world. I was recently semi-surprised to see a new book on North Koreans titled The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters ... so it was then I realized my angry patriotic friend was definitely not an outlier with his outspoken opinions!

    There is a similar situation in Japan with "Indian" cuisine. Pakistanis (who generally don't like being identified as Indians) discover that in order to successfully attract Japanese clientele to their restaurants in Tokyo often need to fly the Indian flag. It must kill them on the inside to do this, I reckon.

u/XenonOfArcticus · 7 pointsr/TwoXChromosomes

You might find Matt Ridley's "Origins of Virtue" to be pretty interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Origins-Virtue-Instincts-Cooperation/dp/0140264450

His interpretation is that many times (this is not specific to women in any way) one group may "take one for the team" because in the end, they end up with a better deal than any other options.

To put it in the context of the scenario you mention, perhaps they felt getting SOMEONE in their family voting sooner was better than a more prolonged and possibly less successful battle for their own personal voting rights.

I'm not saying you're wrong. A lot of women get screwed over by the world. I'm just saying, the world is a nasty place for humans and sometimes women may have made a "pragmatic" decision by choosing a "less screwed" option. Ridley and others argue that (for men or women) the ultimate Darwinian measuring stick of our brief time on Earth may simply be the success and vitality of our children. It's why men go to war (and do a lot of other terrible things to) and it might also be why women let themselves get thrown under the bus. Because if they're making the world better for their children, in the grand scheme of things, it's a win.

Flame me if you will.

u/shenjh · 7 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Another book covers similar issues, focusing more on the cognitive psychology side. It's not focused on religious experiences, but the topics it covers are still very much applicable to such experiences.

Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts - Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson

u/Kmlevitt · 7 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Once you're done with that, read Is there anything good about men? by the psychologist Roy Baumeister. It covers her story along with many others, and explains the differences in evolutionary terms. Brilliant stuff up there with the most insightful stuff JP has to say. Here's a short essay he did on the same topic as a sample-

https://psy.fsu.edu/~baumeisterticelab/goodaboutmen.htm

u/superduck85 · 7 pointsr/Atlanta

They should hand out free copies of Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do by Tom Vanderbilt to explain how/why this works.

There's solid science behind these signs...but of course you have to have signs that actually function correctly.

edit: added link to book.

u/Penroze · 7 pointsr/AskReddit

I've got a book recommendation that covers your question in detail:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/dp/0307377903

The short answer (at least this evolutionary psychologist who has data to back it up) is that liberals are more concerned about harm, and conservatives are more concerned about loyalty, authority, and sanctity.

Liberals being more concerned about harm explains why they're more opposed to guns. Conservatives being more concerned about loyalty, authority, and sanctity explains why they're more religious.

I don't really fully agree with everything in the book, but it's a decent place to start to understand the differences of values between the two.

u/FluffyApocalypse · 6 pointsr/todayilearned

>How could someone in his position be such a cold hearted person?!

Because the bigger the mistake people make, the harder they work to justify it. Not everyone is this bad (I hope) but we all do it. You should give this book a read. Mistakes were made (but not by me)

u/kempff · 6 pointsr/Roadcam

Yep, I do the same thing.

Most people don't understand that tailgating is what causes waves of stop-and-go traffic.

More info: http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194/

And I am dismayed that so many people don't understand this concept: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Zipper_animated.gif

u/the_snooze · 6 pointsr/space

I don't think "knuckleheads" is the right word when our natural need to divide ourselves into fiercely competitive non-family groups is something that makes us uniquely human and successful at accomplishing grand things. Source: this book.

u/KitAndKat · 6 pointsr/Conservative

Thanks for the encouragement. I did self-post here a while back on the differences between liberals and conservatives, and received some interesting responses, but the post as a whole was down-voted.

Since then Jonathon Haidt's book on the subject has been published, so I may post again, comparing and contrasting my position against his.

u/hindu-bale · 6 pointsr/IndiaSpeaks

> I see what you are getting at -

I'm unconvinced of arguments involving game theory and utilitarianism. Although, it's easy to latch on to them. Going down a path of "articulated objectivism" in a world dominated by new atheists touting Science as above morality and philosophizing, there isn't much else to fall back on. So I understand why one might want to base their arguments such.

My own break from this approach involved (1) reading "The Evolution of Cooperation", which is as Game Theory and Dawkins as it gets, with its thesis based almost entirely on computer simulation, then simultaneously reading (2) Greg Mankiw's piece on "When the Scientist is Also a Philosopher", which to me was largely an admission from a top Economist, then finally (3) reading Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" that showed me the possibility of an entirely alternate perspective. Particularly impactful were his citing of Fehr & Gachter's Altruistic Punishment in Humans, his case about Kant and Bentham being autistic - implying they weren't socially capable of understanding how people actually functioned in social settings, and his takedown of the New Atheists including Dawkins.

> in part rhetorical :)

Yes, in part, the other part being sincerely open to being convinced otherwise :) .

> I think there is so much more that ails the legal system today

What do you believe ails the legal system?

To me, Dharma is at the least evolved for India, in comparison to Western canonical law. Dharma is still well embedded in our cultural consciousness, we grow up on stories involving Dharma. If you're thinking in terms of Schelling points, Dharma should be an obvious solution to many of India's societal woes. It is at the least far more intuitive for us Hindus. Western legalese on the other hand is mostly about being "technically correct" "as per the law". Maybe it works for the West, probably because it bakes in their Schelling points, but I don't see how it's good for India.

Of course I'm not suggesting overhauling legal vocabulary, but instead, dumping vocabulary altogether. Being technically correct is not the same as being correct. Subjective judgements should be acceptable. The Western legal system, for all its rhetoric about living "by the rule of law", never got around subjective judgement of judges.

u/Enginerd · 6 pointsr/slatestarcodex

Since nobody seems to have mentioned it already, I would recommend Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind. There's a lot in there, part II is most similar to this essay, he comes up with a theory of moral foundations, for which classical liberals essentially use 3 (care, fairness, liberty) and conservatives all 6. The "care/harm" foundation sounds a lot like empathy, "authority/subversion" sounds a lot like discipline.

u/potatoisafruit · 6 pointsr/TrueReddit

> I think there's not enough writing out there taking a look at the totally understandable emotional reasons why people engage in identity politics.

You're looking for Jonathan Haidt. There's also a TED talk.

Haidt points out that there are six moral "receptors", similar to senses, and that conservatives experience all six, while liberals focus primarily experience only two.

Each of these moral receptors can be exploited. We are hard-wired to respond to these set-points and base our decisions on those gut feelings. We use our intellect (especially on Reddit!) to justify those emotional decisions, not to question them.

Liberals are not going to change their settings. However, they can become better at this game and learn to trigger the four missing receptors to better bring conservatives over to their pet causes.

For example, why don't conservatives respond to the statement: "Trump should release his taxes?" Liberals see this as an issue of fairness and pretty much only fairness - everyone else did it, it's good for the majority to have the information, why is this even a question?

Conservatives bring in a whole host of other moral flavors. They are loyal to Trump. They respect his authority. They believe fairness is about proportionality, so because Trump is rich, he must also be good (those with the most assets have earned a right to lead). All of these cross-currents prevent them from supporting something that is obviously beneficial to society.

Until liberal learn to trigger those switches, they will continue to lose elections. We are ultimately still monkeys.

u/ScienceBreathingDrgn · 6 pointsr/politics

I'm reading a really interesting book right now that talks about the origins of morality, and how they likely have come about because to flourish we need to be a society, and to be a society, we need to think about the greater good.

I know that probably wouldn't go over well with some religious folks, but I'd take it back WAY past prehistory (which some religious folks might also find objectionable), and talk about early man working in groups.

I really enjoy trying to come up with a reasonable and rational argument that at the same time isn't offensive. It's a unique challenge, but I find the results pretty beneficial for my own thought.

Edit: Dur, the name of the book is The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

u/permanent_beta · 6 pointsr/SocialEngineering

[Edit : Formatting, links]

Well, it's hard to do this over facebook/online, especially if the other people are already feeling defensive. "Once you engage the psychology of teams, it shuts down open minded thinking" J. Haidt.

But in general:

First, you have to understand the other person and your own beliefs. And you have to appeal to intuition (emotion) as much or more than to reasoning.

This article is a good introduction to understanding this approach: Reasons Matter (When Intuitions Don’t Object)

Haidt wrote a book, The Righteous Mind, that covers this topic in depth. What's good about his approach is that he uses experiments in Sociology and Psychology to explain and understand ourselves and each other.

He did a TED talk before he finished the book so it's not as complete, but it's also a good introduction: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives


---

Here's a review of The Righteous Mind:

You’re smart. You’re liberal. You’re well informed. You think conservatives are narrow-minded. You can’t understand why working-class Americans vote Republican. You figure they’re being duped. You’re wrong.

This isn’t an accusation from the right. It’s a friendly warning from Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who, until 2009, considered himself a partisan liberal. In “The ­Righteous Mind,” Haidt seeks to enrich liberalism, and political discourse generally, with a deeper awareness of human nature. Like other psychologists who have ventured into political coaching, such as George Lakoff and Drew Westen, Haidt argues that people are fundamentally intuitive, not rational. If you want to persuade others, you have to appeal to their sentiments. But Haidt is looking for more than victory. He’s looking for wisdom. That’s what makes “The Righteous Mind” well worth reading. Politics isn’t just about ­manipulating people who disagree with you. It’s about learning from them.

...

To the question many people ask about politics — Why doesn’t the other side listen to reason? — Haidt replies: We were never designed to listen to reason. When you ask people moral questions, time their responses and scan their brains, their answers and brain activation patterns indicate that they reach conclusions quickly and produce reasons later only to justify what they’ve decided. The funniest and most painful illustrations are Haidt’s transcripts of interviews about bizarre scenarios. Is it wrong to have sex with a dead chicken? How about with your sister? Is it O.K. to defecate in a urinal? If your dog dies, why not eat it? Under interrogation, most subjects in psychology experiments agree these things are wrong. But none can explain why.

The problem isn’t that people don’t reason. They do reason. But their arguments aim to support their conclusions, not yours. Reason doesn’t work like a judge or teacher, impartially weighing evidence or guiding us to wisdom. It works more like a lawyer or press secretary, justifying our acts and judgments to others. Haidt shows, for example, how subjects relentlessly marshal arguments for the incest taboo, no matter how thoroughly an interrogator demolishes these arguments. ...

u/Arguss · 6 pointsr/AskALiberal

For both sides, I'd recommend (and have several times at this point recommended) Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory, as laid out in his book The Righteous Mind. You can also find YouTube videos from various talks of his that basically explain it all for free.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONUM4akzLGE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN42ZLwNFBY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-_Az5nZBBM

---

After that, I'd have them try to look at policies by adopting the other's moral foundations, instead of having their own as a base assumption. This is rather difficult, but it's easier when you at least know what the other's moral foundations are.

u/Platypuskeeper · 6 pointsr/AskHistorians

> Japan may have helped, but certainly not in the way you're wondering about.

Certainly not? BR Myers, who's studied North Korean propaganda for decades, wrote a whole book on his thesis of how North Koreas system and cult of personality are a direct descendant of the Imperial Japanese rule that preceded it. Mt Baekdu taking on a similar mythological role to Mt Fuji, one that it hadn't had earlier in Korean history.

He also makes a lot of arguments that North Korea is not at all "Confucian". To mention some, they usually refer to their country as the "Motherland" or more literally "mother homeland" (even if it's more often "Fatherland" in KCNA English-language propaganda). How does that fit with Confucianism, where a mother is subordinate to even the youngest of her sons? Or the fact that Kim Il-Sung, in the 1980s, wrote paeans to his son and to-be-successor. That's also at odds with the Confucian father-son relationship.

u/takethebluepill · 6 pointsr/exmormon

The biggest sorrow in my life is also that the one place in my life where I feel worse about about myself is home. I very rarely get comments or feel deliberate guilt-inspiring comments, but the real pain comes from not being able to share my life with them. Sure, I do some things on the weekends that they would think is absolutely crazy, but people on the outside are always telling me that my parents must be so proud and that I have great core values. It's only when I go home do I feel that I AM LESS THAN I SHOULD BE. What a terrible way to make your own children feel, especially when they are already feeling very alone in the world after leaving the church. You're not alone though. Mormons enjoy feeling like big fish in a little pond, which is why leaving is so scary. Sure, the ocean my be more scary, but its full of endless possibilities compared to, let's say, the great Salt Lake

I recommend reading The God Virus for a better understanding of the cultural effects of not only Mormonism, but religion in general. Read the reviews and you will see what I mean.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Virus-religion-infects-culture/dp/0970950519

u/MIBPJ · 6 pointsr/HistoryPorn

Its interesting to reflect on how alien that attitude seems to us today. As creepy as it is to see that grin, its even crazier to think that just a few hundred years earlier people were publicly tortured to the delight of a crowd (that included children) for minor offenses, many of which were victimless. For a lot of these tortures, decapitation would have been seen as the merciful end to the spectacle.

Sorry if that seems a bit offbeat. I'm reading Stephen Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature right now so human's nearly monotonic decrease in violence is something that's been on my mind a lot lately!

u/funkykingston · 6 pointsr/todayilearned

Reading Steven Pinker's new book now. That violence has precipitously declined over the centuries and millenia is the central premise.

He has a ted talk about it.

u/sharplikeginsu · 6 pointsr/news

I really enjoyed the book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. It's huge and he first shows that by any possible way you can measure it, things are getting less violent all the time. The second half explores possible reasons why.

So yes, lots of glitches, but less and less every passing year.

u/TheAethereal · 6 pointsr/Fitness

In no particular order:

The Gift of Fear

Meditations on Violence

Facing Violence

Verbal Judo

Surviving Armed Assaults

On Combat

The Little Black Book of Violence

Street E & E

I could probably come up with 10 more if I looked through my library.

Whichever system you decide on, the tactics in these books will be important. Reading them before choosing a school will help you know what to look for. Sadly, some self-defense school will teach things that are either not practical, or will have devastating legal consequences for you (like how to take a knife away from someone, then use it on them).

u/fortis-in-arduis · 5 pointsr/fiaustralia

So you want /u/UtilitarianOutcomes to somehow summarise the hopes and dreams of the likely several billion people who could broadly be categorised as "optimists"?


Honestly what fucking answer do you expect?

u/Jxhyctc · 5 pointsr/europe

While it is no doubt true that people of means have more influence of the democratic system than regular joes, it seems to me borderline conspiratorial to say the laws are set by them and solely for their own benefits, considering the fact that if that to be the case, we would have a flat tax system, rather than the progressive tax system that is adopted throughout the western world , including the US, where The top 1 percent paid a greater share of tax than the bottom 90 percent combined. (I am sure the situation is even more extreme in France.) There are various reasons of income inequality, but the undeniable fact is the vast majority of people today have a better living standard than people even 30 years ago, ( souce: enlightenment now) thanks to the system of capitalism where people getting rewarded for satisfying the needs and wants of others, rather than a socialist system wheres some angry people on reddit( or god forbidden, politicians and bureaucrats) decide, arbitrarily whose labour is worth how much. Steve Jobs became a billionaire, not because he worked 1 million times harder than a struggling artist, but because it is 1 million times more "useful", reflected by the great willingness of consumers to buy his product. It is certainly not perfect, and there are various ways the market can be distorted, including the tragedy of commons etc. but I would rather making pragmatic adjustments to a system that has proved astonishingly efficient at satisfying want rather than a hypothetical ones which accords with your sweeping and moralistic declaration that the existence of billionaire is a policy failure, which presumably means, that one would rather live in a world where people continue dying of cancer rather than a world where some drug companies become filthy rich for providing drugs that successfully cure cancer, which they no doubt will have to invest heavily and take on considerable financial risk to develop?

​

I also don't agree with the implication that tax dodging( minimization) is a flaw of character. I usually judge people based on what I would have done in their shoes, and if I were a billionaire, I would no doubt also try to minimize my tax obligation as much as possible, as I believe most people would too, including I suspect, you. Isn't it rather strange to cast aspersion on someones' character for things that you are doing and would have done? It is up to the politicians to set up a system of taxation that they believe is fair and just and efficient, is it not? Besides, France is the most heavily taxed country on earth(10 percent more than Germany or Canada) , followed closely by Italy, and consider both countries are mired in high unemployment and economic stagnation, it seems to me empirically that a country that spends more energy and time trying to figure out ways to take money from someone and give it to someone else is not exactly an ideal place to live, even for ordinary people. ( I have a lot of french friends here in Montreal looking for jobs, thanks to the dismal job market in France) Canada is also a quite progressive country, but it seems to me that here people think tax as a way to pay for this or that programs that deems beneficial to the society as a whole, while in France, the mood seem to be tax as a way of punishment, to punish people who dare to be successful. I honestly don't begrudge smart and successful people for wanting to emigrate from France.


Also, a side note. I admit I don't know much about the situation in France, but at least in Canada, where I have an acquaintance who works as a firefighter, the fire fighters are extremely well compensated(especially comparing to their education background) and only works alternative days. I could be wrong of course, with regards to the situation of France, but since it is a country that is world famous for its public sector union, I doubt it would be much different. So I am not convinced any of the hypothetical 2.5 Billions. would somehow go to the firefighters, rather than another costly and inefficient government programs that serve more to win applauds for politicians and give cushy jobs to the politically connected than actually helping people in needs.

u/NightMgr · 5 pointsr/atheism

> At some point in this line of reasoning, I crossed the threshold of atheist heresy

You're very vague about what exactly happened.

I belong to a group of atheists, and we have sponsored Darrel W. Ray, the author of "God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture" to come speak to us.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Virus-The-Religion-Infects/dp/0970950519

But, I note what is called an overgeneralization fallacy in your story.

"that atheists reserve exclusively unto themselves the right of defining god. They insist upon using literal interpretations of lore, myth, and legend to form a god that is really nothing more than a straw man, "

Now, yes, atheists do use the conventional definition of what God is when describing themselves. But, then, if you wish to go around remaking definitions to suit yourself, you're going to run in to a lot of shampoo. In fact, if you scarecrow the cider, comets metal detector loop nursery. Most of use use conventional tears when describing salmon to avoid tower and confusion when communicating to crash.

u/RonPaulaAbdulJubbar · 5 pointsr/atheism

we've known this for quite some time. Check out this book! it's fantastic

http://www.amazon.com/God-Virus-Religion-Infects-Culture/dp/0970950519

u/WastedP0tential · 5 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

To the contrary. Science has shown that human violence has declined and still is declining rapidly. Steven Pinker has written a brilliant book on this. Here he is talking about it on TED.

u/ziddina · 5 pointsr/exjw

Yes, excellent answer. I'm currently reading "Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me"

https://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/1491514132

& The author, Carol Tavris, discusses the way people justify their actions after they've made a poor decision - which reinforces future bad decisions in the same direction or rut.

u/GreedyButler · 5 pointsr/karate

Here is most of my library, broken down, with links and some thoughts on each.

Karate Specific

  • The Bubishi by Patrick McCarty (Amazon) - I think this book needs to be in every library.
  • Classical Kata of Okinawan Karate by Patrick McCarthy (Amazon) - One of the first books I purchased by McCarthy. Details older version of classic kata found in a lot of traditional styles.
  • Karatedo by My Way of Life - Gichin Funakoshi (Amazon) - Great read! I really nice view at the life of Funakoshi.
  • The Twenty Guiding Principles of Karate by Gichin Funakoshi (Amazon) - Another great read. While I'm no longer a practitioner of Shotokan, I believe the teachings of Funakoshi should be tought to every karateka.
  • Okinawan Karate : Teachers, styles and secret techniques by Mark Bishop (Amazon) - Great amount of historical content, and helped link a few things together for me.
  • The Study of China Hand Techniques by Morinobu Itoman (Lulu.com) - The only known publication by Itoman, this book detains original Okinawan Te, how it was taught, practiced, and some history. This was one of my best finds.
  • The Essence of Okinawan Karate-do by Shoshin Nagamine (Amazon) - Great details on Matsubayashi Shorin-ryu kata, and some nice historical content.
  • The Way of Kata by Lawrence Kane & Kris Wilder (Amazon) - Fantastic book on diving deeper into kata to find the application of the techniques.
  • Classic Kata of Shorinji Ryu: Okinawan Karate Forms of Richard 'Biggie' Kim by Leroy Rodrigues (Amazon) - Not quite accurate as to the title, this book details the versions of shorinji-ryu kata as if they were taught by a Japanese school. Still able to use, as long as you understand what stances and techniques have changed between Okinawa and Japan.
  • Black Belt Karate by Jordan Roth (Amazon) - This was a gift from a friend. I have a First Edition hard cover. Shotokan specific, and has some nice details on the kata.
  • Karate-do Kyohan: The Master Text by Gichin Funakoshi (Amazon) - Love this book, especially for the historical content.
  • Kempo Karate-do by Tsuyoshi Chitose (Shindokanbooks.com) - The only known book from Chitose, highlights his history, his thoughts and ideas for practicing karate-do as a way of life, and contains steps for practicing Henshu-Ho. Chitose is the creator of the style I study. I have this book for obvious reasons. Your mileage may vary.

    Kobujutsu Specific

  • Okinawan Weaponry: Hidden methods, ancient myths of Kobudo & Te by Mark Bishop (Amazon) - Really great detail into the history of some of the weapons and the people who taught them from Okinawa.
  • Okinawan Kobudo Vol 1 & 2 (Lulu.com) - Fantastic books detailing the kihon and kata of Okinawan Kobudo. Anyone who takes Ryukyu Kobujutsu, and doesn't want to spend hundreds of dollars on the original texts by Motokatsu Inoue, this is the next best thing.
  • Bo: Karate Weapon of Self-Defense by Fumio Demura (Amazon) - Purchased it for the historical content. Doesn't actually apply to anything in Ryukyu Kobujutsu, but still a decent read. I also have his Nunchaku and Tonfa books.

    Other Martial Arts

  • Applied Tai Chi Chuan by Nigel Sutton (Amazon) - A great introduction to Cheng Style Tai Chi, detailing some of the fundamentals and philosophy behind the teachings.
  • Tai Chi Handbook by Herman Kauz (Amazon) - More Cheng Style Tai Chi, but this one has more emphasis on teaching the shortened form (37 steps).
  • Tai Chi Chuan: Classical Yang Style: The Complete Long Form and Qigong by Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming (Amazon) - Just received this for Chirstmas, and looking forward to diving in. Includes some history of Tai Chi Chuan, Yang style Tai Chi, philosophy, and has instruction on the complete long form (108 steps)
  • The Text-book of Ju-Jutsu as Practiced in Japan by Sadakazu Uyenishi (Amazon) - I have a very old version of this book (1930ish). Picked it up for the historical content, but still a great read.
  • Tao of Jeet Kun Do by Bruce Lee (Amazon) - Notes on technique, form, and philosophy from Bruce Lee. Another must read for every martial artist, regardless of discipline.
  • Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: The Ultimate Guide to Dominating Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and Mixed Martial Arts Combat by Alexandrew Paiva (Amazon) - Excellent step by step illustrations on performing the basic techniques in Brazilian Jiu-jitsu. Easy to understand and follow. Contains several tips on what to watch out for with each technique as well.

    Health and Anatomy

  • The Anatomy of Martial Arts by Dr. Norman Link and Lily Chou (Amazon) - Decent book on the muscle groups used to perform specific techniques in martial arts. On it's own, not totally useful (but not useless), but with the next book, becomes gold!
  • Bodyweight Strength Training Anatomy by Bret Contraris (Amazon) - Brilliant book that details what muscles are use for what type of action, and gives examples on body weight exercises that pin-point those specific muscle groups. My best purchase of 2014, especially when paired with the previous book.
  • Martial Mechanics by Phillip Starr (Amazon) - Slightly Chinese Martial Arts specific, but contains great material on how to strengthen stances and fine-tune technique for striking arts.

    EDIT: I can't believe I forgot this one...

  • The Little Black Book of Violence by Lawrence Kane & Kris Wilder (Amazon) - Fantastic book about situational awareness, what happens during fights, and the aftermath. LOVED this book.
u/sunman331 · 5 pointsr/starcraft

So what is your experience? This is nothing worth fighting over, but in my experience, I have witnessed many interracial marriages between Japanese and foreigners, yet almost none of Koreans and foreigners. There are countless stories of Korean parents who disapprove of their sons/daughters dating non-Koreans.

There is even a book:

https://www.amazon.com/Cleanest-Race-Koreans-Themselves-Matters/dp/1935554344

I understand this is talking about North Koreans, but culturally North Koreans and South Koreans still share significant overlap in cultural values. After all, they only split off in 1950.

My experience: Lived in Taiwan for 6 years of my life, speak fluent Mandarin, have many Korean and Japanese friends, including Caucasian expats living in both Korea and Japan, and have been to Seoul twice (actually just got back a week ago) and Tokyo 3 times.

u/cricket_monster · 5 pointsr/asianamerican

> What is a "police state" please define that using historical materialist evidence that isn't literal CIA propaganda.

How about as defined by literal North Korean refugees?

Brought to you by the CIA shills over at the Washington Post.

> Which border? The one propped up by Americans using the fascist Syngman Rhee as a puppet?

Yeah, TIL Rhee Syngman is just as bad as Kim Ilsung who appropriated Japanese imperial propaganda to portray himself and his family as divine rulers.

> That'd be the dictatorship of the bougeoisie in America.

TIL the United States is literally worse than North Korea.

By the way, how does your precious revolution against the bourgeoisie (you should spell your own buzzwords correctly) stack up against the communist elite who live large in the west and send their kids to the top European boarding schools in the dirty, imperialist west?

I guess some people are just more equal than others, comrade.

> How are they not a bastion against imperialism? What have they done that could be considered imperialism literally anywhere on Earth? They supported Assad against US imperialism, Yemen against Saudi imperialism, and Libya against French and US imperialism all within the last decade.

So I guess concentration camps are fine as long as you hate America.

> "Something about American imperialism" haha yeah no big deal that American imperialism. Am I supposed to take this dudes opinion seriously?

Dude, you're a tankie.

u/unnamedstripper45 · 5 pointsr/askphilosophy

Absolutely! Maybe I'm inexperienced but it's equally as frustrating finding that from time to time I end up on this side as well. I feel kind of like an asshole after...

side note edit: Thought it might be worth mentioning that this is actually becoming a big interest in the field of moral psychology, (though most of the research I'm familiar with centers around moral debates). You might find Haidt's The Righteous Mind particularly interesting; it's a neat book that goes over some experiments about how arguments (especially philosophical ones) can become honorific and somewhat hopeless in the wrong contexts. I found it cathartic.

u/japanesepiano · 5 pointsr/exmormon

Rebuilding is the tricky part. You have to figure out your morality. The good news is that many Mormons are very moral when they rebuild. I recommend some light reading, including the righteous mind to get you started.

As for your mom, be genuinely loving. You may want to wait to come out. My mom was crushed by me (and other siblings) leaving. But we love her, and we show it, and it's going to be okay. My mother has dementia, so when she's with us I suck it up, dress up, and take her to church, and that's a good thing because it helps her be in a better mental state.

u/Homeless_Nomad · 5 pointsr/GoldandBlack

A lot of them are written with the intention of "trapping" people into situations that they feel are morally wrong, but cannot explain why rationally due to a lack of consequence or victim. Haidt lays out where this particular line of moral psychology came from in his book, which I highly recommend.

u/Fuzzy_Thoughts · 5 pointsr/mormon

Thank you very much! These are some really excellent thoughts and I'm grateful for the additional context from someone who has not only been here for a while, but from someone who was a mod/head mod. I showed up on /r/mormon about a year ago when my faith transition started (I only used /r/latterdaysaints prior to that for a couple years), so that "battleground" context is probably very important.

The Righteous Mind comes to mind for all of us and whatever group we might generally align ourselves with.

u/sasha_says · 5 pointsr/booksuggestions

If you haven’t read Malcolm Gladwell’s books those are good; he reads his own audiobooks and I like his speaking style. He also has a podcast called revisionist history that I really like.

Tetlock’s superforecasting is a bit long-winded but good; it’s a lay-person’s book on his research for IARPA (intelligence research) to improve intelligence assessments. His intro mentions Kahneman and Duckworth’s grit. I haven’t read it yet, but Nate Silver’s signal and the noise is in a similar vein to Tetlock’s book and is also recommended by IARPA.

Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind was really eye-opening to me to understand the differences in the way that liberals and conservatives (both in the political and cultural sense) view the world around them and how that affects social cohesion. He has a few TED talks if you’d like to get an idea of his research. Related, if you’re interested in an application of Kahneman’s research in politics, the Rationalizing Voter was a good book.

As a “be a better person” book, I really liked 7 habits of highly effective people by Stephen Covey (recommend it on audiobook). Particularly, unlike other business-style self-help about positive thinking and manipulating people—this book really makes you examine your core values, what’s truly important to you and gives you some tools to help refocus your efforts in those directions. Though, as I’m typing this I’m thinking about the time I’m spending on reddit and not reading the book I’ve been meaning to all night =p

u/justaboringname · 5 pointsr/AskAcademia

Whistling Vivaldi by Claude Steele is a really good book on the topic of stereotype threat.

u/HubrisSnifferBot · 5 pointsr/Documentaries

If anyone else is interested in the spontaneous communities that arise during crises check out Rebecca Solnit's A Paradise Built in Hell.

u/balanced_goat · 5 pointsr/AskSocialScience

Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind is a bit more focused than some of the other suggestions, but incredibly fascinating, readable, and does a great job of documenting the evolution of an idea in social psychology, which may give him insight into what it actually means to be a social psychologist. Wish it was available for me to read when I was his age.

u/notmuchofaroller · 4 pointsr/videos

I recently read a book The Righteous Mind that covers this collective behavior from a psychological perspective. It's a great book and really helps explain this sort of "crazy" behavior in a way that gives me quite a bit more empathy for these people instead of just seeing them as others. Excerpt:

> But human nature also has a more recent groupish overlay. We are like bees in being ultrasocial creatures whose minds were shaped by the relentless competition of groups with other groups. We are descended from earlier humans whose groupish minds helped them cohere, cooperate, and outcompete other groups. That doesn't mean our ancestors were mindless or unconditional team players; it means they were selective. Under the right conditions, they were able to enter a mind-set of "one for all, all for one" in which they were truly working for the good of the group, and not just for their own advancement within the group.

Another example provided: concerts or raves. Although they don't have the same supernatural underpinnings, it is quite easy to get "lost in the crowd" and go crazy in a similar way.

u/00Qant5689 · 4 pointsr/atlanticdiscussions

>The key to understanding both Conservatism and the Conservative Media is to understand they believe they are at War, and "Liberals" are the enemy. Just like during a War, say WW2 for example, people will blindly follow their own governments propoganda not because it is true or not but because their side said it and to believe your own side is to support the war effort.

It's not just the whole "siege mentality" that makes conservative media so effective and widespread. Once you distill it down to the essentials, conservative media appeals to the base fears and underlying psychologies of many viewers in such a visceral and primal way that it overrides their higher reasoning. It's no surprise that a lot of what you see on Fox, Breitbart, and InfoWars, etc. is over-the-top, sensationalized, and fairly short on facts a lot of times: it's specifically aimed at stoking, reinforcing, or sparking the emotions and pysches of specific viewers who generally vote conservative. And as long as this keeps up, there would be very little reason for Trumpsters and those on the right in general to break free of these self-reinforcing loops or the groupthink bias and siege mentality of conservative media.

I've oversimplified this considerably because I haven't read this source material in more than two years by now, but Jonathan Haidt covered this in greater detail in The Righteous Mind. If you haven't read it already, I'd highly recommend it.

u/boothofthebeast · 4 pointsr/nba

I would say it's not dissimilar to the partisan fanaticism in most other democracies but it does seem it's become worse. Well, it's pretty bad in the UK too.

A great book on the topic of partisanship in general (and correlated issues):

https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777

u/SMYFFL · 4 pointsr/Capitalism

What you've asked is an incredibly deep question that likely has no right answer. Having said that, there are probably wrong answers - one of those is assuming that all individuals are absolutely logical decision makers that will always try to make the most objective decision.

Rational choice theory is the fundamental underlying thought behind economics (and capitalism by extension). However, moral psychologists are starting to believe that human do not make judgments based on rationality, but instead run off of intuition and then use logic post hoc in order to explain why their gut was right. This may be the type of thought that you've stumbled upon, and if you'd like to read more on the idea, Haidt's book The Righteous Mind is a good place to start.

u/throw-it-out · 4 pointsr/investing

> why does everyone then say to keep some cash in your port for good buying opportunities?

The confluence of several cognitive biases leading people to believe this demonstrably bad strategy is the superior one, which is also why this sub is occasionally riddled with broken logic around the related concept of DCA. e.g. "So, I like the mathematical certainty that DCA provides that over time, I'll end up with a lower cost basis."

  • They've not experienced a significant downturn - or, better, started investing just post financial crisis and are financial geniuses
  • They haven't actually done a rigorous analysis of their strategy historically versus other approaches, instead relying on fault intuition and recent market phenomenon
  • They don't understand what risks they are taking
  • Mistakes were made, but not by me.
  • Biases including, but not limited to, anchoring, self-attribution, hindsight, gamblers fallacy, choice-supportive, observational, regret aversion, confirmation/in-group, etc.

    The brain is loaded up by default with things that make you a bad investor. "Everyone" is a bad investor. You, however, don't have to be.
u/dennisisspiderman · 4 pointsr/news

> And It's not what most every other person on the planet would have done, because most people don't go flopping their cocks out to random women.

Nowhere did I say everyone else in the world flops their cocks out, simply that most people avoid telling the full truth or admitting to something if they don't have to.

It's why we have civil courts and criminal courts. Whether it's murdering your wife or being the person who accidentally broke a lamp, people don't just admit to things freely when there are other options. Even in courts when people admit guilt it's often for a lesser sentence because they know that if they don't admit it then, that the truth would eventually come out.

And as in my other comment, children who have very little experience in the world default to "it wasn't me" when confronted with something. Even when it's pretty clear they did it. You can tell your child time and time again that telling the truth is better and they won't be punished for telling the truth, but they will still try their damnedest to prove they didn't do what you accused them of. There's this book that covers how the brain is wired in a way that you don't want to admit to mistakes you've made. It's in our nature to avoid admitting to things we've done, particularly when you know the thing you did was wrong, foolish, disgusting, etc.

u/McLuhanSaidItFirst · 4 pointsr/The_Donald

Masks = no go zone for me. Little Black Book of Violence sez: no social violence.

u/cfwang1337 · 4 pointsr/SelfDefense

One of my favorite resources is "The Little Black Book of Violence." It gives only a little discussion to direct combat –there's no substitute for consistent martial arts or firearms training– but it summarizes enough stuff about situational awareness, de-escalation, first aid, dealing with trauma, and other stuff to be a good general guide.

https://www.amazon.com/Little-Black-Book-Violence-Fighting/dp/1594391297

PDF: https://educatebiology.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/the-little-black-book-of-violence-what-every-young-man-needs-to-now-about-fighting.pdf

u/poktanju · 4 pointsr/funny

This exact strategy is outlined in The Cleanest Race, though it's more to give him legitimacy by making him physically resemble his predecessors. Rumors are even plastic surgery was involved.

u/omgimsue · 4 pointsr/powerlifting

Not a podcast but I highly recommend checking out the book "Bounce"

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bounce-Myth-Talent-Power-Practice/dp/0007350546/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1502714454&sr=8-1&keywords=bounce

It's full of stuff about mentally preparing, placebos, what actually happens when you choke. It's very much worth the read :)

u/unlikelyUsername · 4 pointsr/atheism

Try this ... Ridley goes into games theory and computing as well as evolution to explore the origins of unselfish behavior. A riveting and surprisingly hopeful, hard science exploration.
http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Virtue-Instincts-Evolution-Cooperation/dp/0140264450/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348738525&sr=1-1&keywords=the+origins+of+virtue

u/STEM_logic · 4 pointsr/MensRights

To unequivocally debunk the feminist myth would take an entire book, which would require years to research. You're going to have to be very neutral and balanced and as fact-orientated as possible, which most mrm stuff imo falls short of. "Positive discrimination" and false accusations are what feminists WANT you to complain about - not that they're not valid complaints, but things like the gender empathy/victimhood gap, men's lives being valued less, maternal superiority, male moral inferiority etc. which fit into traditionalism and can be put forward as the other side of the coin are much better imo.

Janice Fiamengo's youtube series "The Fiamengo File" (Season 1, Season 2) is a much watch (she's also coincidentally an English proffessor). Her video : "what's wrong with women's studies" is also very good (this lecture was protested, had fire alarms pulled etc.).

Christina Hoff Sommers' channel "The Factual Feminist" is also very good. These videos (1, 2 by Karen Straughan are good, but her other stuff tends to be more sensationalist.

As for books, Warren Farrell's "The myth of male power" and Roy Baumeister's "Is there anything good about men" are essential reading. This paper (on sexual repression) also by Roy Baumeister is also extremely important.

This article touches on a lot about the childcare/domestic vs workplace spheres, also this one on maternal gatekeeping - which you could could add domestic gatekeeping in aswell - basically that a lot of women still see the traditionally female realm as "theirs" (despite wanting into the traditional male realm) and although they probably say they want equality, in reality they want a helpmate rather than a full equal, taking on a managerial/directorial role to which a lot of men might react to by dragging their heels (not that some guys aren't genuinely selfish) - things like fathers looking after their kids being described as "babysitting" tie into this. Of course guys in these situations have very little preparation for this because feminism has resulted in a situation where for decades egalitarian roles have been pushed with a positive encouraging message for women and girls and a negative shaming message for men and boys, as a gain in power for women and girls and a loss in power for men and boys. It has also resulted in tons of messages of traditionally "masculine" things being reconciled with positive/aspirational feminine social value, while the reverse has not been the case remotely near as much (I've only ever seen housework being portrayed as compatible with positive/aspirational masculine value once - in movie Don Jon).

I'd write you a second post about gender roles (and the context they need to be looked at within) throughout history and in the developing world, but there's a lot and I'm tired. Maybe tomorrow morning!

u/cbarx · 4 pointsr/chicago

In the event that you are genuinely curious about what causes traffic jams, I'd highly recommend checking out "Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us)" by Tom Vanderbilt.. Better yet, listen to it on tape while you crawl the Kennedy.

u/AndersBakken · 4 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

This is actually the optimal way to drive. Every bit of road should be used. You may seem like an asshole if you're the only one doing it but ideally everyone would do it. It leads to better traffic flow. Source is somewhere in here:

http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1397025677&sr=1-1&keywords=traffic

u/with_the_choir · 4 pointsr/todayilearned

This is part of what bothers me about all of the vilification of driving with cellphones. It's not that cellphones aren't bad on the road, it's just that the proportions of the crackdown don't match up with the data about the actual danger.

In Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us, the author delves pretty seriously into the data about distracted driving. The real moments of danger are picking up the phone, dialing, and hanging up. Talking with the phone to your ear is not particularly problematic once you get to the point that you can keep your eyes on the road.

u/Hepcat10 · 4 pointsr/cincinnati

Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307277194/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_pOa6CbZG52RDA

You would probably enjoy this book. Seriously. I read it and now dealing with traffic is kinda fascinating, watching as all this data compiled yields insight into patterns, and how to anticipate and avoid them. (Yes, all puns intended)

u/cocineroylibro · 4 pointsr/Denver
u/mrj1013 · 4 pointsr/Showerthoughts

I read a book about this. Pretty interesting stuff. Also that if people actually obeyed variable speed limit signs they would get there faster than when they tailgate and the accordion effect jams everything up. http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194

u/Snaztastic · 4 pointsr/YouShouldKnow

Yeah, we have all been brought up to see those people as self-righteous assholes, but transportation engineers have determined that a zipper merge, occurring as close to the point of obstruction as possible, is most efficient (40-50% more efficient than current practice). The Minnesota DOT recently adopted this practice and began a campaign of awareness.

If traffic interests you, check out the book Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) by Tom Vanderbilt. Super interesting quick read, and you'll learn a lot about interacting with urban traffic efficiently.

Michigan DOT Citations 1 2.pdf

u/C0git0 · 4 pointsr/Seattle

There is also much research that shows that the more rules you give someone, the less they think logically. This creates a problem when things happen that do not have prescribed rules as the driver/biker is used to a operating in an environment on "auto-pilot."

The book "Traffic" is a fantastic read and details a couple of studies, a really great read, highly recommended:
http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334102136&sr=1-1

u/matrixclown · 4 pointsr/Charlotte

There's a link between how at ease you feel as a driver and the speed that you drive. If you feel perfectly at ease, like when you're on the highway and no one is around you, you'll drive faster. If you feel unease, like the road is narrow or there are kids playing with a ball near the road, you'll drive slower.

It seems a bit counter intuitive that making an unsafe road smaller makes it safer, but it really does change driving behavior. I'd recommend Tom Vanderbilt's book Traffic if you're interested in this kind of thing.

u/SpinkickFolly · 4 pointsr/videos

I agree. From the book Traffic, it mentions a study where 1 in 3 accidents occur from not paying at attention at the exact wrong moment where a reaction needed to happen to avoid a collision.

She also had enough distance to actual stop in time. Anyone is a liar if they never admitted to having a near miss from not paying attention. It happens, people can make it happen less by paying attention more, its never 100% though. Its why drivers are supposed to leave a good following distance or never perform aggressive lane changes, it allows a buffer to be able fuck up and prevent a potential collision.

u/easy_being_green · 4 pointsr/Christianity

In The Righteous Mind, Haidt writes that when trying to come to an idea, we first decide how we feel about an issue based solely on intuition, then spend the rest of the time trying to rationalize it. This article is just that. It's saying "There are some things I want to use from the OT and some that I don't; I'm going to come up with a way of categorizing the OT's statements such that the ones I like neatly fall into separate categories from the ones I dislike." This isn't necessarily a deliberate act, but rather occurs at the subconscious level, but the result is "How can I defend the concept that homosexuality is a sin and still eat shellfish? Oh, here's how."

u/30plus1 · 4 pointsr/politics

Not All Conservatives.

Just because the right doesn't want grown men in dresses using the restroom with their daughters doesn't mean they want gays thrown from rooftops. They're on the side of traditional family values.

Really good book on the relationship between the right and left here:

https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777

Highly recommend it if you get the chance.

u/w0wser · 4 pointsr/Libertarian

If you are interested in moral psychology and politics I'd recommend reading The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics & Religion by Jonathan Haidt.

if you don't have time to read the book, watch his TED talk or listen to the interview he gave on Econ Talk recently.

u/pums · 4 pointsr/polyamory

OK. Great. So, embedded in what you're saying is a bunch of assumptions that aren't specific to this particular argument but are much more meta - they have to do with what counts as evidence, who gets standing, and even what kinds of values are important. For instance, you refer to "the basic idea of freedom in letting consenting adults choose their own private life." That frame is one that a lot of people would actually object to because the idea of "adults having maximum freedom to choose what they want" isn't how they frame issues having to do with family and marriage. In fact, framing it that way is a very contemporary/educated/western way to frame this sort of thing - another way of talking about these issues would be to reference values like personal autonomy way less, and you'd end up with different conclusions if you did that.
There's a lot to go into here, and (luckily) a lot of other people have already done it. I think it'll be helpful to get a better understanding of the values/assumption/narrative that lead to different views about marriage, in addition to reading specifically about this.
Some places to start include the "simple rules for simple people" discussion in Diverging Family Structure and 'Rational' Behavior: The Decline in Marriage as a Disorder of Choice. I'd also recommend Jonathon Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory work - I liked his book, but I'm sure you can find it packaged in smaller things. For work specifically on sexual ethics, I'd recommend Eve Tushnet and Rod Dreher, but they're both going to be a lot to get into initially, because, as bloggers, they're not really listing their assumptions each and every time they write.
With all of this stuff, you're going to be able to make counterarguments. But they can make counterarguments, too - it's never that hard. I would suggest that to understand other people's arguments, you apply the Principle of Charity. In this case in particular, because your argument seems foreign and clearly wrong to the majority of humans, I think it's especially important to understand their arguments.

u/TheGreasyPole · 3 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

OK.

The single best evo-psych book I can think of is

The Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker. It's extremely readable as well as very informative.

Where you'd want to go next depends on what you'd like to learn more about, and whether you liked Stephen Pinker as an author.

If you'd like to know more about the genetics that underlying the evo-psych then you want.

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

If you're interested specifically in what evo-psych has to say about human sexuality you want

The Evolution of Desire by David Buss

And if you really like Stephen Pinker and want to know what evo psych means for human societies I'd recommend

The Angels of our Better Nature by Stephen Pinker

or (if you don't like Pinker)

Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley.

I've given you US Amazon links, and no. I don't get a cut :(

u/LordHughRAdumbass · 3 pointsr/xrmed

The risk of a backlash is not what I fear. It's the risk that people start believing XR and start a Greed New Deal or massively authoritarian Manhattan-style mobilization for climate change. Look at the carbon footprint of Roosevelt's New Deal and you'll get an idea why we can't afford to have a Greed New Deal. We simply need to deindustrialized, and localize - not hyper-industrialize and mobilize. If XR succeeds, it's likely legacy will by a fatal hyper-industrialization.

XR needs to get it's thinking straight. Rupert Read, for example, wants a huge government mobilization one minute, but then the next he praises works like A Paradise Raised in Hell. which talks about the dangers of Big government and how communities organize without them. You can't really have both.

XR needs to start trailblazing a paradise raised in hell, and that implies the retirement of government (by force if necessary).

u/aelendel · 3 pointsr/AmIFreeToGo

A brilliant book that covers how this kind of culture arises is Mistakes were made, but not by me. Very informative about what we, as citizens, are dealing with.

u/CaptainExecutable · 3 pointsr/exmormon
u/MadRaymer · 3 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

"Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)" is a good book on the topic. Here's an amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909

u/frostmatthew · 3 pointsr/programming

That should probably be "Supply and demand works perfectly if we are perfectly rational actors" - and I agree it does not work perfectly and there are occasional exceptions, but the hypothesis with the least assumptions is that the law of supply is applicable regarding developers. [i.e. since an increase in price usually results in an increase in supply we should assume it is applicable here unless there is sufficient evidence otherwise - not the other way around].

As for negotiation skill, I find it hard to believe that so many people in finance, medicine, and law are amazing negotiators but nearly everyone in software engineering is completely lacking. Top earners in those fields routinely make over 10x the bottom earners (and they do this without founding their own companies, playing startup equity lottery, or receiving ridiculous counter-offers). At most software companies a "top earner" engineer might be making at most double what an intern or entry level dev makes.

PS - I've read Drive, it's a good book, if you enjoyed that you may want to check out Mistakes Were Made, But Not by Me

u/PixelWrangler · 3 pointsr/lgbt

The best thing you can do is to educate yourself. Read opinions on both sides of the divide. Try to understand why those who are opposed to equality think they way that they do. The anger is absolutely natural, but it doesn't help.

Especially with the lousy economy, many people are just looking for someone to blame. They pick an easy target. It takes slow, gentle reason and a lot of time to steer them away from these views. In contrast, responding with anger will often cause an opponent to cling even more tightly to their views, no matter how illogical they may be.

To try to understand why people cling to illogical views, consider reading Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me).

u/GKezele · 3 pointsr/atheism

Agreed. I read an awesome book on cognitive dissonance that I would recommend: Mistakes Were Made, but Not by Me!

u/doctorace · 3 pointsr/sanfrancisco

If you're interested, you could read Mistakes Were Made, (But not by Me)

u/dustgirl · 3 pointsr/psychology

I would strongly recommend you read Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me).

>Why do people dodge responsibility when things fall apart? Why the parade of public figures unable to own up when they screw up? Why the endless marital quarrels over who is right? Why can we see hypocrisy in others but not in ourselves? Are we all liars? Or do we really believe the stories we tell?

If you can read that book without ending up with an appreciation for (social) psychological research and how it can help us to better understand ourselves and others, then I can't think of much that would change your mind.

u/Impune · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

Have you studied cognitive dissonance theory at all? It's very relevant to what you're wondering about. I'd recommend checking out Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson if you're wondering how clinical psychologists have investigated this phenomenon. I personally found it very interesting (and convincing).

u/yy222 · 3 pointsr/MensRights

> One thing that won't be mentioned in that book: women do not need to continually prove that they are women because their status as a woman cannot be stripped-away very easily and it simply isn't demanded of them.

Summa Genderratica

> A female needs to undergo a process of biological maturation in order to perform the feminine contribution to society, however this process is essentially automatic and is basically assumed to occur over time, with mensturation serving as a clear biological indicator of fitness to perform the task.

> With males, things are more tenuous. Proficiency or even ability to perform the male function, let alone perform it well, is not biologically guaranteed. Additionally, there is no single clear “he’s ready” indicator delivered by male biology.

> Whilst females “grow into” being women, males do not automatically grow into being “real men.” A young female just becomes a woman automatically, due to the innate properties of her biology. Her mensturation evidences her maturation. Her womanhood simply is. She is assumed to be gender-compliant and thus socially contributive by default.

> A young male has to demonstrate, through action, the ability to perform masculine tasks successfully. A young male must prove he has “grown up” and become a “real man.” Males are not assumed to be gender-compliant (and thus socially contributive) by default; by himself he is just another mouth to be fed by the work of “real men.” A man must validate his manhood by action, otherwise he is not a real man but rather a “boy” (i.e. immature, not-an-adult male).

> A gender-compliant person of either sex is seen as valuable to society (since they are acting in ways which conform to survivability-oriented norms). However, females are assumed to either be (or will be) gender-compliant; naturally infertile women are the exception rather than the rule and thus the assumption is that any given female is (or will be) capable of bearing children due to their biology.
As such, females are ascribed an innate value simply for being female. Females are seen as inherently cherishable because they are the incubators of the future.

> Males lack this. Their gender-compliance is not seen as an inevitable feature of their biological maturation but rather an ideal to live up to. Males neither are nor will become “real men” by default. As such, they have no innate value. The value of a man is exclusively contingent on the consequences of his agency and by himself, he is ultimately disposable.

Roy Baumeister - Is there anything good about being a man?

> In one episode [of The Apprentice], two members of one team were shown arguing about a difficult aspect of the upcoming task. Somebody had to take on the responsibility for doing what could be an unpromising chore that was needed for the team but carried some risk and unpleasantness. The argument became heated, as each person thought the other should do it. The woman goaded the man with the phrase “C’mon, be a man!”

> Indignant, he shot back, “You be a woman!” Immediately and almost shouting, she replied “I am a woman!” and went on to say more things. The man sat there in silence, unable to think of what else to say.

> We can understand his confusion. He did not know why he had abruptly lost that argument. She had said something to him, and he had said essentially the same thing back to her, but his reply had somehow failed utterly. He probably thought that in this age of gender equality and fair treatment for all and so forth, “Be a man” and “Be a woman” would be equal, parallel things to say. Yet they weren’t. She was a woman already, and she knew it, and he did too, and she did not have to prove it. But once his manhood was questioned, he would have to do more to prove it than simply say “I am a man!” in a loud voice.

u/luxury_banana · 3 pointsr/MensRights

There is a much longer book in which the author (Roy Baumeister) covers these topics more in-depth.

Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men

Other good reads which are related include The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley, and Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.

u/FlyingPhotog · 3 pointsr/Roadcam

If you read the book "Traffic," it specifically says that vigilantism like what the Civic attempted just breeds contempt in the eyes of bad drivers, and doesn't actually serve as any sort of corrective measure. The truck may not have thought he did anything wrong, despite the Civic.

https://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194

u/piecrazy47 · 3 pointsr/PublicFreakout

You should read this book, it's pretty informative on this topic

Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307277194/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_chthDbB4MT26E

u/cavedave · 3 pointsr/sysor

Traffic is a great book. I bore everyone by recommending it constantly.

I t deals with the paradoxes of human cognitive biases and traffic. Economist Tyler cowen likes it

u/happywaffle · 3 pointsr/Austin

A good starting place would be "Traffic" by Tom Vanderbilt. But all you need to do is watch the behavior of beans falling down a chute to observe the exact same behavior (see my other reply).

u/gigglyweeds · 3 pointsr/running

On a bike you are moving at or near the speed of traffic, in other words you make sense to drivers. Running you are not, it is best to leave it up to your own instincts.

If you read the book Traffic it describes how poorly drivers react to things moving slower than they are. It's chock full of statistics and law.

u/dudeArama · 3 pointsr/Louisville

I live on a road that connects to Chenoweth Lane and really fear a widening. There's always foot traffic along the road, even a crosswalk so students can walk to Chenoweth Elementary. If the road is widened and it looks more like a speedway than a lived-in area, cars will act accordingly. If you all are interested in how traffic patterns affect our behavior, I really recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194

u/Infini-Bus · 3 pointsr/bikecommuting

Reminds me of a book I read that suggested driving a car inflates our sense of personal space and in turn, our ego. Interesting book for people who drive.

I don't get violent road rage, but I do get verbal road rage. The other day I was driving my girlfriend home from work and someone made a bad lane change or turn and I was like "I hope everyone in their family dies. sees dog by a house OOH! LOOK A DOGGY!" I don't really mean the things I say of course, it's just shit talk (except when I see a dog).

u/nottings · 3 pointsr/WhitePeopleTwitter

There is a book by Tom Vanderbilt, “Traffic”, that actually debunks this fallacy. You don’t even have to buy the book to read the section apropos to this topic. see excerpt here

u/jakdak · 3 pointsr/funny

I believe I read that in Tom Vanderbilt's "Traffic"

http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194

But it's been awhile and I don't have the book handy to check.
Worth reading in any case.

u/Dekker · 3 pointsr/videos

There was at least one chapter on this in Traffic: why we drive the way we do. Removing signs and other 'safety' warnings forced people to be more perceptive and careful when driving. Also mentioned that many of the 'dangerous' roads (no guardrails, cliffs, etc) were actually safer than normal highways because people drive more carefully in those situations.

edit: from an interview with the author:

Q: You write, "The truth is the road itself tells us far more than signs do." So do traffic signs work?

A: We’ve probably all had the somewhat absurd moment of driving in the country, past a big red barn, the pungent smell of cow manure on the breeze, and then seeing a yellow traffic sign with a cow on it. Does anyone need that sign to remind them that cows may be nearby? To quote Hans Monderman, the legendary Dutch traffic engineer who was opposed to excessive signing, "if you treat people like idiots, they’ll act like idiots." Then again, perhaps someone did come blazing along and hit a crossing cow or a tractor, and in response engineers may have been forced to put up a sign. The question is: Would that person have done that regardless of the sign?

The bulk of evidence is that people don’t change their behavior in the presence of such signs. Children playing, School zone? People speed through those warnings, faster than they even thought, if you query them later. To take another example, the majority of people killed at railroad crossings in the U.S. are killed at crossings where the gates are down.

If this is insufficient warning that they should not cross the tracks then is a sign warning that a train might be coming really going to change behavior? At what point do people need to rely on their own judgment? We as humans seem to act on the message that traffic signs give us in complex ways — studies have shown, for example, that people drive faster around curved roads that are marked with signs telling them the road is curved. We tend to behave more cautiously in the face of uncertainty.

u/somefreedomfries · 3 pointsr/worldnews

Some people (most people) will believe whatever makes them feel comfortable no matter what evidence they are presented with.

Here is a good book on the subject

u/Octavian- · 3 pointsr/changemyview

To add onto this, something you might find interesting is the work of scholar Jonathan Haidt.

In essence, Haidt argues that human morality is rooted in evolutionary biology. Haidt defines Six moral foundations that are universally understood by humans. These foundations, such as who deserves care or harm, what defines fairness or cheating, and the right to liberty or need for oppression, are essentially biological roots for what we define as "rights." In essence, these are "natural rights."

As you point out, social construction is important and can determine the rules for these rights within society. However, saying that rights are entirely socially constructed is not necessarily true. As Haidt's research shows, several notions of human rights are innate and each human is born with an implicit understanding of them.

u/pol_pots · 3 pointsr/ChapoTrapHouse

I'm gonna post the most interesting two paragraphs of this essay, which basically blame Kennedy and his technocrats for ruining the whole political belief in liberalism after his expirament failed so miserably: data on the Vietnam war and new ways to better kill people.

That oversimplifies it, but Kennedy did try it. (My source here is an article from the Roosevelt Institute:

The economic problems of the 1960s, Kennedy said, are “subtle challenges for which technical answers, not political answers, must be provided.” (Kennedy said this in 1962)

I'm gonna post the most interesting two paragraphs of this essay, which basically blame Kennedy and his technocrats for ruining the whole political belief in liberalism after his experiment failed so miserably:

​

Liberalism was discredited in part because of the Kennedy men’s faith in experts and their conviction that the choices were technical, not political. In the most narrow reading of the 1962 speech, JFK was embracing the view, held briefly by the American followers of John Maynard Keynes, though not Keynes himself, that “the practical management of a modern economy” involved “fine-tuning” fiscal and monetary policy, which would keep it on a steady path of growth. Keynesian fine-tuning failed dramatically, especially in the 1970s, leaving liberals essentially without economic tools and vulnerable to the alternative of supply-side economics. Excess faith in expertise is also held responsible for the Vietnam War (“The Best and the Brightest” were technocrats who could ask every question except whether the basic idea made sense) and failures of the community-based anti-poverty programs of the Johnson era. Above all, as critics of liberalism both sympathetic and hostile have argued ever since the late 1960s (most recently, Jonathan Haidt), the ideology of expertise-not-ideology put liberals far out of touch with the real stuff of life – morality, ethnicity, family, fear, tribal instincts. And to some extent it’s true – a classic example is the idea of overcoming residential segregation through more aggressive desegregation of schools, that is, busing – which surely created more conflict and racial antagonism than it resolved, and not solely because of racism.

But 50 years is a long, long time (check this video clip of Kennedy’s speech if you want a sense of how far away that era seems), and liberals have been apologizing for and backing off of their faith in dispassionate expertise for most of it while the contempt for expertise developed by the populist right has continued to build. When populist politicians like Sarah Palin denounce “elites,” we act mystified that she doesn’t seem to mean the very rich. But the idea that the real elites are technocratic experts empowered by government is now very old – so old that it’s not true. One of the first things conservatives have done consistently when they gain power is to cut the legs out from under any kind of independent source of evaluation – eliminating the Office of Technology Assessment in 1995, ending any independent analysis of the distributional effects of tax cuts in the Bush administration, challenging scientific consensus on climate change, and most recently, attempting to eliminate funding for the American Community Survey and the National Science Foundation’s social science research program.

Here's the full essay. It's not long.

u/emalik25 · 3 pointsr/progressive

> The usual argument of these psycho-­pundits is that conservative politicians manipulate voters’ neural roots — playing on our craving for authority, for example — to trick people into voting against their interests. But Haidt treats electoral success as a kind of evolutionary fitness test. He figures that if voters like Republican messages, there’s something in Republican messages worth liking. He chides psychologists who try to “explain away” conservatism, treating it as a pathology. Conservatism thrives because it fits how people think, and that’s what validates it. Workers who vote Republican aren’t fools. In Haidt’s words, they’re “voting for their moral interests.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html?pagewanted=all

For the book being reviewed: http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/dp/0307377903

u/CascadianArms · 3 pointsr/Cascadia

For everyone that's intimately following this thread, I recommend the book The Righteous Mind . It meets at the intersection of anthropology, sociology, psychology, and theology. If anything; I think Cascadia needs some sort of moral compass that everyone in the region can align themselves with.

u/Ahaigh9877 · 3 pointsr/forwardsfromgrandma

I think a great deal of unnecessary trouble is caused by people on both sides being unable or unwilling to try to understand where those they disagree are coming from. (I'm speaking generally here, not about your particular situation—I'm not accusing you of a lack of empathy!) Understanding people's reasons for holding views that you disagree with won't necessarily make you agree with them (and nor necessarily should it), but it might let a more meaningful discussion take place, instead of people just talking over each other.

I recommend reading stuff by the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt on this subject, in particular his recent book The Righteous Mind which explores the psychology behind political difference. His main thesis is that conservative types base their worldview on different foundations than do liberals. For example, they tend to consider things like obedience to authority, ideas of purity/sanctity, and loyalty/patriotism to be far more important than do liberals. Both groups care about fairness, but they have different conceptions of it: roughly, liberals are more concerned with equality of outcome whereas conservatives care more about a more "sporting" sense of fairness: if you've earned it you get to keep it, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and so on.

So it might be that your colleague might have had that conception of fairness: he might have considered it "unfair" for the government to take away his money to help people he might feel don't "deserve" it. I personally disagree pretty strongly with this viewpoint—it seems to ignore the role luck plays in people's success, as well as narrowly aligning a person's worth with how much they earn for example—but it's interesting and I think very worthwhile to try to understand where people you disagree with are coming from.

Alternatively of course he might just have been a run-of-the-mill bonehead. And apologies for the long post and/or telling you shit you already knew!

u/oiuyt2 · 3 pointsr/worldnews

Of course, I suspected as much from your user name and my response is taylored to account for that.

I too have taken several asian studies courses, Asian philosophy courses, asian language courses, I've read the sandard literature such as Journey West and Three Kingdoms and I've tried to apply all of this to my life as lived in Korea for 8 and a half years.

No matter how I tried to twist this conventional wisdon I found myself constantly rewriting everything I knew every month. There would always be discrepencies, inconsistencies and hippocrisy. There was never a consistent narrative from which I could draw a predictive conclusion. Until about several years in when I realized in my attempt to learn about Korea culture I instead learned more about American culture and that everything they did that was some how different and confucian was something we did in American we just thought of it differenlty cause you know, 'murica.

Now if I had those biases what about people around me? It finally made sense why I could never trust a Korean to give me an honest account of Korean Culture, or someone from China to give an honest account of Chinese culture. or even trust myself to give an honest account of American Culture.

Then I read a good book on moral psychology, and it made even more sense.

> I can tell you there is definitely a cultural difference from the 6 years I have been here in my experience.

I can tell you there is a definite contectual bias in being amongst people you consider a different culture. Especially when you expect it.

> What you seem to be suggesting is that all differences are a fantasy and that there is no Confucianism or Judeo-Christianity.

What I am suggesting is that Confuciansim and Judeo-Christianity ultimately turn into tools for the lazy who want to make facile post hoc explanations for things and be done with it. You'd be right more often if you just treated people as people and pretended the concepts didn't exsist.

If we want to talk about instances where we can find differences in a controlled scientific setting (as opposed to uncontrolled instances on reddit of throughout ones day to day experiences) I would again suggest the book by Jonathan Haidt. His model of Moral Foundations Theory does a much better job of accounting for differences in a unified model instead of constantly going back to the drawing board for every culture.

u/unpopular_speech · 3 pointsr/OutOfTheLoop

RE: actions are mischaracterized, I’m going to go with the low-hanging-fruit example of FOX news. Wikipedia has a great entry over FOX news controversies:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies

Of course, FOX isn’t alone in this. MSNBC will exaggerate the words and actions of the right, too. And many other organizations. I only offer FOX because it’s the easiest.

RE: tribalism preferred over truth, there are a plethora of example, and tangent examples (like the echo chamber model) which support this, but for an actual source, I could go with Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Righteous Mind.

Haidt explains that our tendency to form social groups enforces a expectation for social conformity, which favors group ideas and beliefs over external views and information even when that external information is demonstrably true.

We can see this behavior in religion as well. People insist that men have one less rib than women despite our ability to count them in xrays. Faith over fact.

u/Shaneydev · 3 pointsr/changemyview

What do you mean by politically disingenuous?

Associating political beliefs with the values of individuals is the primary research focus of Jonathan Haidt, one of the world's leading social psychologists. He wrote The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion which goes into deep detail about how a person's underlying psychology and subsequent value system (as well as a certain amount of environmental upbringing) form their political beliefs. So a lazy association? No.

The same guy, Jonathan Haidt, himself a liberal professor at NYU, is one half of the pair who wrote the most widely cited non-academic piece on Victimhood Culture, bringing it from academia and into the mainstream media with this article, called "The Coddling of the American Mind", which he further expanded upon in his own website here.

Though Professor Haidt says people on either side of the right/left spectrum can be prone to getting 'sucked into' victimhood culture, he says that "the narrative of oppression and victimization is especially congenial to the leftist worldview (Haidt 2012:296; Kling 2013; Smith 2003:82)".

But I want you to explain what is "politically disingenuous" about my above comment.

u/chrises67 · 3 pointsr/exmormon

You are absolutely right – there is no one true way. Good for you for not falling into that trap again. Here is an amazing book I’ve been reading that explores morality and has helped me better form my own morals while understanding morals of others. I highly recommend it.

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307455777/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_AXtYBb10FZHXD

u/bananab33 · 3 pointsr/The_DonaldBookclub

The Righteous Mind by Jonathon Haidt really improved my debating skills with liberals. I don't know why the author is a liberal, I feel like he might be secretly conservative.

u/RedditJusticeWarrior · 3 pointsr/ShitPoliticsSays

This may not be the exact one I'm looking for, but it looks close thumbing through it.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2027266

The works of Jonathan Haidt are what you wanna focus on though. As he said in his book, The Righteous Mind,

> In a study I did with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Qyestionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typical liberal” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typical conservative” would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people’s expectations about “typical” partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right)’ Who was best able to pretend to be the other?

> The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with questions such as “One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal” or ”Justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan [i.e., conservative] narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. He’s more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives.

u/svefan · 3 pointsr/Suomi

En voi muuta kuin suositella lukemaan, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.
Ihmiset eivät keskustele rationaalisesti, vaan pyrkivät selittämään tunnereaktiot rationaalisin argumentein.

u/lev_spark · 3 pointsr/booksuggestions

I'm working my way through The Righteous Mind right now and it has lots of fun insights into why humans react the way they do to various external situations.

u/allinallitsjusta · 3 pointsr/changemyview

>If President Trump is ideologically Conservative, why do his positions change so frequently?

Nobody makes decisions ideologically. This is why it is seemingly so difficult to convince people to change their minds with just information. You only change people's minds by influencing them socially / appealing to morality, etc.

Trump tapped into a moral framework (like most conservatives candidates) that covers the things that people than lean conservative care about. Conservatives, even people that are super far right, or super religious, voted for Trump and sincerely trust Trump because he appeals to the things they care about. This is why many conservatives will openly say that they will never vote for a Democratic candidate -- they don't feel that Democrats care about the things they care about (and they are right)

>My understanding is that he doesn't support any ideology

He certainly leans conservative but he is generally pretty moderate and does things based on what his supporters want.

>is there an implied hierarchy in the numbering?

Nope, all 6 are equal. But Liberals literally only care about (1) and (2) while conservatives tend to care about all of them relatively equally.

If you want to read a book entirely about this:

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. Really fascinating read, especially in today's political climate. It humanizes the other side because right now liberals think conservatives are evil and conservatives think liberals are insane. But if you realize that they are just working with different starting materials you can understand why they value the things that they value, and why it is so difficult to change a person's mind with facts.

u/Tall_for_a_Jockey · 3 pointsr/news

Now that is some Jonathon Haidt-level shit right there! Thank you for sharing the full text of her message. I'm relieved to find that nowhere in the text does it say "you should be able to do or say whatever you want without social consequences," and I'm disappointed to hear that there's a new label for people we disagree with. "Regressive left" seems pejorative in the extreme. My hope is that people who believe different things will actually do what she suggests and talk to each other about what they believe. That is a very hard, but very necessary, thing to do.
Anyway, I wanted to share something that the letter reminded me of that was written at a time when America was even more divided. Here are the last few sentences of Abraham Lincoln's inaugural address:

>I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

u/retrogamerpenis · 3 pointsr/exmormon

Read The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307455777/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_zJpGzbMWYB548
It turns out humans are expert at justifying their own actions.

u/keylimesoda · 3 pointsr/latterdaysaints

I keep saying, atheists need a church. The social support structures provided by a healthy church group is incredibly valuable to the community.

That said, I also agree with the article's author (and Jonathon Haidt) that it's hard to motivate such organization in the absence of religious guiding principles.

u/garcia_reid · 3 pointsr/Nodumbquestions

Matt's comment about the White House, (paraphrasing) "people want the same end result but just have different ideas about how to get there" made me think of this book I just listened to.

It's not the easiest read in the world, but I really enjoyed it and learned a lot.

And of course, it fits very well with the NDQ attitude.

It's by Jonathan Haidt.

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307455777/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_NbC0DbWTAKPA9

Check it out and enjoy! And most importantly, share it with people who need to hear it.

u/cyberhistorian · 3 pointsr/vegan

I think that the problem with non-monogamy is not just the act itself, but principally the effect of dishonesty with one's partner. Being transparent about what and why one holds a specific diet and acknowledging its effects addresses a similar, if more minor, concern.

When Peter Singer talks about the "Paris exception", he isn't describing an epicurean whim as a moral good, but rather arguing that the moral criticism should be grounded not in a purity principal but with respect to animal welfare. In the same way, there is a puritanical ethical argument against non-monogamy that while nearly (but not entirely) universal, is less cogent than a critique of the likelihood of an affair impairing one's family's happiness.

Ethical feelings are grounded in evolutionary traits, the purity principle is grounded in taboos around what is healthy. Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind acknowledges that vegans have a similar response to eating animals, as many conservatives to do homosexuality or Orthodox Jews do to eating pigs. While this purity principle isn't necessarily wrong, grounding ones ethics in Utilitarianism and animal welfare allows veganism to have a much more universal ethical appeal.

u/wolfnb · 3 pointsr/goodyearwelt

>It didn't really change anybody's mind, and one's view on it was 99% shaped by what they were already thinking.

These books are about why they think that way. Hillbilly Elegy is about communities (mainly the non-urban communities that gave Trump huge support) that feel left behind and the recent history and thinking of those groups. The Big Sort is about the homogenization of social groups and thinking in the US, leading to why people feel comfortable throwing "grenades". The Righteous Mind is a book on the psychology of morality and politics in the US and why the ideologies are so different.

Trump may have won big with white voters of all stripes, but he also did better among Latinos than Romney, so it's obvious that it isn't just "poor uneducated whites", but if people don't try to figure out why the division is so strong and where the other side is coming from, what chance do we have for uniting and restoration?

I live in the most liberal district in one of the most liberal cities in the US. I have no difficulty in understanding that perspective and its driving forces. The other view is not so well illuminated

Edit: though I shouldn't have said anything in the first place. This is the one place I can go to avoid all the cross-talk about politics and ideologies. I like all of you guys and our light conversations about shoes. I'd rather not ruin that for myself.

u/bguy74 · 3 pointsr/changemyview

The accessible version is covered by the book by Haidt (who I thinks is also an author of the study I'm about to try to go find).

And...here it is: http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/manuscripts/graham.nosek.submitted.moral-stereotypes-of-libs-and-cons.pub601.pdf



u/darth_tiffany · 3 pointsr/education

The experiment was not an actual measure of ability (which the WSJ doesn't seem to understand), it was about student responses to perceived expectations, in this case based on their gender. The concept of "stereotype threat" is undergoing an enormous amount of study in the field of psychology and has profound implications for educators. The book Whistling Vivaldi is a great layman's introduction to the concept.

u/Onerealhapa · 3 pointsr/Alt_Hapa

And if you want to focus on real, actionable solutions like whistling Vivaldi down the street, that would be an admirable MO to have. Sticking up for the anti-gov't, doomsday prepper by insulting us, and showing it off to... the current crowd here. That's... pretty sketchy.

u/codifier · 3 pointsr/HistoryPorn

There's a good book on how educated and intelligent people participated in despicable acts against other humans some with extreme zeal. Zimbardo also wrote an interesting book on the topic; particularly how regular people like you and I can even get sucked in.

u/danish_lamanite · 3 pointsr/exmormon

I think what they all have in common is certain people's tendency to defer to authoritarian thinking. Three fascinating treatments that I would suggest to you:

  • David Campbell - mormon stories #504 explores link between Republican = more religious, and Democratic = less religious.
  • David Christian - mormon stories #558 discusses differences between conservative & liberal mindsets w/in context of community building, based on the work of Dr. Jonathan Haidt’s book “The Righteous Mind.”
  • And best of all, Bob Altemeyer's book The Authoritarians. Decades of legit research on Right Wing Authoritarian thinking, written in 2006 during the George W Bush presidency and Iraq war. Easily one of the most prophetic things I've ever read, considering the current MAGA/Trump movement.
u/veldurak · 3 pointsr/DebateaCommunist

>After a bloody revolution, usually came a bloody war, followed by years of bloody repression, before the bankrupt regime finally crumbles, resulting in more hardships.

USSR: broke the Tsar state, turned a backwards feudal country into a modern one, universal education greatly raised literacy, universal healthcare wiped out typhus, cholera, and maleria - greatly raising quality of life and increasing life span by decades. Played a vital role in defeating Nazi Germany, which would not have been possible without the advances caused by Communism.

Cuba: Broke free of Batista. Universal health care and a very high doctor output. Universal education with complete literacy. Low birthrates. Have you compared Cuba to much of Latin America?

NK: Not even close to Marxism. Juche is out of whack in almost every way, and more of a Japanese fascism then communism.

There is much to criticize... but don't act as if there weren't positive effects of these struggles. Regardless, didn't other liberal democratic revolutions fail or break down at first? You don't hear many people denouncing the French Revolution, for example.

u/kaffinator · 3 pointsr/Reformed

Moral Foundations Theory keeps confirming itself.

In short, leftist folk care exclusively about the moral virtues of justice and care. Those on the right have a wider palette of virtues including justice, care, loyalty, purity, and authority, giving these five roughly equal weight.

To the left, the right appears to be uncaring, because the right prioritizes virtues the left disregards.

To the right, the left appears to be ignorant of other legitimate virtues, because, well, it is.

I think this has probably always been so. I would prefer a world where a right-leaning person could value the left's deeper commitment to care, with the left appreciating how successful human societies require the employment of all five virtues. But, we live in a time where more political power can be derived from division than unity, and here we are.

u/nicktroiano · 3 pointsr/politics

How about my favorite book on this topic? Besides the Centrist Manifesto (obviously), I'd suggest: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0052FF7YM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

It's a brilliant explainer on why we are so tribal in our politics... and what we can do about it.

u/timk85 · 3 pointsr/Christianity

I just vehemently disagree. I don't think being left is the same as being Liberal, either. There's room for a lot more nuance than you're letting on.

If you're really interested: Check out The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt. I would also recommend A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell if you want further reading.

If you don't have the time and aren't interested, here's my summary: Someone's personality traits can pretty successfully predict their political leanings. Some people are biologically and environmentally predisposed to being Liberal or Conservative. Society needs the balance of both Liberals and Conservatives to be as good as possible. Conservatives bring order, Liberals bring ideas. Too much of one or the other causes division and if it gets too extreme, genocide and destruction. It is my belief that God has designed it this way. It will always be unhelpful to think along the lines of "conservatives are wrong" or "liberals are wrong."

Comments like, "The left has way more in common with Christianity than the right..." make me sad because I think it's horribly misguided. It misses the big picture completely.

The same Jesus who told us all to love also reprimanded a disciple for criticizing a woman who spent money on Jesus as opposed to giving it to the poor. He is both.

u/EntropicClarity · 3 pointsr/FIREyFemmes

Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress

By Steven Pinker and recommended by Bill Gates.

(I'm mostly just suggesting books on my "to read" list at this point.)

u/squonk93 · 3 pointsr/DebateAChristian

> I would actually rather have more “nones” than “cultural” Christians. It does more harm than anything to have self-identified Christians who likely aren’t actually saved and are “Christians” either just because they’re parents were or because it’s “the American belief.”

Growing up, my parents always emphasized to me & my brothers the importance of having a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” We stopped attending church when I was relatively young (church politics), but my parents retained a zeal for Christianity. They were PRO-Christian, ANTI-Christian culture.

I’ve watched my parents beliefs turn around, over the years. Today, they like being involved in Christian culture, (i.e. church) but they certainly aren’t the evangelical Christians they used to be. My Mom likes Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity and complains that she can no longer relate to her more “fundamentalist” Christian friends. My Dad told me that reading Steven Pinker convinced him that Christianity isn’t even a spectacular force for good in the world. His twin brother, who remains an evangelical Christian, now thinks that my Dad is going to Hell. My Dad now thinks it’s ludicrous; people claiming to know what (if anything) happens after we die.

A good friend of mine works for the Christian church, and he tells me that he struggles with the fact that he sees no good reason to believe in the existence of God.

Why is it so hard to accept that real Christians might change their mind about Christianity?

u/Bowlslaw · 3 pointsr/InternetIsBeautiful

Another great optimistic outlook is Steven Pinker's new book, [Enlightenment Now](https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570)

u/MisanthropicScott · 3 pointsr/childfree

I'm not sure whether I'm the best person to give advice on this subject. My wife and I married at 19 & 23, respectively. When we married, we both expected that we'd have kids one day. We absolutely couldn't afford them for the first few years, so never discussed it. Then one day, I pointed out to my wife that we probably could afford kids if we wanted them. She asked, "do you?" I said, "not really, you?" She said, "no." That was our long discussion on the subject. Since then, our only regrets have been 1) that she took my name to make it easier for the kids we never had despite that I never encouraged her to do so and 2) that I waited far longer to get a vasectomy than I would have in hind sight. So, we never really had to go through the long introspection you will likely need (and kudos for thinking about it rather than just breeding as expected by society with no consideration first).

But, here goes anyway.

My first observation from your post is that you sound more sure of your partner than of your feelings regarding having children.

If you are the type to haul off on your own and cogitate to arrive at a final decision with no input from others, then the advice of /u/thr0wfaraway may be good advice for you.

However, if you are more like me, you may want to debate the issue with your close friends and/or family. Discussing the issue may help you make up your mind. If so, why not include your potential spouse in the decision?

After all, this is the person you may be choosing to be your one single closest relationship for the rest of your life. If you're sure of him and not of your desires or lack thereof for children, why not work together to arrive at your respective decisions. You may find from discussions that you ultimately disagree. If so, the issue is showstopping and will probably terminate your relationship. But, if you discuss it together, you're more likely to reach agreement.

And, even if that decision is different than one of you might have arrived at on your own, the self-justification process in the human mind is likely to keep you reaffirming that decision anyway, for good and for bad. For an explanation, read Mistakes Were Made (But, not by me).

There's no single right answer here. There's only what's right for each of you. Why not work together to find out that right answer for each of you and see if you both agree at the end of the process?

\
Don't judge me too harshly for our youth at marriage. She was more emotionally mature at 19 than I was at 23. She also instinctively understood what took me a couple of years to learn, once you sign that document, as spouses, you are each others' immediate families. All others (unless and until you do have children) are now your extended family. This is far more than a legal distinction. This does and should become reality with all due speed. No one is closer to you than your spouse. You become life partners taking on whatever life throws at you, which is likely to include at least some shit from each of your respective families. One of your jobs is that you must each defend each other from your own family's shit.

u/bitterred · 3 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

I read this book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Unexpected-Legacy-Divorce-Landmark/dp/0786886161 to better understand how my parents' divorce impacted me, and she says the same thing.

When parents pool their resources (emotional, financial), its easier for kids to live their lives, unimpacted by parental unit problems.

u/bigblue79 · 3 pointsr/Divorce

Read the 1 star reviews. Wallerstein's study is overblown and has been questioned by many. It was not scientific, but is more used as a cornerstone of telling people not to divorce. I know a lot of people who grew up in single parent households and they turned out just fine. Remember that the people that tout her work are staunchly anti-divorce. That should raise an eyebrow. When somebody says they have a study proving cigarettes are good for you, you might want to question their motives.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Unexpected-Legacy-Divorce-Landmark/product-reviews/0786886161/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_one?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&showViewpoints=0

u/meldroc · 3 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Ever read The God Virus by Darrel Ray?

He explains the guilt cycle from a psychological perspective in detail.

  1. Make something that every animal does into a taboo, encode it into the religious virus's DNA.
  2. When followers do it anyways (fornication, masturbation, you name it...), compel them to come to the church for repentance.
  3. Tell followers they'll be absolved, this time, for the low-low price of 10%.
  4. Followers repent, fork over the tithe, priest waves his dead chicken of absolution, induces wave of dopamine euphoria as guilt is washed away, for a while...
  5. Lather, rinse, repeat once a week.
  6. PROFIT!!!
u/scrotumbrau · 3 pointsr/exmormon

Here's another great resource for this with mountains of research: http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-Our-Nature/dp/1455883115

u/FrenchFuck · 3 pointsr/AskMen

For me personally there are many but the one that keeps drifting back into my mind is Steven Pinker. His book on The Decline of Violence was for me a perspective changing experience on how much humanity has evolved and how much work still needs to be done. I think framing of a problem effects the outcome and I believe Steven has done a fantastic job in re-framing and challenging our embedded views of human nature.

u/Lungri · 3 pointsr/bestof

>The crucial point is that WHERE YOU GO AND WHAT YOU DO CAN GREATLY AFFECT YOUR CHANCES OF BEING ASSAULTED.

What's this—all actions have consequences, and "victims" sometimes engage in behaviors that make them targets (for degenerates, no doubt)?

Rape will be eliminated shortly after murder ceases to occur—and as a species we have made remarkable leaps toward a world without them that an any point in history.

u/DrJosh · 3 pointsr/IAmA

Personally I don't believe in the Singularity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

so I'm going to assume my lifetime is finite.

I think we will reach a point where we have self-reproducing swarms of complex machines that adapt and help humans. We'll get there through a combination of advances in machine learning, 3D printing, Big Data, genetics and neuroscience.

However, I think attaining machines with 'human-level' abilities is a long way off: how would a machine empathize with us? In other words, how would it know what it's like to be a human? Much of our behavior is predicated on our ability to empathize with our fellow humans, predict what they'll do next, and either move to cooperate or compete with them. Steven Pinker's latest book provides a good overview of the neural correlates of empathy.

u/rocketvat · 3 pointsr/news

Let me start out by saying I'm totally willing to concede that, as a group, people with concealed carry permits are probably much more responsible and better trained than the general gun-owning population. That seems to make sense, and I've never seen any data to suggest otherwise.

That said, gun ownership is significantly down in the last 40 years, according to the General Social Survey, and so is the violent crime rate (ignore the headline on the second article and look where they are getting their numbers-- FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, I would have linked through to the reports but the government shutdown has made the DOJ webpage unavailable).

Of course, you're talking about concealed carry laws passed in the early 90s that coincide with the decrease in violence I'm talking about, but a report from the National Research Council found no causal link between the introduction of those laws and the violent crime rate.

More broadly, if you enjoy looking at this kind of stuff and want to read about the nature of violence in human society and its downward arc over time, Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker is an incredibly eye-opening work that genuinely changed my mind on a number of issues.

u/rcb314 · 3 pointsr/australia

There is an aptly titled book describing this phenonema.

u/light_to_shaddow · 3 pointsr/JusticeServed

[The best book I've ever read about fighting] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Little-Black-Book-Violence-Fighting/dp/1594391297)

TLDR. Don't.

u/Number_06 · 3 pointsr/actuallesbians

First, I'm not saying that it's either/or. However, just as there are a lot of people who mistakenly think that waving a gun around will magically make the evil go away, there are also a lot of people who mistakenly think that martial arts give them some magical advantage over anyone wielding a firearm. I'm going to assume that neither of us are subject to this kind of magical thinking.

Owning and carrying a firearm responsibly takes training and practice. Most law-abiding gun owners go to the range more than police do. We also learn the laws in our states regarding when it is legal or not legal to use a handgun in self-defense or defense of another.

Firearms work at a greater distance than martial arts. By the time someone is close enough for hand-to-hand fighting, you simply aren't going to have time to draw and fire a gun outside some very narrow circumstances. So, yes, martial arts can be useful, but they are not the be-all, end-all defense against firearms that some people like to claim. Nor are firearms the be-all, end-all defense against everything that some people like to claim, either.

Run if you can (I can't because I'm waiting for knee replacement surgery in both legs).
De-escalate if possible.
Fight or shoot as a very last resort.

My decision to get my permit and to carry was not made lightly, but three encounters I had in my taxi (when I was still capable of running) helped change my mind. You better believe I'm familiar with the laws regarding defensive gun use in my state. I also did a lot of reading about de-escalation and conflict avoidance, because even though I understand that I might someday need to shoot someone to defend myself, I'd really rather not have to. I recommend these four books:

The Art of the Con by Gary F. Cornelius;
The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker;
The Little Black Book of Violence by Lawrence Kane and Kris Wilder;
Meditations on Violence by Rory Miller.

u/KaliYugaz · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

This itself is actually a myth. The DPRK does not have a divine cult surrounding the Kim family, and indeed is actually quite careful to not make any statements in its domestic propaganda that go against its people's common sense and experience.

The Kims and the Party obtain their legitimacy from two things: The threat of an invasion by the "barbaric, rapacious Yankees", and a kind of Korean racial supremacist ideology that portrays Koreans as a maximally pure and morally perfect "child race" that requires the motherly protection of the Party and the "Dear Leader" in order to survive in a cruel world.

The whole "crazy North Korea" trope is actually from DPRK foreign propaganda, which deliberately attempts to portray the regime to outsiders as insane and confusing in order to mask its true ideology and to string the outside world along in attempting sanctions, threats, negotiations and aid to get the DPRK to "open up". All these attempts play into the hands of the DPRK elite in their strategy to retain power over their people. Negotiations and aid are spun as reparations or tribute payed by the inferior, apologizing Americans to the superior, pure Koreans, and threats/sanctions are spun as proof of the urgent Yankee menace, as well as the supposedly innate American tendency to be treacherous.

A good book on this subject is The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why it Matters by Brian R. Meyers.

u/nwabrautigan0123 · 3 pointsr/books

I don't know if this helps, but: "The Cleanest Race". About North Korea

u/elbac14 · 3 pointsr/worldnews

If you're interested in learning more about the history of North Korea check the book reading list at r/northkorea.

For the question of what is Juche and is North Korea really communist, I highly recommend a book called The Cleanest Race by B.R. Myers. It was released in 2010, so before the time of King Jong-Un but still very relevant to understanding the two previous leaders.

u/CovertGypsy · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

I typed up a really long reply and then realized it was a little too off topic and in depth without really answering your question. Essentially, no, the original intent was never to systematically kill off the Jewish population. If you'd like to learn how eugenics gained a foothold in Nazi Germany and how the "stages" of eradication plans unfolded, I would suggest reading The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide. It goes into detail about how mental illnesses, genetic illnesses, and certain races were targeted before and after the start of the war and how the Nazi's were able to convince (specifically) doctors to take part in genocide.

u/Boredeidanmark · 2 pointsr/AskHistorians

This book may be helpul. I read it over ten years ago, so I don't totally remember how much of it is on point.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Nazi-Doctors-Psychology-Genocide/dp/0465049052

u/Joel928 · 2 pointsr/unpopularopinion

If you held a press conference and rolled-out a functioning teleporter - people would complain about the loss of community in airports, and the missing "me-time" found on the fucking bus.

Not to mention that the ability to travel anywhere, do anything, or become virtually anyone - makes them, you know, depressed.

People, you are running out of excuses for being a loser.

I was born in the late-60's and saw Star Wars in a theater, watched Jaws uncut on HBO when my parents were sleeping and was amazed the first time I saw images from the World Wide Web as a twentysomething on my 9600 baud modem.

Not to mention the proliferation of smart phones - which is literally Star Trek technology come to life. Instantaneous global communication at a throw-away cost - absolutely astonishing. Oh yeah, and global, free, video communication to a billion people from your living room. CHECK.

We live in an incredible time, in fact, we're experiencing a new Golden Age (as Scott Adams would say). The entire world has never been healthier, safer or more productive - not to mention we are closer to actual WORLD PEACE than we ever have been as a civilization. (OMG - A BOOK!)

Remember this the next time there's a power failure - that's how your Great-Great-Grandparents, and thousands of generations before them lived. In fucking darkness. Often dying - of diarrhea.

If you can't get your shit together now, the problem isn't The World - it's YOU.

u/freshfired · 2 pointsr/fatFIRE

Try to keep in mind that popular media rarely presents a proportionately balanced view of the world. Due to fundamental incentives, media tends to be biased toward particular kinds of attention-grabbing sensationalism and pessimism.

Wanting to accurately perceive the state of the overall world beyond our personal experiences is admirable, so good for you. Investing the time to increase understanding helps us react rationally and responsibly.

A useful starting place is this brief TED talk by the amazing statistician Hans Rosling. Good books include Pinker's "Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress" and Ridley's "The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves".

u/bloomindaedalus · 2 pointsr/AskMen

Yeah i wasn't being snarky. just dorkily name-dropping. (cause im uncool like dat)

In fact, as somebody who almost seriously went to graduate school for linguistics and/or cognitive science, I can attest that though Pinker is an old hero of mine, when he started getting all positive about the world i wasn't all in at first..

But he is persuasive.

.

For those playing "life sucks but i want to believe it is getting better" along at home here's a start:

​

https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0143122010/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1539983039&sr=8-2&keywords=books+by+steven+pinker

​

https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1539983039&sr=8-1&keywords=books+by+steven+pinker

​

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1487001681/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i11

​

​

u/electricworkaid · 2 pointsr/news
u/remphos · 2 pointsr/trippinthroughtime

The author released a book just this year called Enlightenment Now if you want an updated take.

>Also, it bugs me when people point out stuff like a global decline in violence without acknowledging that the global trend can be good while the American trend is bad.

Violence in America has decreased too.

Also I don't think that waning power in thr US will necessarily lead to more global violence, because the factors that maintain broad peace (interconnected economies, nuclear weapons, etc) still remain.

u/Vinyalonde · 2 pointsr/BABYMETAL

I think that there is a lot of exploration going on of the ideas that the author, Harari, explores in this book. We are at a crossroads as a species I believe and we really do have some major issues to sort out such as overpopulation, income disparity between the haves and have nots, providing a greater standard of living for more of the world's population, and the ever-present climate change.

For my part, I do not think we are approaching the end of days, and in fact I believe that there are many good things about our lives today (for example, BABYMETAL). On the other hand, many perils surround us (for example, triple baconator hamburgers at Wendy's, a plot if ever there was one, put upon us by some unknown force of evil).

The author Pinker, in his book Enlightenment Now offers a very upbeat outlook.

Thanks for the reference to the book. I now have two new books to read.

u/Odoyl-Rules · 2 pointsr/Military

I'm currently reading "Mistakes Were Made But Not By Me" and it's shedding a lot of light on this phenomenon. Cognitive Dissonance is terrifying.

u/Studsmanly · 2 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Thank you for providing context. I offer my sympathies with what you are going thru.

If I can make a suggestion. Read this book "The God Virus"

It is one explanation of why religious people behave the way they do and offers some suggestions in how to communicate with them. I don't know if it'll help with your wife, but you may get an insight on the rest of your community. Reading unapproved books is a threat to the community and therefore shunned and aggressively persecuted.

On the plus side, now all your fears are of the earthly variety :).

Do you still go to church?

u/MMR1522 · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

There's a book called the God Virus or something. Check it out. It really goes into how religion as a whole propagates abd spreads very much like a common virus. Interesting read.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Virus-The-Religion-Infects/dp/0970950519

u/kent_eh · 2 pointsr/atheism

> or on something else.

Maybe a virus is infecting his brain.

u/cypressgreen · 2 pointsr/atheism

As others are saying, don't let yourself get drawn in. You shouldn't be expected to have the answers to life and the universe.

It takes a long time to become familiar enough with all the fine points to be able to debate well. And some people will never debate well. And that's okay.

For your own general use, though, here are three books which have helped me a great deal. They are especially good for atheist/questioning newbies and are easy, quick reads:

The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives And Culture

The Born Again Skeptic's Guide To The Bible

Does God Get Diarrhea?: Flushing 4,000 Years Of Lies, Myths, And Fairy Tales Down The Toilet This one is rude and crude. Just a heads up.

(edit: added a book)

u/permutation · 2 pointsr/atheism

Just last week, author Darrel W. Ray was a guest on The Atheist Experience. There was a caller describing how a close friend was quite secular but still identified herself as Christian because she was afraid of death.

Ray argued, that the reason it is so hard to come to terms with reality (i.e. there is most likely no afterlife) for religious people is that they have been "infected" with the "God virus" (in reference to his book) at an age (5-7) when they hadn't developed reason and couldn't look critically at the claims made by their parents/pastors.

I assume, you are in a similar position. That tiny idea has been implanted at a very basic level of your mind, therefore it so hard to shake it off. But you need to realize that the things that make you comfortable and the things that are true are not necessarily the same.

Realize that you, and everyone you know, will die. Accept it. And then start really living.

u/bebobli · 2 pointsr/atheism

I actually picked up this book recently that entertains that very idea throughout and it's better than I thought.

u/OccamsRazorstrop · 2 pointsr/atheism

The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture by Darrel Ray

https://www.amazon.com/God-Virus-Religion-Infects-Culture/dp/0970950519

I’ve not read it, but Peter Boghossian endorses it in A Manual for Creating Atheists.

u/raptormeat · 2 pointsr/AskHistorians

Non-historian here- what do you think about the argument put forth by Steven Pinker in The Better Angels of our Nature, that violence is/has been declining over time?

u/percussaresurgo · 2 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

I do agree that it's natural for humans to be generous and share resources. But if you look at what we know about human civilizations before agriculture, cities, and the modern state, the level of violence in those societies was extremely high throughout the world and without any significant periods of decline. It wasn't until the "Leviathan" of government was put into place that we began to see the relatively peaceful societies we have today as the rule rather than the exception. Steven Pinker wrote a very good book on this that makes a far more compelling case for this and than I can here, supported by a mountain of evidence.

u/lars_ · 2 pointsr/videos

Steven Pinkers The Better Angels of our Nature is a deeply researched book that has this point as its main message.

u/flyingorange · 2 pointsr/europe

Read the book The Better Angels of Our Nature, it deals exactly with this issue. It seems that before the invention of cities, violence was around 150 times greater than right now. Same was observable with native Indians and some isolated tribes in the Amazonas and Indian ocean today.

u/DonOntario · 2 pointsr/worldnews

There's a great book on this subject, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker, that deals with not only with the "long peace" but also with the decline in warfare over longer periods, in other inter-communal violence, in homicides, and abuse and torture.

Specifically regarding the long peace of the last 60 years, I would cite the following as reasons why US hegemony and/or NATO, although important things, are not the primary causes:

  • It is a continuation of a much longer trend. (See my source above.)
  • Commerce. Much higher and accelerating trade of goods, intertangling of economies, and exposure to foreign people and ideas.
  • Increase is cosmopolitanism in much of the world. Increased exposure to other cultures and ideas, more people in country X with ties to country Y.
  • "Feminization" - increased inclusion of women in societies and increased consideration of them.
  • De-romanticization of War. It can be hard to get across to modern people, but not that long ago, war was widely seen as a good thing. I don't just mean a justifiable or necessary thing, but as something good in and of itself for the individuals involved and for the national health and spirit of the countries. That attitude was dealt a serious blow in many countries after WWI. It was almost finished off after WWII with the defeat of Nazism/fascism and then later with the decline of communism - both utopian ideologies that glorified and predicted great wars to produce a better world.
u/busterfixxitt · 2 pointsr/atheism

It sounds like it was simply too painful for your mother to admit that it was a farce. The scale of the immorality of the mission was just too much to take. It makes me think of Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me).

I've only listened to part of this as an audiobook and it honestly horrified me.

u/cinepro · 2 pointsr/mormon

> This is fascinating to me because in our modern culture accepting responsibility for things that go wrong that a person or institution played a role in is widely accepted as a moral necessity (or at least a moral good).

FYI, this is a book on that subject. It's not really as universally accepted as you might think:

Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)

>Why do people dodge responsibility when things fall apart? Why the parade of public figures unable to own up when they screw up? Why the endless marital quarrels over who is right? Why can we see hypocrisy in others but not in ourselves? Are we all liars? Or do we really believe the stories we tell?

>Renowned social psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson take a compelling look into how the brain is wired for self-justification. When we make mistakes, we must calm the cognitive dissonance that jars our feelings of self-worth. And so we create fictions that absolve us of responsibility, restoring our belief that we are smart, moral, and right—a belief that often keeps us on a course that is dumb, immoral, and wrong.

>Backed by years of research and delivered in lively, energetic prose, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) offers a fascinating explanation of self-deception—how it works, the harm it can cause, and how we can overcome it.

u/slimmathias · 2 pointsr/kravmaga

Maybe check out The Little Black Book of Violence as well, it really goes deep into things directly related to Krav Maga that Krav books don't go into too much detail about. Stuff like awareness of your surroundings, the consequences of a physical confrontation, different levels of force, and de-escalation. Most of the instructors at my class recommended it, and its a really interesting read for anyone.

u/redgrimm · 2 pointsr/IWantToLearn

So you say you want to learn "Self-defense". Self-defense isn't about fighting, actually if you're intelligent, you'll avoid fighting unless it's absolutely necessary.

You can try to find a self-defense school, although those are often women-only. If you find a good school, you'll learn about Awareness, Avoidance, De-escalation, a little bit about fighting and running. In general it's all about avoiding the threat before it becomes a danger.

Alternately, you also read this and this. Warning: graphic content (a bit). But violence isn't pretty, and if you want to learn about it, you need to learn about the ugly side.

u/Soylent_X · 2 pointsr/kravmaga

> Rory Miller books

I like The Little Black Book of Violence. It's just not something normal people go around thinking about until it's too late.

u/Donkey_of_Balaam · 2 pointsr/Judaism

North Korea is worse than we can imagine. This book was like some ghastly mix of 1984 and The Gulag Archipelago.

[Visit to a Small Planet.](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2001/01/hitchens-200101
)

They teach The Diary of Anne Frank in their schools -- as an allegory: Anne = North Korea; the US = the Nazis.

u/GenghisJuan · 2 pointsr/worldnews

Has anyone checked out this book that was referenced in the article? Looks like it just got published: The Cleanest Race

u/Caius_Cassius · 2 pointsr/DebateFascism

The short answer is "yes". The longer answer is still yes, but requires a little more meat.

/u/zxz242's comment portrays authoritarian communist states as being fundamentally fascistic in their basic nature. This is in line with an increasing trend in alt-right circles towards re-framing the USSR in a "fascist" light. See Kerry Bolton's "Stalin: The Enduring Legacy". North Korea is no exception to this line of thought, even if you accept the notion that it is an orthodox example of Stalinism at work.

"The Cleanest Race" is a fascinating book, based on a meticulous analysis of available North Korean primary sources. It convincingly argues that the North Korean regime subscribes to an ideological pedigree that boasts Japanese fascism - not Russian communism - as its primogenitor. Repeatedly and emphatically, the propaganda portrays the Korean people as a unique and exceptional race. The Party views its primary mission in terms of preserving the purity, the "cleanliness" of that race. This book is unique in that it takes the North Koreans at their word, instead of interpreting their actions in the context of an outdated cold war dichotomy.

Finally, /u/AgainGlummest's whistle-stop review of Kim Jong-Il's "On The Juche Idea" ought to give you enough grounds to make up your own mind, and come to the same conclusion as the other two sources listed in this post.

North Korea is fascist. Or at least, as fascist as it is possible to be without actually being Italy in the 1930s.

u/relax_guy · 2 pointsr/NorthKoreaNews

I've read similar synopsis of propaganda in this book, interesting read www.amazon.com/The-Cleanest-Race-Koreans-Themselves/dp/1935554344

u/mikitronz · 2 pointsr/northkorea

This is an old interview, as Christ0ph mentioned, but I thought I might add a couple things to update this and make the most a little more helpful. Kim Han Sol has a leadership page on nkeconomywatch here (though take note the compendium link is broken and the permalink url is wrong--i.e. you're looking at his only page there). That has newer news (e.g. the Sciences Po thing in 2013) but nothing significant.

He was only 18 in the interview too, so while an adult, he isn't fully up to speed on how the world works and his perspectives are not particularly helpful except to indicate what extreme elites and their families are exposed to. On the interview, things I noticed were:

  • You didn't post the second part of the video

  • 4:42: Notable description of American and South Korean schoolmates as "really great friends". This would be punishable by death in NK in other circumstances.

  • 10:00: Expresses seemingly sincere understanding and appreciation of what might be the seeds of an internationalism. Kim Jon Un initially gave similar but ultimately unfulfilled hope.

  • Throughout, he makes casual references to North Korea and South Korea, probably indicating a lack of understanding that the terms DPRK and ROK are chosen intentionally to signify singular legitimacy. This is evidence that he is not involved with official international business of NK (no one has said he is, but e.g. it doesn't appear he has received significant training on the topic).

  • In video 2, at the 1 minute mark: "My South Korean friends" is repeated, describing disagreement with official policy to avoid South Koreans. "Really close friends and travel together." It is likely that this means he does not have even unofficial security provided by NK. SK has very particular rules about this kind of camaraderie (heh) but given that it is internationally done I doubt that is relevant.

  • Interviewer, a former defense minister (???), talked about the sadness of starvation while seeing military parades while he nodded, indicating a lack of support for the regime's political choices of Songun, and a distinct lack of disagreement on what is officially held to be international lies designed to undermine the state. Some argue (here recently, here famously) that Songun isn't a real policy or that it is misunderstood. That may or may not be so, but it is what the state chooses to make public statements about, and this isn't in line with that.

  • 6:12, 6:28, 7:00: While appropriately qualifying it, he guesses that his dad, the older sibling, is not the "dictator" because he is not interested in politics. Then refers to KJU as a dictator at 6:28. Then to KJI at 7:00. This choice of words is...surprising. This makes me think this is not a scripted propaganda push from within the North (e.g. we have moderates), not a scripted push from NK elites outside trying to get back in (e.g. not Jong Nam trying to vie for power through his own family network as this just goes too far to be credible within NK and because it crosses generations), and likely just a sign of an 18 year old trying to be amiable and not realizing the impact of these statements.

  • 10:26: "Always dreamed of going back and making things easier for the people there." Always dreamed of unification (because 1) sad and 2) can't hang out with my friends in South Korea).

  • Future: volunteering, advanced degree, contribute to building world peace, especially at home in a divided Korea, perhaps beyond 10 years.

  • 13:25 interviewer says she would like to have him as her own grandson. Awkward.

    Edit: formatting

    Edit2:

    I forgot to add a funny tidbit after this came out: He apparently was reported missing by his friends link and later found. The same thing happened after the execution of Jang Song-thaek.
u/Red_Desi · 2 pointsr/asianamerican

>How about as defined by literal North Korean refugees?
>
>Brought to you by the CIA shills over at the Washington Post.

Defector stories can't be trusted. That's coming from imperialist media. And WaPo is hardly trustworthy when it comes to railing against US imperialism. They've been pro-war for well over a decade including Iraq.

>Yeah, TIL Rhee Syngman is just as bad as Kim Ilsung who appropriated Japanese imperial propaganda to portray himself and his family as divine rulers.

Yes Syngman Rhee was a literal fascist who committed genocide and supported US imperialism as a means to gain a foothold in Korea. Can you find any firsthand evidence from any actual piece from the DPRK that states they're divine rulers of any sort?

>TIL the United States is literally worse than North Korea.

Glad I could teach you something.

>By the way, how does your precious revolution against the bourgeoisie (you should spell your own buzzwords correctly) stack up against the communist elite who live large in the west and send their kids to the top European boarding schools in the dirty, imperialist west?

Yeah those stores are for people who come from overseas. There's a reason why they're cash only. It's almost as if the DPRK has faced embargoes and sanctions for literal decades keeping it at the position of a developing nation and not the home of the absolute finest institutions in the world compared to nations that have been built on literal Nazi gold. Excuse me for making a spelling error, but a word that's been used for literally over a century in mainstream Western nations is hardly a "buzzword."

>I guess some people are just more equal than others, comrade.

The end goal is to end that system. I suppose supporting inherent inequality is much easier for you though seeing as how the vast majority of Asian Americans are wealthy and come from well off families.

>So I guess concentration camps are fine as long as you hate America.

From that article, "The report is based on testimony from North Korean defectors." Well as I've demonstrated earlier DPRK defectors are hardly reliable witnesses or evidence to anything significant so without actual material proof (we as leftists tend to hold historical materialism to a much higher regard.

>Dude, you're a tankie.

I don't know how liberals got a hold of this word but it's hilarious to see. Define "tankie" if you would.

u/Pro_Quote_Maker · 2 pointsr/worldnews

Oh and Hitchens is not just basing it off his one experience with a tour guide. He's also basing it off of the book that the article is reviewing: The Cleanest Race, which is a great read. It convincingly argues that North Korea is misunderstood in the West--it isn't really a communist state so much as a totalitarian racist hate state. The point of this article is the book, so he's talking about what the book talks about. He just uses his experiences to put his review in perspective.

u/dethswatch · 2 pointsr/northkorea

it's great, and when you're done with that, the Cleanest Race is also good.

u/Therunningrock · 2 pointsr/unitedkingdom

This book is my favourite, it demonstrates how the North Koreans can excuse getting aid, whilst also being hostile. (The propaganda states that North Korea is a perfect child. It is always precious and righteous but needs protection and help due to it being a child) TBH I think the best situation would be for internal politics in the region to collapse. Any sort of revolt would most likely be crushed by the (relatively) massive army that North Korea has.

u/Fortunate_0nesy · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

To answer this question, and really understand it, I suggest reading this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777

Haidt has studied these things for several decades, and his findings blew my mind.

I'm not going to try to summarize as I will just mangle his findings, but you can listen to this in about an hour and get a pretty good summary.

http://www.onbeing.org/program/jonathan-haidt-the-psychology-behind-morality/6341



u/generalT · 2 pointsr/politics

everyone does this.

i highly recommend this book.

u/BeetleB · 2 pointsr/changemyview

OK, you've suddenly made me want to write a lot. I think I'll split my response into multiple comments, addressing different things.

>But the desire will never be satisfied, so long as conservatives cannot form logical arguments to support their beliefs, or form logical rebuttals of my arguments.

I think this is your biggest mistake. Over the last 2 years I've been diving into why people believe what they do, and why they are convinced by some people and not by others. Logic is almost always the weakest way to convince anyone - regardless of their leanings.

I strongly recommend the books The Righteous Mind and Influence which dive into some of the reasons why. I've also been reading up on negotiation skills, and while logic/reason is part of the toolset, it is merely one of a number of tools.

People will naturally listen to their ingroup, and be wary of their outgroup. The arguments you use do not work because you are in their outgroup. Were someone whom they felt were very similar in beliefs to give those same arguments, they're much more likely to listen. So you are already at a disadvantage.

Most people will listen to logical arguments, once they believe you are trying to explore mutually, and not merely trying to change their opinion. All change comes from within, and they want to believe you are equally willing to change your mind and understand their perspective. In reality, perhaps you are, but there's a whole lot of effort that needs to be performed to signal that. Just saying "Let's talk" is way insufficient.

A phrase often used "You should be able to state their world view back to them as they themselves would state it." Once you get there, they are much more likely to listen.

There are many other tactics to get someone to the point where they will listen to logic. But you have to do the legwork.

BTW, almost all negotiations/communications book point out: If you give up often and justify it with "They're irrational" or "They just won't listen to reason", then you are just looking for an exit and an excuse. You do not understand/know how to reach them, and so you are sleeping better at night by labeling the other person. To convince anyone, you have to do some leg work, and you're trying to shortcut that by saying "Logic should be sufficient". It isn't. Not for conservatives and not for liberals. Trust me - I've lived with both, and been treated as an outsider by both at various times. They are equally prone to not listening to logic. This is a human condition, not a conservative condition.

Now a lot of liberals do view scientists as part of their ingroup. And so they are much more likely to accept (usually uncritically) what the scientific community says. This is not because liberals are more likely to listen to logic. It is because they are more likely to listen to scientists.

>As long as conservatives continue to believe these things, without logical explanations, and are unable/refuse to rationally rebut my counter arguments, there is no reason for me to waste my valuable time and energy on them.

The truth is: They are likely saying the same about you.

I'll respond to the more specifics of your comment later.

u/uncletravellingmatt · 2 pointsr/atheism

Plenty of atheists feel spiritual. Watch this TED talk by atheist author Jonathan Haidt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MYsx6WArKY (key point: the feelings are a part of human nature, and there are many ways to pursue and explore them, not all of them religious.)

I loved Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" too -- as a caveat, I'm not completely sold on the 'group selection' theory of evolution that he sounded somewhat sympathetic to in the book, but he's not a die-hard about it like E.O.Wilson either, and in a few places he seemed to mis-characterize some points by Richard Dawkins, but overall Haidt is an original thinker who has a different perspective on several issues than some more prominent atheist writers, and certainly a sensitivity to the key imporance of spirituality in humans.

You might also consider Sam Harris's book "Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion" which is mostly a how-to manual about how you might achieve the meditation techniques that he likes. His understanding of the word "spirituality" seems to be more Buddhist (nurturing and exploring the self, alleviating suffering) rather than groupish collective-feeling as Haidt uses the term, but it too was an interesting perspective.

u/anechoicmedia · 2 pointsr/texas

>Things that don't match their values are evil or sinful.

This is language typical of someone who can't conceptualize right-wing ideas in their moral system.

I am immersed in the right and I've never seen someone call transgenderism a sin or an evil. It is usually seen as a sad diversion, or maybe a mental illness, a confusion they do not want to see spread to nearby developing minds.

The right does not want non-passing trans people using their non-biological bathroom because they don't belong there. Public infrastructure is built to suit the needs of normal people, and they're not normal. Someone is going to be disappointed so it may as well be them.

u/twitchKeeptrucking · 2 pointsr/politics

What is not opposite, and why it makes sense, is that it is the brain throwing arguments after something it has deamed good for me. Read Jonathan Chaits The Righteous Mind: https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777

u/Trumpy_Poo_Poo · 2 pointsr/AskTrumpSupporters

It has nothing to do with America and nothing to do with politics. I’m a huge fan of Johnathan Haidt, who wrote an entire book explaining how “us vs. them” is hardwired into human beings.

u/pseudoLit · 2 pointsr/writing

One thing it really drilled home for me is just how important our physiological state (if we're tired, hungry, stressed, etc.) is to our emotional reactions. That's an easy thing you can thrown into a story for added realism. It also helped me pin down what an emotional reaction actually is in a way that makes it easier for me to think about.

It doesn't really help with motivation, though. I think that's a separate topic. For character motivations, I find Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations theory and his model of social intuitionism really useful. His book The Righteous Mind is a nice introduction.

u/Zybbo · 2 pointsr/Christianity
u/michaelrch · 2 pointsr/environment

This misinformation is like a "greatest hits" of climate change denialism. Every single point has been comprehensively debunked to the point that they now sound like clichéd parodies of the nonsense that deniers come out with, and yet to the average Heartland supporter, they are just as comforting as the day they were coined.

While I'm here, I might as well admit that this used to really mystify me until I read these two excellent, though grim, books

Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

u/RacyOldDottist · 2 pointsr/politics

If you're also interested in more contemporary study of morality, there is "Moral Minds" by Marc Hauser. And I heard a lot about Jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind" when it came out, though I still haven't read it.

u/Dookiet · 2 pointsr/Libertarian

A great book for a truly in depth description and a far more nuanced one than you get from a short TED talk is Johnathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind.

u/thexfiles81 · 2 pointsr/milliondollarextreme

> often times the answer seems self-evident at a certain point, even if it would be difficult to convince someone else

I feel this way a lot too. Sometimes it feels like even if you were to find an absolute truth, nobody would want to listen anyways.

>For what I'm working on tonight, trying to develop ideas of how belief systems get constructed in people, and what it takes to make them change or shift them.

I've been reading a book on this sort of thing lately. Here's a link. I'm most of the way through and it seems to be a pretty well put together book that makes some good points about how and why people end up believing the way they do. You might like it.



u/cornybloodfarts · 2 pointsr/worldnews

this book may give you some insight into why many folks do think there is a strong genetic component to ideological leanings. It's an interesting read, regardless of if you agree or not.

https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777?tag=askcomdelta-20

u/cassander · 2 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

Political affiliation is a LOT like religion. Name your party, it'll have prophets, saints, holy texts, rituals, and a number of proscriptions on how to live a righteous life. Ultimately people's reasons for choosing one or the other will come down not to fact, but to some moral principles they can't be reasoned out of, almost regardless of evidence. And if you want to know why politics isn't rational, read this, though bear in mind leaves self interest almost completely out of the calculation.

u/Syracuss · 2 pointsr/belgium

You've now handwaived my entire response, the question I posed is one neither one of us can answer, so I'm a little bit confused at how you came to a conclusion.

This might be a bit too forward of me, but if you ever have the time, I'd highly recommend this book. It doesn't take political stances, instead it showcases research on why political debates never end. I massively enjoyed reading it years ago, and gave me some introspection into why I took the positions I did back then, and my immobility of changing my point of view at times.

u/litatavle · 2 pointsr/booksuggestions

For a bit of social psycholohy try The Righteous Mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Gives som good food for thought on human nature.

u/frackaracka · 2 pointsr/ABCDesis

The one book that I recommend to every single person I run into is "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion".

The book is a summation of research by moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt that really changed the way I thought about how different people arrive at different moral values and perspectives, as well as articulated and crystallized what I already intuitively understood.

It had particular relevance to me as an Indian-American because when it comes down to it, the culture clash between Desi and Western values really revolves around different moral values, and the book really helped me understand the nuance and approach behind both.

u/diamondshamrock · 2 pointsr/INTP

For me, it's really just wanting to be able to change the world and impose what I believe to be logically sound on others. My love of politics stems from my love of history.

In the words of Dennis Van Roekel, "For anyone who cares about the direction of the country, engagement in the political process should be a lifetime commitment." In other words, you should ALWAYS vote. Many people never take any action because they believe their voice is so minuscule that it will not matter.

Here are some books I'd recommend if you really are wanting to start up.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777

http://www.amazon.com/World-Order-Henry-Kissinger/dp/1594206147


u/GettingReadytoLive · 2 pointsr/exmormon

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has done a lot of research on the ideas of religion, morality, empathy, biases, villifying others, etc. He approaches morality from an evolutionary perspective. Watching and reading his work really helped me have more compassion and diffuse some of the anger I've felt. Haidt is a liberal atheist, but he acknowledges the value that can be gained from certain conservative ideals and traditions. I felt like he validated my Mormon experience and the experiences of my loved, while at the same time deconstructing them.

Book:
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777

TED talks:

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?language=en

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_humanity_s_stairway_to_self_transcendence?language=en

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_how_common_threats_can_make_common_political_ground


In any case, I've gained a lot of empathy from this stuff. It probably saved my marriage and family relationships. It made me feel OK with my family as they are, even if they never change.

u/thomas-apertas · 2 pointsr/Christianity

It's nice, right? I stumbled across it in The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, but IIRC it's not original to Jonathan Haidt either.

u/bluebearepeat · 2 pointsr/audiobooks

A righteous mind by Jonathan Haidt

You can find the audiobook Oh the pirate Bay of you're so inclined. It's worth purchasing though imo.
http://righteousmind.com
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0307455777

u/CptGoodnight · 2 pointsr/AskTrumpSupporters

There's a book by a psychologist named Jonathan Haidt called "The Righteous Mind." I found it there. Here is the excerpt:

From page 334 of The Righteous Mind (emphasis added):

In a study I did with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Qyestionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typical liberal” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typical conservative” would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people’s expectations about “typical” partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right)’ Who was best able to pretend to be the other?

The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with questions such as “One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal” or ”Justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan [i.e., conservative] narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. He’s more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives.

If you don’t see that Reagan is pursuing positive values of Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity, you almost have to conclude that Republicans see no positive value in Care and Fairness. You might even go as far as Michael Feingold, a theater critic for the liberal newspaper the Village Voice, when he wrote:

>Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don’t give a hoot about human beings, either can’t or won’t. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm)

One of the many ironies in this quotation is that it shows the inability of a theater critic-who skillfully enters fantastical imaginary worlds for a living-to imagine that Republicans act within a moral matrix that differs from his own. Morality binds and blinds.

u/guymn999 · 2 pointsr/SandersForPresident

I think when talking about politics with ANYONE it is good to remember that all humans are emotional first, and rational second.

Rider and the elephant.

book recommendation on the subject

edit: check your local libraries.

u/Xenomoly · 2 pointsr/Documentaries

Yeah - that's what I was trying to convey. Jonathan Haidt wrote a lot about the phenomena in [The Righteous Mind](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307455777).

​

I was a Democrat all my life so I remember the programming well. Around the middle of 2016 I decided to learn the Republican arguments so that I could deconstruct them and convince the Republicans that they were delusional and wrong about everything.

​

That backfired.

​

I ended up red pilling myself accidentally and when I talked to my progressive friends about it - their "wrong think" alarms went off and they went ape shit. Purged a lot of FB friends that summer. But I would not go back to the ignorance.

​

There is certainly still ignorance on the right and the left -- but the blind media bubble acceptance - the John Oliver parroting, the Bill Maher parroting --- that all seems so fucking hollow and stupid now. I would love to sit myself down decades ago and explain reality to my younger self before the shells of media bullshit were installed.

​

Thankfully - both the red pill and black pills have fully peaked and I see the whole travesty for the sick farce it is. Honk honk.

u/mutilated · 2 pointsr/psychology

Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious by Timothy Wilson is personally one of my favorites
Anything by Malcolm Gladwell (I really enjoyed Blink)
Anything by Robert Cialdini (He was my social psychology professor and one of my favorite authors / public speakers)
Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do (Issues of Our Time) by Claude M. Steele (Who basically uncovered stereotype threat research)
The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil by Phillip Zimbaro (famous for the Stanford prison experiment)


Older books:
Mindfulness by Ellen Langer (about automatic processes and how mindless we can be)
When Prophecy Fails by Festinger, Riecken, & Schachter (To understand how cults work, a group of researchers infiltrate a join a cult. Mainly about cognitive dissonance but details what happens to a cult when the world doesn't end like predicted)
Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View by Stanley Milgram if you want to know all about the Milgram experiments

Sorry that is all that comes to mind now. . . (edited for formatting)

u/katcherintherye · 2 pointsr/90daysgoal

Hello friends! I'm very excited about this whole process and just trying to better myself. Every day seems to be a different struggle, but I really think it's worth it - seeing a whole community of people really pushing to better themselves every day is awesome!

  • Listening So I'm a huge Hans Zimmer and 8tracks fan (computer version, I don't like the mobile interface) and I have a big playlist of epic/superhero/soundtrack music that really gets me going every day. I have that on repeat, for sure.
  • Reading Textbooks and journals for class. And when I'm trying to avoid screen time before bed, I pick up Whispering Vivaldi, a book that is about stereotypes.
  • Watching Recovering Netflix addict, here. Currently watching Criminal Minds straight through. I try to keep myself to only about one episode a day.
  • Playing around with baking. I'm really into trying to convert recipes into healthier options, so I've gone on a crazy oatmeal muffin kick.
  • Loving where I'm at in my life right now. I'm in a transition point, I'm back in school, I have a great support system... I really couldn't ask for more in terms of my overall place in life. I love this community and support it offers. Just overall happy thoughts!
  • Hating that I'm stressing about applying to doctoral programs. It consumes my thoughts.
  • Hobby-ing I believe my cooking falls under this category!
  • Excited about Going for a walk outside tomorrow - it is beautiful!
  • What else? Just a little about me: I am in a one year (which really equates to less than one year) master's program in which I'm expected to do the research for and then write a thesis (I know I'll be okay) while taking classes. It's stressful. I gave up on life today and took a nap. I binge on rice cakes. But I'm trying to learn to move through it. I love where I am in life, but at the same time I know it's a short transition so I am also stressing about applying to doctoral programs. Just really stressing about this next step, all while trying to enjoy where I am. rant over

    Thanks for listening!

    Edit: bit-->big
u/wub1234 · 2 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

I completely agree with that Saint_Chad_of_Mercia and alreadyredschool have said. And if you're talking about a serious habit-forming addiction like alcohol then breaking the chain can be incredibly tough.

But I firmly believe that we have the power within ourselves to change, it's just that in many cases we want the outcome without the investing in the process.

There is a book called "Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice" written by Matthew Syed, who used to be the British number 1 in table tennis. And he asserts that the importance of talent is overrated, and what is really required to get extremely good at something, possibly close to world-class level, is 10,000 hours of sustained, quality practice. I don't entirely agree with him, actually, but the point is that you can get good at virtually anything if you try really hard.

So I heard about this guy who read the book and decided to carry out a challenge on the Internet. He was rubbish at sport, uncoordinated, had never played table tennis before in his life. And he decided he was going to practice table tennis every day for a year, and try to get to top 250 in Britain level. And he filmed the process every day for a vlog.

When he started he was absolutely atrocious. By the end of the year, he was a tournament-standard table tennis player:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y21uwFUgkE

For me, this is an extremely inspiring video because it shows that if you want to get good at something then you can do it. It just depends on what level of commitment you're willing to make and what sort of investment you're willing to make in achieving your goals. It doesn't mean that anyone can do anything, but it does mean that if you set yourself reasonable goals in life then the only thing stopping you from achieving them is yourself.

If people really wanted to change whatever aspect of themselves that they believe needs to change then they could. It's just that human beings are lazy, for a variety of reasons, and want the reward without the effort.

u/Shacham · 2 pointsr/soccer

Tiger Woods dad was an amateur golf player and he trained him since he was a baby. His whole childhood was focused around trainings as a gold player.

David Beckham has an extreme case of OCD. He went every day to the park near his house and shot a ball at the same spot of a wall there. Thats how he gained his shot technique.

So basically, yes, what you do as a child has a massive effect on what people may be consider as "talent". If you're interested on the topic read this book, it answers to your question.

u/APSTNDPhy · 2 pointsr/sports

As I said... Loser mentality. Also has no grounds in science.

Read 'Bounce'.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bounce-Myth-Talent-Power-Practice/dp/0007350546

u/MarcoVincenzo · 2 pointsr/atheism

Evolution is simply the science of how we got here and except for debunking theistic claims to the contrary (which calls into question all their other claims) doesn't provide much in the way of ethical guidelines. But, if I'm guessing correctly about where you're headed take a look at Matt Ridley's book The Origins of Virtue. It does a pretty good job of explaining how we evolved our sense of moral behavior.

u/pedropout · 2 pointsr/Libertarian

Adam Smith wrote a book called Theory of Moral Sentiments that described human nature in a way that would be familiar to many socialists. We are altruistic, compassionate, cooperative, and loving. Humans don't act like homo economicus in our daily lives. All of this is complementary to and compatible with Smith's description of man as a self-interested being, which most people are familiar with because of his much more famous book, Wealth of Nations. These aspects of human nature are, in fact, what make capitalism work so well.

Good books on the subject:

How Adam Smith Can Change Your Life: An Unexpected Guide to Human Nature and Happiness by Russ Roberts. This book is brand new and excellent.

The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation by Matt Ridley

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker

u/sdvneuro · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

A couple of good books that look at this:

The Moral Animal
by Robert Wright

The Origins of Virtue
by Matt Ridley

Braintrust
by Patricia Churchland

Ridley looks specifically at the evolution of cooperation. Wright considers a broader range of questions - for instance he looks at sexual mores and customs - ie. polygyny and monogamy, why men care much more about sexual fidelity than women do, etc. If I had my copy here I could probably find some more to point out and provide some of his ideas.... It's a great book (I also highly recommend his book Nonzero). Churchland specifically gets into the neuroscience of morality.

u/Clean39T · 2 pointsr/Portland

Quite true. I've seen more neighbors, and actually talked to them and their kids, more in the last day than the last two years. There's something disarming about this shared abnormality. Rebecca Solnit captured it well in A Paradise Built In Hell.

u/Socrateswasacowboy · 2 pointsr/conspiratard

Thanks for the recommendation. I read a whole lot. I did, in fact, read that article I just have some criticisms as you know.

You must realize you have just made a snide remark. I hope. I would suggest you read this book that I really enjoy: "Mistakes Were Made, but Not By Me" http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909

It is truly an excellent book by very accomplished social scientists.

u/h1ppophagist · 2 pointsr/CanadaPolitics

>it doesn't magically make them less lazy or ignorant, it just greatly increases the consequences of the fact that they're lazy and ignorant.

I couldn't agree more.

I have a couple of points to add which don't directly support either your or shawndw's side in the argument, but which add a layer of complexity to the picture.

Shawndw had said that

>Under direct democracy people will have nobody to blame except themselves

The problem with this is that, to take one of the best examples of direct democracy we have, according to élites in ancient Athens like Plato and Xenophon, the Athenian demos/people did not blame themselves; rather, when "the people" made a bad decision, individual citizens denied having voted for it and avoided the responsibility for the decision. Funnily enough, however, this could actually be an advantage, for because responsibility for a decision wasn't placed squarely on the shoulders of specific individuals, the demos was quite willing to admit its mistakes and change its collective mind on a decision.

In a system where responsibility is clearly held by certain officials, however, these officials are propelled by the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance/disconfirmation bias to cling to their beliefs more strongly when the flaws in them are pointed out. The reaction of the Bush administration to the non-discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is cited by some as an example here.

So I suppose this point isn't directly related to what you were saying—that direct democracy is unlikely to lead to greater knowledge among citizens, and therefore to more correct decisions, a claim with which I completely agree—but what I'm saying does indicate that collectivities may be more willing to correct their mistakes when they do screw up than officials blinded by pride, or simply by their habitual way of seeing a matter of policy.

u/troglozyte · 2 pointsr/LessWrong

To add to the booklist from /u/fubo -

Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts

by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson

http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909

- This may be exactly what you're looking for.

Review (Part 1) - http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2008/01/mistakes-were-1.html

Review (Part 2) - http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2008/01/defensiveness-r.html

Interview with co-author Carol Tavris - http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2008/02/thank-you-so-mu.html

u/jbs398 · 2 pointsr/InsightfulQuestions

For further discussion, read "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts". Some excellent discussion on memory and interactions with motivation and actions.

u/rogueman999 · 2 pointsr/TheRedPill

About time this got to the front page of TRP. OP, you'll want to read the book too. I put it off for a long time because I thought it's just a longer version of the speech, but boy was I wrong.

u/Demonspawn · 2 pointsr/MensRights

>He didn't publish this elsewhere, did he?

Actually (I only found this out a few months ago and I've cited that speech for years) the speech was actually about his book of the same name! I don't have my paws on it yet, but you can find it on amazon

u/Fatalistic · 2 pointsr/science

Except we've already covered this and it can't be selection bias when it is a mixed group who are all undertaking the tests for varying reasons, including those that are court-ordered. Enough tests have been run (millions) to be statistically significant and representative of the general public, as well.

Did you know that the current population of humans is descended from twice many women as men? DNA analysis has proven that. Fun fact, that.

u/hopeless_case · 2 pointsr/MensRights

Here is a great essay on where gender roles come from, how the males ones are constricting, and why female roles were relaxed first:
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

And here is a book where the author expanded on the original essay:
http://www.amazon.com/There-Anything-Good-About-Men/dp/019537410X

u/axemred2 · 2 pointsr/OneY

The speaker wrote a whole book about this later. And here it is:

http://www.amazon.com/There-Anything-Good-About-Men/dp/019537410X

u/problem_redditor · 2 pointsr/MensRights

https://www.academia.edu/38034640/The_Privileged_Sex_-_Create_Space_Independent_-_Martin_van_Creveld

"The Privileged Sex" by Martin van Creveld is a great read about men's issues.

EDIT: I haven't personally read this one, but a lot of people seem to say "Is There Anything Good About Men" by Roy Baumeister is a good book on the topic as well. https://www.amazon.com/There-Anything-Good-About-Men/dp/019537410X

u/cmumford · 2 pointsr/MensRights

I agree that The Myth of Male Power is basically the MRM bible - read it first. However, my favorite book - by far - is Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men. Also, if you have a young boy I suggest Boys Adrift: The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young Men for it's medical advice.

u/pricecheckaisle4 · 2 pointsr/Edmonton

You might enjoy this - it was a fun read, full of great nuggets like the above.

http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194

u/ood_lambda · 2 pointsr/askscience

I'd recommend reading Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us). It's an excellent introduction to traffic science and why certain certain laws and recommendations exist. My only real complaint is it should have been about 100 pages shorter and I found myself skipping several large sections.

u/walkinthecow · 2 pointsr/funny

You would likely enjoy this book

It was very interesting, and quite an easy read, contrary to the multitude of people who said to me, "you're reading a book about...traffic?"

u/-PM_ME_YOUR_SMILE- · 2 pointsr/videos

There is a really interesting book by a man named Tom Vanderbilt called Traffic: Why we drive the way we do (and what it says about us). I suggest anyone that finds this video interesting to check this book out.

u/Jrix · 2 pointsr/DoesAnybodyElse

Most people use that strategy, even the people you're judging probably use that strategy most of the time. I'm not really sure of the relevance of this counter point. Are you suggesting there is no benefit to the "hope light turns green" strategy?

You seem to be suggesting that you do not laugh when they make a green light, even though the decision remains the same. (Your "laugh" is obviously a reference to the person, not the circumstances)

Btw I recommend this book. Maybe it can help shed your attitude a bit (sorry about the high horse and all, the ground's all dirty).





u/Erythrocruorin · 2 pointsr/pics

You live in that? Oh my. If that represents their very best ideas about how to design good traffic flow, I'd be terrified to think about what other "brilliant" ideas they come up with. My heart goes out to you.

For something uplifting, check out Tom Vanderbilt's fantastic book on traffic.

u/FatBabyGiraffe · 2 pointsr/Economics

Thanks for sharing. Only problem I see is getting drivers used to riders sharing lanes. You can pass as many laws as you want, but if social norms dictate otherwise, people will ignore them.

A great book on driving in general is Traffic

I would love if Illinois got behind this. We have terrible roads as is.

u/Reedpo · 2 pointsr/Denver

http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194

You might enjoy this book. Or hate it... The prologue is titled: "Why I Became a Late Merger (and Why You Should Too)"

u/firenze86 · 2 pointsr/Calgary

This is correct. Good Work! People who downvote this are retarded. Only problem is there are humans involved (like the ones down voting common sense) and they are good at fucking everything over for their own personal gain.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_merge


Though I almost always go out of my way to never let Escalades merge no matter the circumstances are!!!

Edit: Everyone should have to read this book before getting a drivers license. You can read the late merging section in the preview.

http://www.amazon.ca/Traffic-Drive-What-About-ebook/dp/B00328ZUT8/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1369792448&sr=8-4&keywords=traffic

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307277194/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

u/drushkey · 2 pointsr/CitiesSkylines

That's a difficult question for me to answer. Someone working in career placement (or whatever it's called - someone who helps you chose a career) could probably give you a better general answer.

In terms of games, you could try playing OpenTTD (Open Transport Tycoon Deluxe) or Cities in Motion 2 (the game Colossal Order made before Cities: Skylines). Both have a much stronger transportation focus, with a good deal more micromanagement and therefore a steeper learning curve, and are a notch closer to what I do IRL. If you can play either/both for days without getting bored, you might want to be a traffic engineer.

If you'd rather read, you could get Traffic: Why we drive the way we do. I think it's a good read for anyone who lives on a street. If you read that and think "I wish this was 10 times longer and also my life", you might want to be a traffic engineer.

If you want to dive into some more technical stuff, wikipedia has some good articles, e.g. on the Braess paradox (the math is interesting, but you can probably skip over it since it's pretty high-level, abstract stuff). If you get to the bottom of that and start clicking all the "See also" links, you might want to be a traffic engineer.

If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask :)

u/ikidd · 2 pointsr/Whatcouldgowrong

Read Traffic. It actually corroborates what /u/alexmg2420 says. Assuming, of course, that the receiving lane acts civil and lets traffic alternate in.

u/uetani · 2 pointsr/politics

I suggest this book. Your commend about being "offended" above is key to the answer. Conservatives tend to value loyalty much more highly than liberals, which means that comments that may be true in the abstract become offensive in the concrete.

Anyway...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/dp/0307377903

u/r_a_g_s · 2 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

tl;dr Great post, OP! Everyone, no matter what "side" you might or might not be on, check out Jonathan Haidt's work on moral foundations, either in his book The Righteous Mind, or via his websites or TED talks.

Not going to read all the comments; just skimmed over a selection. My thoughts? First, I really like what OP posted. I think his assessments of each side are relatively accurate, and I agree that (not only with this issue, but with any issue, whether it's political or not, whether it's a "moral issue" or not) it's always a good idea to understand what someone who disagrees with you believes, to understand how they view the situation, and to understand why they view it that way.

The primary hurdle, though, is that people generally do not arrive at positions on political issues (especially if they're seen as "moral issues") by a nice, sound, rational, logical process of starting with data and axioms and reasoning their way to a nice, sound conclusion. This fact is something that has driven me nuts for most of my 50 years. Fortunately, last year I read Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind. Read it. Seriuosly. Everyone on this subreddit, everyone who wants to discuss political issues, must read it. (Or, at the very least, watch Haidt's TED talks.) But the gist of his argument, as relevant to this post/this issue, goes like this:

  • There is a set of "moral foundations" that we humans developed along the way, presumably via evolution and the societies we created as early humans. (Although there's nothing wrong with believing that we instead received those moral foundations from God or someone/thing similar.)
  • These moral foundations don't work at the rational level; they work at the subconscious level, at the emotional level, at the "gut" level.
  • Typically, we think we're using reason and logic and data to come to our political or other opinions. However, what we're really doing is deciding on the position based on our emotional/subconscious/"gut" set of moral foundations, and then afterwards using reason and logic (and careful selection of which data to include and which to ignore) to explain, ex post facto, why we came to that decision. (Haidt suggests that our emotional/subconscious/"gut" reasoning is like an elephant, and our reason is like one who is riding on the elephant, and pretending to guide and direct the elephant. In fact, the elephant goes where it damn well pleases, and so the rider is instead left to explain why the elephant turned left here or turned right there; the rider isn't in control of the elephant, the rider is essentially the elephant's PR representative.)
  • There are 6 moral foundations. People who self-identify as "conservative" tend to rely on all six roughly equally: Care/harm, Fairness/cheating, Liberty/oppression, Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, and Sanctity/degradation. People who self-identify as "liberal", however, tend to rely only on the Care/harm, Liberty/oppression, and Fairness/cheating foundations.
  • And just to confuse things, self-identified liberals and conservatives often see and use the Fairness/cheating moral foundation differently. For example, a liberal might say "It's not fair to make it difficult for wannabe immigrants from Latin America to enter the US legally, and it's not fair to persecute and prosecute them once they're here," while a conservative might say "It's not fair for illegal immigrants to sneak in to the US when so many others follow the law and do it legally."

    Anyhow. Not just on this issue, but on any issue, examining it from the point of view of the moral foundations is a very good way to understand those who disagree with you. If you want to learn more, go to either or both of Haidt's websites moralfoundations.org -- which talks about moral foundations theory -- and yourmorals.org -- which has a number of tests you can take to understand your own moral foundations.
u/ConstantlySlippery · 2 pointsr/skeptic

Interesting.

He mentions Jonathan Haight in the talk. I highly recommend his book The Righteous Mind. It goes into great detail about how and why people believe and defend their beliefs as they do. It is a fantastic book.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0307377903?pc_redir=1397219270&robot_redir=1

u/EyesEarsMouthAndNose · 2 pointsr/exmormon

Read The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt. In depth analysis on this very subject.

u/nantesorkestar · 2 pointsr/amiugly

Except your assertion of them being "awful" is subjective, not grounded in objective fact. Sure there are awful Trump supporters but as you said yourself, you can't hate a whole group of people for the actions of a few. At your age, I was also very set in my ways and thought my views were morally superior to others. As I got older, I realized I knew a fraction of what I thought I did. I recommend reading [this book.] (https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777)

I despise Trump and I'm as "Left" as you can get but it's very off putting to see liberals act in such an authoritarian and closed-minded manner.

u/PopcornTruther · 2 pointsr/exmormon
u/jhilden13 · 2 pointsr/CGPGrey

This isn't technically productivity as much as it is the human condition, but I would absolutely love to hear your and Mike's take on The Righteous Mind (Jonathan Heidt)

u/Dennerman1 · 2 pointsr/AskSocialScience

Two great books on this very topic, but the short answer is you have the best chance to change someone's mind when they see you as someone "on their side" or in their group/tribe. If they perceive you as someone from the "opposition" then they will get defensive and no amount of convincing, facts, or persuasion is likely to have an impact on their point of view.

The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0052FF7YM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003WEAI4E/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

u/gualdhar · 2 pointsr/politics

Moral Politics by George Lakoff, and The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. Both are solid books on why conservatives and liberals think differently, though the first is a little dated with its references.

u/QuantumCynics · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

Well as far as the humor, I think this is part of the answer:

http://research.vtc.vt.edu/news/2014/oct/29/liberal-or-conservative-brain-responses-disgusting/

Basically you have the establishment comedy set who tells jokes like The Aristocrats (extreme example, but relevant). These are late night comedy hosts and if you look at the above research and listen to this highly NSFW joke, you'll get the disconnect.

I also recommend The Righteous Mind as a component of the answer, which is part of but expands on the 'disgust' angle. It's an excellent bit of research and Jon Haidt is worth listening to. He's got Ted Talks, etc.

u/TheManisOut · 1 pointr/northkorea

It's a one of a kind state. Hard currency is brought in through Various illegal operations with aid by the Swiss who help them keep it safe and make it "cleaner"I still plan on going, I look at it as this, the tourist money is a drop in the bucket. And the cult aspect is shrinking slowly, I feel one of the DPRKs top generals and pals will try to take over at a opportune moment. They're no fools, and media gets smuggled across the border from China now, giving them a glimpse of the "hellish imperialist world"
Also interesting is how closely some of their ideology is to WW2 era Japan.

Check out The Cleanest Race B.R. Meyers.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1935554344?pc_redir=1412261523&robot_redir=1

They wouldn't ever let the American defectors have Korean wives. They kidnaped a Romanian woman for James Dresnok. A Japanese for another, and I forget the other 2.
Any suggested docs or books on NK? Check out the cleanest race. Great work.

u/nitram9 · 1 pointr/Lightbulb

Ok I think we have a misunderstanding about what morality really is. To me having morals doesn't mean you do the right thing all the time. It means you have a code of right and wrong. When you make a decision you can pass it through this code and tell if it feels right or feels wrong. What you actually do though isn't constrained by this. There's always an interplay between doing what's right and doing what you think is best for you. So yes people will cheat to get ahead, have affairs, bully people. The important thing though is that they know it's wrong.

In fact, the majority of murders are actually done for moral reasons. What I mean is that the murderer has passed his action through his moral code and determined that they are justified in doing it. Usually this is because their moral code differs from societies moral code and they deem that since society won't punish the wrong doer they have to punish them. This usually involves people who take loyalty very seriously. Like the gangsters who say snitches get stitches. They aren't just killing in self interest, they also feel a very strong moral obligation to punish disloyal members. There's nothing strictly strange about this, group loyalty is one of our strong moral intuitions. A large part of our modern western society involves trying culture us away from this tendency so that we don't end up committing genocides and stuff.

Likewise infidelity provokes moral murder. Husbands and wives with an unusually high regard for loyalty can find the disloyalty of their partners morally unacceptable and since the government won't punish them they have to do it. This is why so many murders like this have the dumbfounding end result of the murderer turning themselves in and proudly confessing, saying things like "and I'd do it again".

This is interesting because it strikingly illustrates where our societies morals have shifted away from the built in innate morals we are inclined towards. I mean all the abrahamic religions for instance say adultery is punishable by death. Punishment for infidelity is extremely common through history and across cultures and when we remove those laws people find it hard to not take the law into their own hands.


> I don't understand your evidence that apes have anywhere near the sense of morality we have. Sure, they teach their kids how to use tools from generation to generation but they also partake in murdering each other and rape. So they aren't paragons of morality in the animal world.

So I'm not saying they have anywhere near the level of "morality" that we do. Just that they have a sense of morality. It's not an all or nothing thing. Also, it's humorous that you would point to murdering and rape and say that means they're not moral. If that's so then discussion over, we're not moral either.

So like I said a lot of bad stuff is done for moral reason but there's a lot of bad stuff done for selfish reasons. There's an interplay in evolution of social species between cooperating and benefiting everyone and not cooperating to benefit yourself. This is what's going on in apes and in us. We rape because it benefits us (the more we rape the more children we have and children is everything) but we punish rape because it's bad for the community. Or in other words it's bad when everyone does it, it's good when I do it.

> I'm curious about your hypothetical island metaphor with 200 people. You seem to believe they would all get along and form a religion out of that morality. I feel like you're ignoring the likely possibility that 100 may form one religion, and the other 100 form another. So, what happens to morality then? What if they are at war?

Yeah I think I answered this above but to be clear, of course all that will happen because they are people but they will still form a moral code that they judge everyone on. Their fights will likely be of a moral character. Arguing as to whether it's ok to marry that widow or not and who get's to decide who marries who, who raises the orphans etc.

Ok, this has been so much writing so if you've gotten this far thank you but I wouldn't blame you if you flamed out half way through I just want to end with some very very strong book recommendations:

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. - by Jonathan Haidt

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined - by Steven Pinker

If you don't want to read either of those books at least just search for videos of presentations that they did on those books. It will give you a good idea of where I'm coming from.

u/kneekneeknee · 1 pointr/politics

Haidt is a thoughtful human, worth serious attention; he wrote The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.

From The Atlantic piece:
>Speaking spontaneously, in response to questions from reporters, [Trump] returned to his “many sides” formulation and the moral equivalency of the marchers and counter-demonstrators. The president of the United States said that there were “very fine people” on both sides.

>In that moment, Trump committed the gravest act of sacrilege of his presidency. In that moment, the president rendered himself untouchable by all who share the belief that Nazis and the KKK are not just bad—they are taboo.

u/gibbonwalker · 1 pointr/atheism

And of course we have a right to be outraged by these people. They stand in the way of our progress as a species in order to protect their personal faith in antiquated belief systems which have remained unchanged despite millennia of scientific advancements. But if we have any right to condemn them for failing to question their beliefs, then we must exercise the ability to question our own lest we be admit ourselves to be hypocrites. So I ask that you take a moment to question your view that having religion is a sign of intellectual inferiority, emotional weakness, gullibility, irrationality, or some other human defect. This is a convenient belief to have and one which I had myself for many years, but it's shamefully naive and as detrimental as any religion is to our efforts to unite as a species.

This view of religion is a result of misunderstanding the problem religion is solving. It's like thinking that a hammer is terrible tool because you saw someone attempt to use it as a screwdriver. Of course religion doesn't explain the physical world. That's not the point. You don't experience the physical world directly. Religion is a tool our species uses to understand the world that we do experience. The objective physical world around us that science so neatly explains only enters our conscious experience through our fallible senses and after being subjected to myriad unconscious filters and biases. We have innumerable reminders of this in the form of illusions. Consider the Muller-Lyer illusion or the Brainstorm/Green Needle illusion. Knowing that one line is longer than the other in the Muller-Lyer illusion doesn't change the fact that you perceive one line to be longer than the other. Not only is the reality you experience different from the objective reality, but even knowing what the objective reality is doesn't prevent you from experiencing it differently. Then consider the "Brainstorm / Green Needle" auditory illusion. The underlying stimulus isn't changing, but just by focusing on one phrase instead of the other, you hear that phrase. Together these illusions as well as others like them make it clear that (1) our experience is an inaccurate representation of reality and (2) the state of our mind can cause the same physical stimulus to be interpreted in very different ways. It's thoroughly established that explaining the physical world is outside the domain of religion, but consider the possibility that maybe religion can serve a practical purpose as a mental model for the experienced world.

Our survival as a species depended on our cooperation. Beyond our instinct for self-preservation, we needed to be able to see ourselves as a part of a larger whole and to be committed to serving that thing which is greater than ourselves. We needed to have an instinct for accountability to prevent any individual from jeopardizing the welfare of the group for their own needs. We needed to recognize actions which were beneficial to our survival so that we could facilitate and encourage them. We needed to recognize actions which posed a risk to our survival so we could inhibit and discourage them. Undeniably you experience things as "good" or "bad", but these aren't physical properties of the world like mass or density. No matter how much you analyze or deconstruct some action or some object, you can't find any trace of "goodness" or "badness", but that doesn't change how real your experience of it is. We find ourselves in a world which is a far cry from the one our brain was meant to function in and we struggle to navigate it. Religion creates a system for describing our experience and guiding it. It does so in the format of a narrative, a format which our brains find easily digestible. Does believing in God help us make predictions about the world? No, but maybe it gives us an explanation for why we feel like there's something greater than us that we should serve. Are some actions holy and others sinful? No, but maybe it helps us understand why we perceive "goodness" and "badness" in the world.

You don't understand religious people because they reject a system for explaining the natural world. Religious people don't understand you because you reject a system for explaining the experienced world. Religion isn't just a glitch in human behavior, its a tool for easing the transition into habitats which evolved faster than our brains could. Yes you can't reason with religious people because they don't reason their way into religion. It was just something which allowed them to make sense of the phenomena of conscious experience which aren't directly perceivable. What we need is a way to express and understand our spirituality which doesn't rely on buying into a belief system that precludes moral progress.

I suggest reading The Righteous Mind by Johnathan Haidt as some of these ideas are present in the book. I apologize for any such ideas I've misrepresented.

u/longhorn2013 · 1 pointr/Conservative

Hey, just for this comment, I recommend reading the book 'The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion' - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0052FF7YM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1). It is written by a liberal, but he gains respect for the conservatives by trying to actually understand WHY they think how they think how they do. To give you a brief description, he thinks there are multiple moral 'axis' which people think on. One of the main one used used by the left is the 'harm principle', which states that actions are wrong if, and only if they harm others. He has other axis, such as 'cleanliness', which explore other interesting moral questions (is it "wrong" to have sexual intercourse with a chicken's carcass?). I found it an invaluable tool, especially for understanding the religious right.

u/thesmokingpants · 1 pointr/InsightfulQuestions

I generally agree here but I think you might be painting a broad brush on conservative perspectives.

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0052FF7YM/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_88EOzbAX3DX47

https://youtu.be/ONUM4akzLGE

2017 Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQAT-0aSPq-OKOpQlHyR4k5h

u/lesslucid · 1 pointr/AskALiberal

My answer to this is a bit complicated, but the short version is: it's important to try to keep an ear open for the the best arguments made by reasonable conservatives, but one shouldn't expect to hear any of those arguments being made by the mainstream of American conservatism, who have essentially expelled reasonableness from their ranks.
~
For a longer version, I'd say, watch CGP Grey's "This video will make you angry", read David Roberts on NYT conservatism, and read Jon Haidt's "Righteous Mind", maybe also Yglesias on "The Hack Gap".
~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/15/17113176/new-york-times-opinion-page-conservatism
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/23/18004478/hack-gap-explained
https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777
~
I'd explain more but that's probably a whole essay of stuff. But yes, you shouldn't be at all surprised that your efforts to engage in good faith with the best arguments your "local republicans" have to offer end in frustration.

u/FantasticMikey · 1 pointr/Liberal

I highly recommend the book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" - it's about this very thing. About how we usually make up our judgements based on feeling, then justify our judgements with reasoning. When we go to talk to someone else about it, we're using reasoning, but they're still on feeling.

u/Necoras · 1 pointr/Christianity

A few things. You're correct that he doesn't define morality here. It's a 20 minute TED talk. His complete wouldn't have fit, nor would it have been convincing if he'd presented it without any reason backing it up. It takes him 11 chapters of reason and logic in his book (which I highly recommend) before he presents his definition. I will link to his definition here, but it likely won't be particularly convincing without his background on why (and I'm paraphrasing from the book here) 1) rationalism is problematic, 2) morality is about more than harm and fairness, and 3) morality must be seen in a groupish context rather than solely as how it relates to individuals.

But he does expressly say that his definition is functional. That is it

>"define[s] morality by what it does, rather than by specifying what content counts as moral."

So he's trying to explain morality based on what we do with it and how it's useful to humanity as a species, rather than saying "X is always right and Y is always wrong."

Moving on,

> conservative morality we find it has a basis in adherence to religious rules

This is incorrect. Conservative morality has a strong basis in authority, group loyalty, and purity. Those are not inherently religious in nature, though it is very common that the supreme authority figure is a god or gods. Rather they are traits which encourage cohesiveness of groups (family, city, nation state, corporation) as contrasted to the liberal "do whatever you want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else." Consider the contrasting views on sexuality, and the potential moral outcomes of each viewpoint.

Liberals mostly believe that sex before marriage is fine; indeed they often view it as morally wrong not to have sex before making a long term commitment. Multiple partners are fine, so long as everyone is consenting. Homosexual relationships are fine, again assuming consent.

Conservatives mostly believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. It leads to the breakdown of families, a rise in single parenthood, the spread of disease, and the general degradation of society. Correspondingly they're also anti-pornography.

So what are the potential outcomes on both sides? Well, pre-birth control and pre-antibiotics the conservative argument was pretty compelling. Unwed mothers led to babies who weren't cared for as well as they otherwise would be. Families where one parent refuse to take responsibility break down social structure (as we see today in many African American communities). That has direct moral and economic impacts not only on the families themselves, but the communities as a whole. Non-monogamous sex also led to the spread of disease, sometimes with disastrous consequences as in the gay community in the 80's. With regards to pornography, women are degraded, their lives destroyed. It was obvious (to a conservative leaning brain) that sex is sacred and not treating it as such leads to obvious problems.

On the other hand, treating sex as sacred and only to be partaken of in the context of marriage has its own problems. It can lead to "purity culture" where you have young men and women who are so terrified of sex because of what they've been told by their parents and churches that they're unable to have healthy sex lives once they're married. It can lead to LGBT youth who are depressed as to the point of suicide because of the treatment by their communities. It can lead to marriages where both partners are unhappy with their sex lives for decades. It's obvious (to a liberal leaning brain) that treating sex as sacred is unhealthy and that treating it as such leads to obvious problems.

So which one's right? Which perspective is "moral?" Well, it depends greatly on the culture and society at hand. In reality the truth of what works best (in modern day America and Western Europe) is somewhere in the middle. In a less technologically advanced society, you arguably need social mores to constrain sexual activity in a community to promote strong family structures and prevent the spread of disease. Even in our own community there are significant problems associated with single parenthood. Any parent knows that it's hard enough even when there are two fully involved adults. And while STDs are largely treatable today, with the rise of antibiotic resistance they're again becoming a concern.

Now, you could do the same thing for authority, loyalty, and other forms of purity and point out that both are important, and that liberals and conservatives both have valuable opinions based on their viewpoints.

Finally, to your argument that

>conservative morality means something only to those that share that same rule set

these 6 moral foundations (his term, not mine) are found to some degree or another across all cultures on the planet. They certainly take different forms (head coverings here, marriage rites there, food taboos in a third place), but they are found everywhere, amongst all peoples. All peoples respond to authority in some way or another, whether it's authority to a father figure, local government, teacher, or a god. All peoples feel some group loyalty, whether it's to a sports team, a state, a country, or a religion. All people see some things as sacred, whether it's nature, human rights, or holy scriptures, and some things as profane, usually death, decay, and waste, among others.

You are entirely correct that the specifics differ between cultures, but the foundations are shared. They're built into our brains. We can't help it.

u/elbowbrunch · 1 pointr/Christianity

Nope, several arguments about complexity of choice between actual outcome, lack of choice, new globalist moralism in a shrinking world, simple paradigms, the righteous mind of politics, the differences between American Citizens vs a Christian Citizenship, and I also talked about ranked voting. Lots to discuss here why so dishonest?

u/DonkeyOatie · 1 pointr/changemyview

I read the article; thank you for providing it.

There is a huge gap in our assumptions (a la Haidt) and I don't think it would be fruitful to continue. I appreciate your good faith interaction.

u/JakeMakesSteaks · 1 pointr/books

This might be up your alley. I thought it was fascinating.

u/coke_and_coffee · 1 pointr/worldnews

> I’m sorry but all Republicans are vile and vicious. I can’t see how anybody can see it another way,

Lol. This is called being stuck in an filter bubble. There are plenty of Democrats who are horrible people you just see them as “on your side” so you excuse their behavior any way you can. I urge you to step outside your echo chamber and gain some perspective and stop generalizing. Heres a good book if you really want to learn some empathy for differing viewpoints: https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777/ref=nodl_

You don’t have to agree with republicans but at least learn to stop seeing them as evil. You’re attitude perfectly reflects the major political problem in this country.

u/scarpoochi · 1 pointr/The_Donald

Great post and great book. I just finished reading Haidt for an ethics and moral class. He also talks about a 6th moral pillar: 'liberty/oppression' and a conservative advantage in using these 6 moral foundations. I recommend the book to everyone in this sub.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777

u/bunnylover726 · 1 pointr/politics

You should read work by the psychologist Jonathon Haidt. He wrote a book back after the 2004 election looking at how the etiology of morality affects people's political leanings. His PhD dissertation was on where morals come from and he's also given a TED talk and written a few articles here and there.

u/YoungModern · 1 pointr/exmormon

The first thing you need to do is to integrate your shadow.

Learn how to avoid falling into inferior roles.

You also have to understand what motivates people. If you read the book above and The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion you will be able to understand people.

And yeah, you should listen to that podcast episode on "true" worldviews. You'll learn a lot and he's easy to follow.

u/Trotskyist · 1 pointr/LifeProTips

I mean, literally all of us are driven more by emotion than reason. It's part of being human. The best we can do is try to be aware of it and develop habits to catch ourselves when it happens.

I highly recommend this book on the subject if anyone's interested.

u/DarthRainbows · 1 pointr/psychology

Well its a book. On Amazon or elsewhere. Here.

u/Pirozhki · 1 pointr/malefashionadvice
u/littlenag · 1 pointr/LibertarianDebates

A book you might find interesting, and that I think answers your question on a somewhat technical level, is The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. See the sections on group selection.

u/Zhuurst · 1 pointr/atheism

How about these:

u/joethebob · 1 pointr/NeutralPolitics

There's an interesting book that attempts to describe this type of effect: The Righteous Mind
There are a few areas I thought he could have been more concise but they do help frame the context of his theory.

u/nychuman · 1 pointr/politics

Fair enough, but I have to address how misleading one of your statements are.

> Plus only the fringe right wingers are saying there’s going to be a civil war if/when trump is impeached, dont let the far right fear monger you into allowing a fascist to stay in office.

This is a very skewed view of it. Yes, extremist right wingers are antagonizing the idea of it, for sure (especially at this exact point in contemporary society). But there are intelligent people across the political and economic spectrum (remember, political beliefs are not one dimensional, see political compass 2 axis political scale) that believe and understand the gravity of not only the rhetoric on all extreme axes of ideology, but have taken into account real evidence such as racially motivated police shootings, federal government law enforcement standoffs with cults and farmers, skirmishes between ANTIFA and far right neo-fascist groups, as well as evidence of deep cultural divides between urban America and rural America (such that blame is distributed holistically across the populace), and so on.

I am not being fear mongered by any extremist group or set of ideals, but simply am observing the frankly disturbing yet realistic information in front of me. There are large swaths of valid arguments to made (especially in the psycho-political and statistical spheres) that we must take responsibility as individuals and groups to not let the fabric of modern society split in two or three as it has for millennia (including both world wars and basically every human conflict ever to be fought).

This is of course, not even to mention the ramifications of such an event. The power vacuum that would envelope following the demise of the US anchored system as we know it is exactly what adversarial groups across the world are looking for. Russia and China would have a hayday carving up society for themselves, not to mention nations like North Korea, Iran, Turkey, as well as more minor terrorist, religious, and private organizations.

This is why they're trying to divide us, be above it. Not just another who is unaware and succumbs to it, playing their game and blaming The Other Side™️. With that all being said, yes at this moment in history (frankly since the 80s) the Republican party has been leading us to this point, but not alone, we've just been there, not doing anything about it. Tons of cognitive biases come into effect here at the local level: bystander effect, tribalism, unconscious bias, duning Kruger effect, cognitive dissonance, etc.

Disclaimer: this is not me endorsing one side or the other, frankly I hope the Democrats are valiantly successful and change and fix the country forever and for the better. I've voted with them since I've been legal, but maybe one day that'll change too. Think for yourself and don't succumb to the us vs them, rationals across the world are begging you.

I highly recommend the following sources and revisting your mindset:

u/The_Dazed_Kuala · 1 pointr/AskSocialScience

[The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion] (https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777)

u/LargeSalad · 1 pointr/politics

Companies use this Visa as a workaround. They hire trained foreign workers from poorer countries for lower pay which in turn drives down everyone elses entry wages. There are probably other examples but I have first hand experience with this one. It's not all about Xenophobia man. Also, no one said every single person voting that way is smart or informed. Ignorance does not make you automatically xenophobic.

If you want to talk about tribalism watch this and then read the book.

u/Religious_Redditor · 1 pointr/Ask_Politics

General

  • The Righteous Mind - OP, if you only choose one book, it's gotta be this one. Trust me.
  • The Fractured Republic - Written by a committed conservative, but very fair. Critical of his own side and empathetic of the positive traits on the left. Also one of the best writers in political history/theory imo.

    Conservative - I'm keenly interested in the intellectual history of American Conservatism and could make this this list could go on forever. I'll keep it to three, but if you want more suggestions feel free to ask.

  • 10 Conservative Principles - Not a book, but essential to understanding conservatism
  • Conservatism in America Since 1930 - A reader that guides you along a chronological and ideological path of conservatism in America.
  • Hillbilly Elegy - Less academic, but very well written and explains the support of Trump from the rural white working class perfectly

    Liberal - You may get a better liberal reading list from another user, but I'll give it a shot.

  • On Liberty - Modern political dialog from the left still echos Mill's classic defense of cultural liberty. A must read for all Americans.
  • American Progressivism: A Reader - As you can tell, I'm a big fan of reading political giants in their own words.
  • The Affluent Society - The controversial classic that underpins progressive economic policy.
u/mistral7 · 1 pointr/dataisbeautiful

A carefully devised perspective: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt.

It's not a short sound bite. Rather, Haidt presents reasoned insights.

u/N1ck1McSpears · 1 pointr/politics

You have to read (or at least look up) this book https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777 If you haven't used the audible free trial I recommend the audio book. It's read by the author

There's also this interview with the author. FANTASTIC http://billmoyers.com/segment/jonathan-haidt-explains-our-contentious-culture/

I recommend it all over Reddit every chance I get. It explains everything you're talking about here, but from a scientific standpoint. It's also really extremely enlightening. I just know you'll love it.

u/Taome · 1 pointr/politics

I am old enough to remember the 1950s and the Red Scare mentality so dominant at that time. Anyone else remember, for example, the hysterical warnings that commies want to control every detail of our lives right down to the time we have to set our alarm clocks? I remember. I think that Bernie Sanders would have been totally buried under a massive red-baiting campaign by the Republicans if he had been the Democratic nominee.

Anyway, those struggling to understand this election might want to read Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion and Joshua Greene's Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them.

u/wentwhere · 1 pointr/IAmA

I'm sure that Dr Aslan will have a more complete answer for you, but you may be interested in Jonathan Haidt's book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. Based on your questions, I think you would enjoy the in-depth psychological approach that the book takes toward the problem of antagonistic relationships arising from misunderstandings.

u/ihaventsaidenough · 1 pointr/exjw

I can't recommend reading The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt enough.

u/Sophocles · 1 pointr/TrueAtheism

If your friend thinks that he believes in some kind of objective morality, you might invite him to take some quizzes that test that idea.

Check out YourMorals.org and PhilosophyExperiments.com.

Also, Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind is a great read on this topic.

u/Notasurgeon · 1 pointr/skeptic

There's an excellent book about how this works, The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. Reading it has made me a lot more empathetic towards people who disagree on controversial topics, and also has helped me guide discussions on these topics in healthy directions. One major takeaway is that people look for facts and craft arguments to support their intuitions and beliefs, they don't craft beliefs based on facts and arguments. Also we craft logical arguments mostly to defend our beliefs and convince others, not to arrive at correct beliefs in the first place. So challenging beliefs directly with counter arguments is usually actually counterproductive, since it is easilly taken as a personal attack and just puts them into defense mode

u/francis2559 · 1 pointr/KotakuInAction

Sounds a lot like the arguments in The Righteous Mind, which I highly recommend if you haven't read already.

u/mnemosyne-0002 · 1 pointr/KotakuInAction

Archives for the links in comments:

u/kodadd · 1 pointr/svenskpolitik

Detta försök har i princip redan gjorts i vetenskapligt format. Ur The Righteous Mind:

>When I speak to liberal audiences about the three “binding” foundations – Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity – I find that many in the audience don’t just fail to resonate; they actively reject these concerns as immoral. Loyalty to a group shrinks the moral circle; it is the basis of racism and exclusion, they say. Authority is oppression. Sanctity is religious mumbo-jumbo whose only function is to suppress female sexuality and justify homophobia.

>In a study I did with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Qyestionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typical liberal” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typical conservative” would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people’s expectations about “typical” partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right)’ Who was best able to pretend to be the other?

>The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with questions such as “One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal” or ”Justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan [i.e., conservative] narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. He’s more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives.

>If you don’t see that Reagan is pursuing positive values of Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity, you almost have to conclude that Republicans see no positive value in Care and Fairness.

u/noetique · 1 pointr/girlsgonewired

Yes, absolutely, I've had feelings like this!

An other perspective which you might find helpful is the idea of 'Stereotype Threat'. Here, the problem is that the self-consciousness and pressure you might be feeling could be distracting you from doing your true best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat
http://www.amazon.com/Whistling-Vivaldi-Stereotypes-Affect-Issues/dp/0393339726

Claude Steele has been studying the phenomena for decades, in an effort to understand why minorities traditionally underperform despite equal credentials and clear talent. Stereotype threat experiments have repeatedly shown that when people are reminded of a negative stereotype related to a difficult task (one that requires focus), they perform worse on the task. For example, in an experiment with Asian women, they reminded half the participants that 'women are bad at math' before giving them a math test and the other half that 'Asians are good at math'. The participants reminded about the negative female stereotype performed significantly worse (in a p-value sense) than the other group.

Furthermore, in his studies of college students, he found that most minority students studied alone. As a result, they learned more slowly -- partly because they had to figure out everything on their own and partly because they missed the opportunity to explain things to others, which is a great way to solidify what you know. This also made them feel isolated, so they don't see how much everyone else is also struggling with the material. So my advice is to try to find some like-minded souls to program with; at minimum, try to do your homework in labs and libraries and strike up conversations with others. Nothing spots a bug like a fresh set of eyes.

And also, please try to keep a growth mindset about learning so you don't sweat every test grade and assignment. Practice makes perfect. Mistakes are opportunities to learn. None of the supposed 'naturals' at coding where born with that skill. Have you ever seen a baby try to the code? They suck at it. They can't even read.

PS - In countries where negative stereotypes about women and math/computing/science don't exist, women frequently outperform men, shown in the following graphic

https://mathbabe.org/2013/02/10/gender-bias-in-math/

u/Justusbraz · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Here's an interesting book that is predicated on this very action.

http://www.amazon.com/Whistling-Vivaldi-Stereotypes-Affect-Issues/dp/0393339726

u/mtVessel · 1 pointr/pics

Next time try whistling Vivaldi.

u/pixis-4950 · 1 pointr/doublespeaklockstep

neepuh wrote:

Hi carbuyer throwaway, a lot of people have mentioned that it's hard to get racist people to stop being racist. I agree. However, you might want to read a book called Whistling Vivaldi - It is a book about racial stereotyping in the Unites States and small steps you can take to overcome them. Truly enlightening book. Also, I'm so sorry about your experiences - from one American to another. It's important to remind yourself that you are not defined by what other people say and do to you. Much support.

u/sie_liebt · 1 pointr/todayilearned

It was the US and England that Hitler and the Nazi Party were concerned they were "falling behind" in regard to implementing sterilization programs. It is worth pointing out, though, that once they got that ball rolling, they seriously outpaced us, sterilizing more people in one year than we had in twenty. Also, their sterilization program rapidly grew to include "euthanasia", beginning with infants and children and only later going on to include adults. I'm reading this book currently. It's incredibly interesting and informative. Definitely worth picking up if you're interested in that sort of thing.

u/Clam666 · 1 pointr/todayilearned

That's something I've been saying. I have no idea what did or didn't happen in WW2, I wasn't there. And I'm more than willing the believe in the possibility that numbers are inflated to some extent, because there aren't detailed records giving an exact count. For years I had heard "6 million Jews killed" when they fail to mention that many of them were the disabled and infirm, the mentally handicapped, gypsies, homosexuals, political undesirables, and a variety of other figures. A book on how the medical field was corrupted and different kinds of people killed and methods is quite fascinating.

Even if the numbers are inflated, which Russia, the US, and Israel would never want to correct even if they were, who cares? Let's say there were only 1 million executed. How is that better? If there is some conspiracy that's inflating the numbers, great, but how is a million people acceptable? Hell 10,000 people is too many. Genocide isn't good at any number.

Let's say they discover incontrovertible proof that there were only 500,000 Jews (and others) killed in a factory fashion. What do we do with this information and "facts"?

These things are stupid, I'm not sure why people waste their time trying to uncover supposed conspiracies from 75 years ago, especially one that at best, alters some numbers of body counts which doesn't make anything better.

u/deathofregret · 1 pointr/todayilearned

holy shit if this isn't a book to get your skin crawling late at night. who needs r/nosleep when you can have nazi doctors

u/DejaBoo · 1 pointr/IAmA

Here's a very respected book to answer your question WritingIplement. Although very bleak. I read at most 10 pages at a time to try and digest how the "final solution" came to be. Hitler merely enforced a held belief by professionals that justified his hatred for the Jews.

Nazi Doctors

u/HikeBikeSurf · 1 pointr/sysadmin

I would highly recommend you read or listen to Stephen Pinker's new book on this subject.

u/YourFatherFigure · 1 pointr/philosophy

> Well how would you scientifically evaluate the statement that “murder is wrong”? One might say “ok, it reduces overall happiness in the world, which maybe we can measure.”

If you're interested in stuff like this but bored with the same old arguments from pragmatist ethics, I'd strongly recommend checking out Pinker's Enlightenment Now. Quantitative reasoning is not the only thing, but it's pretty much always a good thing

u/ChalkyTannins · 1 pointr/China

> My friend from Hunnan province told me that he would never support China being a democracy since then 80% of the country would vote for an extremist hawk-party that would send nukes on America first chance they got.

This is exactly why I can understand some of the party's tight control on media.

Anyway,

Been reading this optimistic book:

https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

thought i'd share to a self proclaimed pessimist :D

Also recently read more deeply into China's more recent leaders like jian zemin (disgusting, corrupt as fuck) and hu jintao (pretty amazing). I was very surprised at Hu's contributions, people dont' really seem to talk about him.

In Hu’s words, "A Harmonious Socialist Society should feature democracy." Such a society, he says, will give full scope to people's talent and creativity, enable all the people to share the social wealth brought by reform and development, and forge an ever-closer relationship between the people and government.

Seems he also greatly increased transparency between the party and the public.

Who knows what xi and the future brings. Xi's father has an interesting background, Dali Lama met him and fondly recalled him as "very friendly, comparatively open-minded, very nice.". He was also responsible for the economic liberalisation in Guangdong, so I'm somewhat hopeful that his son, is comparatively (putin/erdogan) more considerate about his own people than profiting from exploitation.

u/DanyelCavazos · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

I'd suggest you to read the book

Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution: A Global Perspective by T. E. Huff, on which he demonstrates that during the Renaissance of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the extraordinary fusion of Greek philosophy, Roman law, and Christian theology gave Europe a new and powerful civilizational coherence. This was the basis of the modern science: a combination of both greco-roman and judeo-christian principles, not only the later.


Also, you can read Enlightenment Now, for a more statistical-based notion of this topic:
https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570

u/Gray_party_of_2 · 1 pointr/libertarianmeme

I don't know. I think certain parts of a society need to be pulled into modern ethical norms.

I know this is anti-libertarian but I think the state needs to implement certain laws to help society behave more ethically.

I say this based on the data found in Steven Pinker's book Enlightenment Now. I highly recommend it and he does a far superior job articulating the importance of the state.

I don't want this to expand into a slippery slope argument. I think there need to be strong limits on government power.

Edit: Added Link

u/johngthomas · 1 pointr/u_ZapTheSwampWorldWide

William Barr would benefit from checking out Peter Singer and Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek’s recent work. They're real utilitarians, not pretend ones. That might also help him better understand that leading secular moralists are not relativists or subjectivists and that their morality is about making the world a better place. Barr would also benefit from reading about the moral progress we Homo sapiens have made by reading Steven Pinker’s two recent works: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/utilitarianism-a-very-short-introduction-9780198728795?cc=au&lang=en& https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0143122010 https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570

u/AFreebornManoftheUSA · 1 pointr/AskALiberal

\> But the data take a clear side in that debate. In his controversial bestseller Enlightenment Now, Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker notes a steep decline in racism.

Pinker also noted a steep decline in murder. That doesn't mean we don't push for even fewer murders.

u/Triabolical_ · 1 pointr/SpaceXLounge

I often recommend "Mistakes were made, but not by me". It's a wonderful discussion of cognitive dissonance and how and why this could easily be true.

u/Deckardzz · 1 pointr/RBNImages

Good point. This reminds me of a book called, "Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me."

u/Helvetian616 · 1 pointr/btc

> Even when he gets discovered, he'll try to justify his actions instead of adjusting his behavior.

I have to admit, I haven't seen that side of him, but again, that's something that's true of all of us.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0544574788/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1479435411&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=mistakes+were+made+but+not+by+me

u/DerDiud · 1 pointr/marriedredpill

> In my opinion kids would prefer to see their parents happy and separated to seeing them miserable and forcing a relationship to stay together.

I'll try to not be snarky this time.

I appreciate your opinion. But it is wrong. Not because I say so, but because the biggest study in human history about divorce children proofs that your opinion is wrong.

Not sure if you have kids, but if you do and plan on divorcing, you should probably ready this study: https://www.amazon.com/Unexpected-Legacy-Divorce-Landmark-Study/dp/0786886161

u/TrollaBot · 1 pointr/NHLHUT

Analyzing cinntwist

  • comments per month: 18.5 ^I ^help!
  • posts per month: 1.8 ^lurker
  • favorite sub NHLHUT
  • favorite words: cards, players, though.
  • age 4 years 6 months ^old ^man
  • profanity score 0.3% ^Gosh ^darnet ^gee ^wiz
  • trust score 104.8% ^tell ^them ^your ^secrets!



    New Quizzybot Game! Win 40 bucks!

  • Fun facts about cinntwist
    • "I am glad you are here to share it with everyone."
    • "I am half way through called the unexpected legacy of divorce."
    • "I am procrastinating from studying for finals in a few weeks haha."
    • "I am gunna try holtby."
    • "I am wanting all bronze cards and he is currently the best of the bronze defensemen."
    • "I am sure I can muster up another 3k in the next few days."
    • "I am not disagreeing with you, just saying I understand both sides."
    • "I am needing to improve on."
    • "I am happy with my mov Schneider and mov dubnyk."
    • "I've been watching them for a while and that was Henrik's price before injury as far as I knew."
    • "I am rocking sedin sedin Vrbata movs on line one."
u/veritasserum · 1 pointr/AdviceAnimals

Wrong. If you can handle the Big Words, go read this. It's a 25 year study of divorce that utterly refutes your claim:

https://www.amazon.com/Unexpected-Legacy-Divorce-Landmark-Study/dp/0786886161

Who am I? Someone with a conscience. Someone who thinks children shouldn't be fashion accessories in "relationships". Someone who thinks it should be hard for parents to split up because their children do way, way better when they stay together - even in crappy relationships, as the study above demonstrates. Someone who thinks minor children deserve maximal protection. Someone who thinks that when your reproduce, you degrees of freedom necessarily get diminished.

It used to be that only white trash or the ghetto underclass lived like this. Now every self important prat thinks they're cool when they spew forth children without the inconveniences of an actual marriage contract. I'll damn well judge all I want. People with your mindset are blight on civil society. What you defend is a subtle form of child abuse.

u/cinntwist · 1 pointr/NHLHUT

Really cool story man. I appreciate the openness of the story. It is amazing how powerful family can be both in good and bad. This post made me think of a book I am half way through called the unexpected legacy of divorce. My parents split when I was two and this book is shedding some light on how my siblings and I act in my eyes. PM me for info, you get a card :)

u/nealeyoung · 1 pointr/infj

Judith Wallerstein has written a few books summarizing studies on the effects of divorce on children. E.g. https://www.amazon.com/Unexpected-Legacy-Divorce-Landmark-Study/dp/0786886161 . You might find them interesting.

u/Westernhagen · 1 pointr/askMRP

>The psych literature seems to indicate that parents fighting is what fucks kids up, rather than parents divorcing per se.

Not all of it does. There is a school of thought that divorce is going to fuck your kids up no matter what - and the effects are long-term, not just in the years immediately after the breakup. That said, low-conflict divorce is obviously better than high-conflict divorce.

u/MildlyAgitatedBovine · 1 pointr/atheism

Intelligence is like HP, it has very little to do with which way the wheels are pointed. You can entertain a bunch of silly ideas without them affecting your world view (what if Chaney really is secretly an alien). These ideas are evaluated in a bubble you create in your head. The potential change in your worldview required to accept an idea and remain consistent is automatically measured without you thinking about it. If they get you young enough, the idea that god isn't there is just as nonsensical as aliens running the government... it can't be entertained seriously without threatening big and important parts of their world view.

check out The God Virus

Here is the author on Atheist Experience

u/Rationaliser · 1 pointr/exmuslim

Personally I wouldn't bother telling them. It is unreasonable of you to expect cult members to be reasonable :)

If you can live your life away from them and only visit when you need to, then perhaps just do that. This book has some pretty good tips on dealing with religious family: https://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Virus-Religion-Infects-Culture/dp/0970950519

u/andrecunha · 1 pointr/atheism

I would start with the classic Some mistakes of Moses, by Robert Ingersoll.

There is a short book called Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God, by Armin Navabi, that is also a nice read.

One that I recently finished reading and enjoyed very much is The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism, by Aron Ra. The book is not exactly about atheism; it's Aron's rebuttal to many creationist arguments, but Aron is a widely known atheist activist, and the book is very enjoyable.

I usually listen to The Thinking Atheist podcast, from Seth Andrews (a podcast I highly recommend, by the way). There are some book he suggested in his podcast that I haven't read yet, but which I included in my to-read list:

u/sbicknel · 1 pointr/atheism

[God Virus, The: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture](https://www.amazon.com/God-Virus-Religion-Infects-Culture/dp/0970950519 "")

u/Lost_Afropick · 1 pointr/InsightfulQuestions

I think so.

Check out this book, it's really good.

better angels of our nature

u/mmsood99 · 1 pointr/TrueAtheism


I am a great fan of the book "The Better Angels of our Nature" by Steven Pinker. His premise is society IS getting better and has research to prove it. Amazon.com describes is like this:

> Thanks to the spread of government, literacy, trade, and cosmopolitanism, we increasingly control our impulses, empathize with others, debunk toxic ideologies, and deploy our powers of reason to reduce the temptations of violence.

At the same time. much of society is getting more godless. You may not able to persuade your Gran, but be assured you are RIGHT.

u/DaystarEld · 1 pointr/rational

>So these things can be provided competitively/privately.

The question wasn't whether a private interest can supply them: it as whether they can be provided on a competitive basis. If you don't like one private interest's road, the tolls they set or the level of quality they keep, it's not exactly a low barrier of entry to make your own road.

And that privately constructed dam doesn't exist in a purely free-market environment: it follows regulations, it complies with government standards. The environmental impacts of the dam weren't even understood when it was built: put all such constructions in the hands of competing private interests and the resulting cascade of effects is even harder to account for.

>Actually, if I want real security for my property, the best thing I can do is remove poverty. Crime is an effect of poverty. So any organization competing for my money to prevent crime is going to have to address poverty as part of its plan. This may mean either making significant monetary contributions to alleviate poverty, or providing low cost patrols in impoverished areas.

Once again, congratulations in realizing this: the vast majority of people take the "screw you, I got mine" approach and simply buy big walls and lots of guards. If that were the predominant form of security enforcement, we'd basically be reverting back to the age of fiefdoms and castles.

>Not values I share either. Yet another thing a justice provider is going to have to do to get my business is prove that they aren't favoring the wealthy over the poor. This means third party audits and a focus on a reputation for justice.

Third party auditors that are funded how, exactly?

>I've been an anarchist a while now, I've seen many flaws of such a system, and adequate addressing of each for me. If you care to cite specifics, I'll be happy to address them myself for you.

Ah shit, I was hoping you were just a form of libertarian. Nothing personal, but I've long since tired of arguing such matters with anarchists: there's a chance you're more logical and evidence-based in your ideology than they all were, but a very small one, and it's just not worth the time investment for me to find out : /

As shown in your posts so far, the results seem predictably the same as past experiences: you're satisfied with your ideology because you presume everyone is a virtuous, educated rational actor. They're not. So as noted, it's kind of like talking to a communist about how their theories don't quite work in the real world.

I'll give you a chance to change my mind though, as is only fair. How does your hypothetical system deal with environmental protection?

From what I've seen, this is an area libertarians consistently fail to address, and is one of the major things that eventually made me stop considering myself one.

The basic idea I have of how libertarians/anarchists deal with pollution is that, with strong private property laws, individuals or companies that damage the environment will respond to litigation, so this litigation should in theory make up for the damages the companies do and deter future incidents.

Unfortunately, ecology is such a fantastically complex system that proving simple cause-and-effect responsibility from a private interest to an environmental issue is often impossible in a realistic time-frame to halt or address the behavior. And that's assuming enough funding could be provided to even investigate the cause-and-effect of a particular natural disaster or damage of pollution, especially if those affected are too poor.

What's worse, no change in limits on retaliatory litigation could make up for permanent damages to health or ecology. In many cases, private interests simply don't have nearly enough money to make up for all the damage their actions might do, even assuming the problem can even be fixed by money, and that they're made to pay for it in the first place.

As an example, if I start a company whose actions begin poisoning a river or lake (on my property) that feeds an aquifer three towns over, but the effects of it aren't realized or traced back for decades after I've already made my money and liquidated the company, even if my middle-men get dragged to court and our army of lawyers fails to prevent a guilty verdict, all the millions we lose will not undo the damage to the children born with leukemia as a result of those chemicals.

>I've already address roads above, but I'll ask you this, if nobody is going to these "isolated towns and locations" then why would roads be needed to go there?

"Few people" =/= "nobody." The value society gets from making sure the barrier of travel is as low as possible far exceeds the incredibly minor portion of its taxes that go to roads.

>On average Americans give about 5% $135.8 billion of their household income to charity, after paying an average of 17% federal, 2009 in taxes. I'd be willing to bet the charity rate increases when people are not taxed, and thus have more disposable income.

In your magical scenario where people are suddenly free from the shackles of taxes, but aren't now having to pick up the slack of what those taxes used to pay for for their personal security, roads, fire stations, mail services, medical services, education, etc, etc, sure :) Too bad that's not how reality works.

>Other countries do things differently, and I don't know them as well as I know how the United States government does things, but that doesn't change the nature of government.

You must recognize that this is a belief utterly lacking in massive amounts of data and alternate perspectives, as you yourself admit. May I humbly suggest you educate yourself, maybe even travel and talk with citizens of other nations, before jumping to such broad generalizations?

>It is a privileged group of people who are able to enact violence on others.

Careful, your bias is showing. "Able to enact violence on others" implies no accountability or oversight or consequences. Your perspective of government is pretty skewed indeed if you're basing it entirely on all the worst case scenarios and practices, and ignoring all the cases in which centralized authority deters and prevents harm. There are a number of studies and books on this: may I recommend The Better Angels of Our Nature?

>Since a large part of my morality states that it is never appropriate to initiate violence against another sentient being, I view government as immoral at its foundation, so how the violence is arranged is of little consequence to me.

And this is why I said above that I've tired of debate with anarchists: when so much of your worldview is based on black and whites, there's little room for reason, let alone honest debate.

u/IAmAPhoneBook · 1 pointr/todayilearned

>you'd just see a transfer of the same ugly obsessive shit from money/religion to whatever happens to be handy once you've taken those two things away.

I think that's still a very pessimistic (not realistic) view considering that violence has been on the decline as a phenomena for several hundred years.

Scientific American Article

A Lecture by Steven Pinker (He has a book on the subject which I haven't read yet but will add to my reading list.)

Clearly societal change is possible and, ethically speaking, the human race is moving up in the world-- not down.

u/Eryemil · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

>This gets into a question about metrics: "how do we know things are worse or better?" [...]

http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-Our-Nature/dp/1455883115

u/carnationvalley · 1 pointr/confession

I was going to forego replying at "unfortunately things aren't what they were 50 years ago", but I'll bash on regardless.

Firstly, I'm in the UK, so I can't speak on your political struggles with the First Amendment to any great extent. But of course I can differentiate for you the two ideas you have conflated - reporting rumours to the government, and stopping physical assault when you see it happening.

I understand that there's an atmosphere of mistrust and you don't like it. I'm with you in feeling that the White House has acted unlawfully in its surveillance endeavours and should be brought to hefty justice, possibly in the form of complete government reform (I feel similarly about our twin program over here). But surely you can see the difference between reporting (willingly) a suspicious act, and reporting a crime you have just seen happen?

I get that you feel this is some kind of example of the taut surveillance strings running from Government^TM to the individual lives of people. I think that's nonsense and, more specifically, counter-productive. The 'PC movement' is not a government invention to control the masses, no matter how many Orwellian novels one might read. And to equate speaking up against physical assault in a public place to that is frankly insulting to the masses who are actually trying to get some consideration and understanding into the societal conscious.

Between black and white, there are a million shades of grey. We, as an animal, are starting to come to grips with this necessity we have for exercising our critical thinking. I agree that we should not all live in a climate of fear where we suspect everyone else of being a terrorist - but we should also not all live as if our neighbours have suddenly been turned into automatons acting out the will of our governing bodies. Because honestly, and with all due respect, you come across a bit nutty when you fling out florid coined phrases like "Big Brother IS watching, and he's recruited your neighbour". As far back as I remember, if I had good reason to justify the belief that a neighbour was doing something that warranted reporting, I would have done it with or without the government asking me to, as I hope most people would. THAT is what I mean by 'social responsibility'. It's becoming more and more apparent to people that the Bystander Effect is a real thing that has been reinforced over years and years of "if it's not directly involving me, it's not my business" mentality. And lo and behold, as the age of greater social awareness kicks in, it turns out not only that getting involved would have saved a lot of people pain, but that what you ignored actually DOES involve you on a wider scale! It's just that you don't see it. It turns out societies are much more convoluted and interdependent than we ever thought, and the trickle-down effect of ignoring your fellow man's struggles is wide-spread so much so that you can't even see it from close-up. You can only feel the effects in your life and wonder where that came from.

Your misinformed opinion on the greater violence we now apparently endure in our lives is just a question of reading up on the matter. It turns out not only in the States, but worldwide, violence is actually on the decline and has been for some time. These. Are. Good. Starting. Points. And. From. there to begin the proper reading on the subject I usually recommend The Better Angels Of Our Nature, which was one of the main books I sourced my thesis on. It's information-rich, well-defined and very well-sourced, and a lot of its critiques are centred around the absence of faith-based hope for humanity, which I perversely find to be one of its strengths. I mean from there you can find different texts to do follow-up reading on in the bibliography and so on, but I don't have to tell you how to read haha!

The rise in litigiousness and the faults in our legal systems are not unknown to me, either, as the post-modern understanding of historical criminology goes hand-in-hand with the apparent pre-emptive policies necessary in light of modern changes. But don't forget, not once have I advocated that the guy jump on top of the man hurting the woman and attempt to rip out his intestines. Getting involved doesn't mean inciting a physical altercation and in fact I specified not putting yourself in harm's way whenever possible. The safety-conscious person knows that the safest and most effective way to diffuse such a situation is to alert the assaulter that they have been noticed and the appropriate authorities are being informed (going to the clerks/asking the woman if she wants you to call the police). Most studies of people convicted of violent crimes agree that they usually carry on their actions under the apprehension that they are not going to be stopped, that people will walk past and their actions will go unchecked. I wonder how we might go about breaking that apprehension...?

I mean I actually specified in my previous comment, you should "avoid putting yourself in harm's way whenever possible". I fully understand the importance of valuing and protecting your own life, and I don't think it sounds cold to consider the specifics of any situation, merely pragmatic. We're in full agreement on that point. I'd hate for anyone to read this and think I'm advocating thoughtless vigilante justice. We bear a social responsibility, and as anyone who understands the concept knows, this is primarily reliant on conducting yourself in as safe a manner as possible. This includes fending off violence in others, because it spreads like poison. 'Minding your own business' doesn't wash. It's everyone's business. It affects everyone. That violent person can be violent to other people if they feel like it's allowed in this situation. You do your bit to help other people and stop the violent person, that's just Humanity 101.

Finally, the different levels of physical assault warrant differing levels of punishment, not differing levels of interference. OP specifies that the woman did not even simply physically squirm and try to get away, she vocally yelled at him to let her go. This is not an ambiguous situation. This was unwanted physical contact, and it hurt her. This is physical assault. In this situation, you interfere. I'm happy to discuss other situations with you on a case-by-case basis if you really want to (you mention spanking a child, and escalating forms of physical assault), but this situation reserves very little ambiguity and I can't concede that OP should not have got involved.

I'm also sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning, and am grateful for your structurally cohesive and respectful response.

u/grawk1 · 1 pointr/changemyview

No, that's false equivocation, and I think you know it. I am making a stronger claim than that. Let me state it explicitly:

Given my (admittedly less than total) knowledge of the history of the places where Islam took hold, the doctrines of Islam and the psychology of religious belief, I estimate that there is a >90% chance that the world is more violent as a result of the rise of Islam than it would otherwise have been. In other words, if we had a time machine and could keep Mohammed as a merchant, I would accept 10 to 1 odds on the proposition that this alternate history would have had more humans dying at the hands of other humans intentionally.

Also, given my (admittedly less than total) knowledge of the history of the western world, colonialism, the enlightenment, the industrial revolution, the conflicts of the 20th century and the trend in rates of violence across the world in the period of the Western world's ascendance, I estimate that there is a >99.5% chance that the world is less violent as a result of the rise of the ideas of the Enlightenment than it would otherwise have been. In other words, if we had a time machine and could shut up all those European philosophers since the 17th century, I would accept 200 to 1 odds on the proposition that this alternate history would have had fewer humans dying at the hands of other humans intentionally.

I therefore reject your proposition that

>"We carry out our violence in the name of 'freedom' now and they carry out theirs in the name of 'Allah'. The violence is the same, it's really just a matter of rhetoric."

Violence has been provoked by the ideas of the Enlightenment and of Islam, but this does not make them equivalent - we have to judge them by the contents of the ideas and the real world consequences they have had.

u/VerlorenesMetallgeld · 1 pointr/todayilearned
u/Cylon_Skin_Job_2_10 · 1 pointr/exjw

One thing with conformation bias is learning to tune into the feelings that dissonant information causes. I was not personally freaked out about confirmation bias as to the Bible, God or the Org because I wanted so badly for it to be true for so long that realizing I had been wrong was a relief. I could finally let the reason stop being shut down by the feelings.

What I have noticed is a new feeling. One of wanting to see people wake and the org get exposed. And this is creating a new confirmation bias in me. It makes me want to question motives and see the worst in every little thing they do. I am trying to resist it, last thing I want to do is become too eager in my desire to confirm how bad the org is. Not every new little thing they do is a trick, a manipulation or a money grab. Some of it is, but it is so easy to take every news item about them and weave a narrative based more on my distaste and hurt feelings than the actual evidence.

Edit: Hey if you would like a whole book devoted to cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias check out: Mistakes Were Made But Not by Me: Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions and Hurtful Acts my journey didn't start with apostate sites, it started with that book entirely by accident.

u/Laq · 1 pointr/videos

There was an entire chapter or two about this in the book "Mistakes Were Made But Not By Me." https://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/1491514132

It went over how bad most of the interrogation training is. Many of them are basically trained to "trick" people into confessing even if they aren't guilty. Then once they get that cognitive dissonance kicks in and the refuse to re-look at evidence or admit fault later if proven wrong. It was really eye opening to me and did not enhance my trust in the police. >.<

u/ADavies · 1 pointr/WTF

Suggested reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Little-Black-Book-Violence-Fighting/dp/1594391297/ref=pd_sim_sg_1

I haven't read it yet, but I understand it puts the emphasis on avoiding and escaping violent situations.

In a situation like the one in Wisconsin, the goal is to avoid harm to yourself and your family. Don't mistake it for some sort of chance to play tough guy.

If you do seriously hurt or kill someone then you'll likely only incite further violence against yourself and people with you. You'll also start a feud with the guy's friends or family.

I'm not saying you should be intimidated. Just keep your eye on the prize (survival, not vengeance).

u/hopscotchchampion · 1 pointr/washingtondc

I'm sorry you had to experience that, I had a similar experience happen to me about 8 months ago. May I recommended http://www.kravmagadc.com it's a self defense system that is aimed at realistic street encounters. You'll train for multiple opponents, at positions of disadvantage, and development improvements in this areas in a relatively short period of time compared to other martial arts.

may I also recommended this book. The first 1/3 of the book details very well criminals choose their targets.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Little-Black-Book-Violence/dp/1594391297/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344953697&sr=8-1&keywords=little+black+book+of+violence

you made it out of that situation alive. Value that.

u/bcurran · 1 pointr/todayilearned

This book is a really good read if you want to learn more about North Korea. It also has some fascinating reproductions of their crazy-ass paintings.

u/Fuzzyphilosopher · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

In The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans see themselves the author describes the Kims as going for an a somewhat female/motherly appearance as this appeals to the people.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Cleanest-Race-Koreans-Themselves/dp/1935554344

Here's a link to an NPR interview when i think the author discussed this: http://www.npr.org/2011/12/29/144449823/a-look-at-north-korean-ideology

u/notthattall · 1 pointr/Libertarian

> fascism is a political position where democracy and modern culture are rejected as degenerate and some arbitrary time in the past is considered to be the prime of humanity

Something like primitive communism? I think your understanding of fascism is pretty bad since it's easily applicable to Marxism, Qutb's Islamism or Haredi Judaism among countless other things.

>ಠ_ಠ uhhh no. China is basically capitalist, but socially they're authoritarian.

No, China is not capitalist, despite the liberalization of some sectors the economy in selected parts of the country. At the same time, Chinese Communist Party is definitely Fascist in nature as of right now, and began it's transition to Fascism during Mao's Cultural Revolution, when xenophobia and Nationalism became core parts of its ideology.

>North Korea is a dynastic monarchy.

The fact that Communist North Korea has been ruled by what is effectively the Kim dynasty has nothing to do with Fascism or Communism. But Juche is for sure not your garden variety "workers of the world, unite!" socialism, and the Party is extremely nationalist and racist (for more on this you should read The Cleanest Race, or watch this at least)

u/FingerDarts · 1 pointr/AskReddit
u/silviot · 1 pointr/math

I recommend Bounce by Matthew Syed on this topic.

The authour tries to dispel the myth of talent, and does a really great job at it.

u/Benmjt · 1 pointr/tennis

I certainly don't have all the answers to this, and the area is a developing one, but my understanding comes from the reading i've done into the latest research into the area, not anecdotal evidence which is a notoriously fickle customer.

Furthermore, it's amazing how entrenched the idea of 'gifts' and 'talent' is, so much so, people will actively reject it when the opposite idea is presented, a problem well documented in a lot of the books on the topic e.g. Bounce, Talent is a Myth etc. which I strongly recommend if you want a more in-depth answer (and they're generally enjoyable books if you're interested in sport, especially Bounce).

As I mentioned in a comment above, we love the idea that people are born special, when the reality is much more mundane. But it's also much more positive; talent is not reserved for the few, with the right training, we can all do something amazing.

u/RPage94 · 1 pointr/bootroom

Your best bet is to contact your local academies/ soccer schools to see if they have any trails taking place. From my experience most places are willing to offer a trial game at the very least to a kid, from their point of view its always worth checking someone out. Failing this, ask his coach if he knows anyway of getting him a trail at a more advanced academy. This doesn't have to be at a professional club as there (in England at least) are private academies that can provide great opportunities too.

A trial could range from being invited to a few training sessions to a couple of games in their academies age group, it is always worth trying to get your kid into these if he's serious about playing as even if the academy decided against selecting him, advise they can provide can be fantastic.

I'd recommend you read a book called Bounce by Mathew Syed (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bounce-Myth-Talent-Power-Practice/dp/0007350546) which focuses on athlete development and requirements to reach high ability level. If you feel like the weak link in your kids progression, the book should help give you some ideas on how you might be able to aid your son's improvement. The book may be a bit intimidating at first if you're not too clued up on sport but it's a really easy read, something I'd recommend to all parents/coaches as it provides a great insight.

u/famasfilms · 1 pointr/nba

It was interesting reading this guys story, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bounce-Myth-Talent-Power-Practice/dp/0007350546

This book alleges that talent isn't something you are born with but something that comes with practice -e.g Tiger Woods wasn't born a great golfer but made a great golfer with extremely strict and regular training from an an early age by his dad.

The example in the book is a street in the UK that produced multiple elite level table tennis players - rather than being "something in the water" the cause was actually one of their teachers was a former table tennis player who set up an after school club which gave the kids the opportunity for coaching and regular practice.

Of course this guys anecdote implies Lebron was a phenom from a young age and also that physically/explosively he was ahead of 18 year olds.

So the question is where does Lebrons ability come from - was it nature or nurture.

My guess is that the physical attributes eg the power and the jump height etc were natural - and the ability/skill came with nurture.

u/Tective · 1 pointr/MMA

This book *Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice by former champion table tennis player Matthew Syed, deals with this question. I wouldn't be surprised if Kavanagh's read it, among other stuff like it.

Basically, at best there's a very clear correlation between people who are able to practice a sport-specific skill or skills, from a young age, for a very long time, and being really good at the specific sport later in life. What most people figure is genetics can be explained by this rule. Examples in the book include:

  • Brazilians being disproportionately good at football (soccer) - because so many of the kids grow up playing football and, crucially, futsal, which is a similar sport played on a smaller field with a smaller ball, and so is much harder to play well, and makes going on to play regular football way easier.

  • Kenyans being good runners - talks about how basically all the good Kenyan runners come from not all over Kenya but from one particular tribe, and this tribe's lifestyle brings them up running long distances from an early age or something. This article I found probably goes into more detail, but I'm too lazy to bother reading it right now.

  • I think there are plenty others I forget, he talks about his own upbringing, playing table tennis for hours daily (he happened to live on the same street as a former champion player turned coach or something). Also about a European couple who decided to turn their daughters into champion tennis players simply by bringing them up playing the game a lot. I think their third daughter wasn't brought playing tennis at all and lo and behold, she's crap at it. Something like that.

    The book completely supports Kavanagh's premise, the idea that "natural talent" is a misconception because it conceals hours upon hours of hard work. Think Mike Tyson, adopted by Cus d'Amato. How many hours of boxing discussion did they have? How many hours of watching fight footage? Tyson was surrounded by the sport and it probably dominated his whole life at that stage, thinking about it every moment. No surprise he got pretty good at it.

    This all relates to the "10,000 hour rule" you often hear about. The book explains that this originally took the form of the "10 years rule", putting that an athlete would generally reach mastery of sport after 10 years of good practice. Supposing that the aspiring athlete can dedicate a maximum of 1000 hours per year to training gives us the 10,000 hours figure. Obviously this is a rough guide. But the point is, children who are brought up playing a sport, and have more time to dedicate to it when they're younger, hit the 10,000 hours point earlier, and get more hours overall than another athlete who starts later in life. But these kids are labelled "prodigies" and it's assumed to be genetic.

    That's the first half of the book in a nutshell. The second half kinda meanders around other sports-related topics, a bit on roiding and stuff, but the first half is relevant to this discussion. After reading it I agree with it, and so I agree with Kavanagh here. And as I said, it would not surprise me in the slightest if Kavanagh has read this same book.

    The takeaway is: if you want to be good at sport, train more. Don't use genetics as an excuse.
u/LNDPADDY · 1 pointr/altright

Here is an entire book full of peer reviewed research: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bounce-Myth-Talent-Power-Practice/dp/0007350546

u/hedrumsamongus · 1 pointr/askscience

> DNA is essentially the driving force behind evolution

In our limited realm of experience, DNA is the primary actor in evolution (the driving force seems like a term better applied to selective pressure). And DNA is really great! But it's conceivable that some other molecule exists out there that can self-replicate and can sometimes make mistakes to allow for adaptation.

We've also been doing research for a couple of decades now into evolutionary programming, whereby a program makes a lot of copies of its own code with minor tweaks and then the resulting copies get tested against some rubric (e.g. how fast or accurately can you solve this problem). The loser copies are culled to gradually develop programs that fit the testing criteria much more closely than the original and can solve the test problems in unexpected ways.

> Better yet, could altruism be an evolutionarily successful trait in a universe with selfish genes?

Matt Ridley wrote a book about exactly this called The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation. The short answer is 'yes'; there are examples of altruism all over the Animal kingdom (I can't remember any about fungi or plants, but they might be in there), and there can be advantages to being altruistic even when there are selfish bastards in the same realm looking to exploit that.

(note: Matt Ridley is a pretty conservative dude and draws some near-nihilistic conclusions toward the end of the book, but I still think he's a great science writer when he's citing sources rather than providing political commentary).

u/wanna_dance · 1 pointr/reddit.com

> because it increases the chances they will be treated well.

Actually, I think you're right and this is an even better theory. I'd attribute it to Matt Ridley, who I read on this topic some 10 years ago. (I don't know if he was the first to talk about altruism evolutionarily.)

Ridley's book includes some discussion of game theory, and how the various permutations of "tit for tat" show up in the animal kingdom. I think he showed that chimpanzees follow "Tit for Tat with forgiveness" behavior.

u/grotgrot · 1 pointr/AskReddit

You picked the wrong villain. Money is just a way of facilitating trade of scarce items. We can easily trade if I have a goat you want and you have some cotton I want. But when more people are introduced with items (eg someone else has some steel, another person has some paper etc) then direct barter gets too complicated and you can use money to work it out instead. Scarce items is the other important point - you won't find it possible to exchange money for items of an almost unlimited supply.

If you want to avoid trade completely then you will need some sort of communal environment, although you'll find it necessary for the community to trade outside of that environment. Two examples are a kibbutz and communism.

You could eliminate money by not having anything be scarce or at least for there to be no scarcity and being totally self supporting within a community. Generally people cooperate and are virtuous when around people most like them - there is a genetic reason for doing so. The less you are like them the more incentive there is to gain an advantage over others (greed etc).

u/60Hertz · 1 pointr/evolution

It is thought that altruistic behavior is actually innate and passed down genetically and thus a product of natural selection, it's part of our survival behavior that actually got us (a bunch of pretty weak apes) this far...

Here's a great book on the genetics and altruism Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley

u/SisterCoffee · 1 pointr/Anarchism

A Paradise Built in Hell by Rebecca Solnit is a good one. Its not "counter culture" as in 1960s counterculture. Its about the "counter cultures" that result from disaster situations (9/11, earthquakes, fires etc) that resemble anarchies because of their horizontalism and sense of community. Also a lot of people find so called disaster situations funner and with more opportunity than the media/history makes them out to be. The book was based off ethnographic studies and people's histories. Highly recommend. It was a joy to read.

Provo: Amsterdam's Anarchist Revolt by Richard Kempton. This is closer to the 1960s counterculture, but like 100,000 times better. Provo was a sort of anarchistic counterculture group of the mid 1960s. Its a short but fun read.

Squatting in Europe by the Squatting in Europe Kollective. I actually haven't read this book yet (my reading list is like 100 books deep as it is) but I would like to and it sounds like something that you would be interested in.

u/i_have_a_gub · 1 pointr/tangentiallyspeaking

I don't think I'm right. I don't even necessarily have a position on some of these things, but I think it's helpful to ask questions and to really consider the value of arguments from all sides, even if we don't agree with them.

I'd be happy to see a single-payer system in the US. I'm fine with having a military for the purpose of national defense and even intervention in very specific instances (e.g. the Rwandan genocide). I used to consider myself a Libertarian, through and through, but not anymore. I guess Libertarian-socialist is more fitting at this point (yes, it's a thing). I think that the Austrian economists are generally right, especially when it comes to things like the unintended and unforeseen negative consequences of government intervention in markets and economies. And I think it's very likely that Peter Schiff will be right, again, and this whole thing will come tumbling down at some point.

I think most people don't really understand the Libertarian philosophy behind deregulation, which is basically that people are capable enough to figure things out for themselves and will form more organic and effective means of regulation than can be devised by government. It doesn't mean no regulation. Most people look at the world and think deregulation is a crazy idea because they see it as giving corporations more leeway to fuck people over and do whatever they want. But if you move in the direction of reducing the scope of government, you also move in the direction of reducing the scope of corporate influence and power. But in order for this to work, people have to start taking more responsibility for themselves and for the world around them. And to move in that direction requires a certain degree of trust in humanity and the capability of people, which is something that has been eroded by our society/government. A Paradise Built in Hell, a book that Chris has mentioned many times, touches on this quite a bit.

I'm fine with having a social safety net; there's no reason for anyone to have to worry about keeping a roof over their heads or feeding their children if they get laid off, especially in this country. But again, we can't ignore the unintended consequences of having such a system. Some people are going to exploit the system and be worse off because of it. Politicians will feed off of and exploit these people to stay in office. But maybe the worst thing about it is that it makes it very easy for people to stop taking responsibility for the world around them. It makes it easier to look at the suffering around you and say, "I don't care; it's the government's job to take care of the poor, homeless, hungry, etc."

I have no idea whether or not Peter Schiff really gives a shit about the homeless, or people who can't afford to pay their medical bills, or kids growing up in places like Flint or Baltimore. But there are Libertarians who really do care and really do believe that these ideas have merit and can make the world a better place. There are people who really do believe that we would be better off without a social safety net, and that the poor, displaced, homeless, and hungry would be better served by people and communities rather than government. But it's so hard for most people to imagine that world that they quickly dismiss the ideas and the people who support them. Maybe the best thing that Libertarians can do is to start moving in that direction no matter what.

u/heterosis · 1 pointr/skeptic

Mistakes were made only covers a few fallacies, but with great depth. It's an excellent read. http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909/

u/generous_cat_wyvern · 1 pointr/ffxiv

This is the book that introduced me to the concept of Cognitive Dissonance, and it's absolutely fascinating:

http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909

The most interesting thing about it is that nobody is immune, even people who study it professionally. One of most insidious parts of being in self-deception is that it is apparently to almost everyone but ourselves. You brain is actively working against believing the contradicting evidence.

u/venusisupsidedown · 1 pointr/skeptic

So this may not help you directly to argue better, but check out this book for a good read and some great info on why it's difficult to change people's minds.

u/forcrowsafeast · 1 pointr/booksuggestions

The book is stupid droll. Given what we know of neurology and psychology our intuition is pretty shit, it was 'good-enough' for 'cave-peoples' increasingly not so much modernity.

u/HiddenRisk · 1 pointr/fatpeoplestories

I'm basing my understanding of "cognitive dissonance" on what I read in the book "Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)", and I could very well be wrong.

However, as I understood it, essentially it's very uncomfortable for a person to hold two opposing opinions at the same time. As a net result of that, it's easier to change ones mind to fit a poor decision (rationalize) than to face that decision head on or accept/notice that ones behavior doesn't line up with ones perception of themselves.

u/SnapshillBot · 1 pointr/MGTOW

Archived for your convenience

Snapshots:

  1. This Post - archive.org, [megalodon.jp*](http://megalodon.jp/pc/get_simple/decide?url=http://www.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/7bwis9/among_the_ancestors_of_todays_human_population/ "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!"), removeddit.com, archive.is

  2. Is there anything good about men? - archive.org, [megalodon.jp*](http://megalodon.jp/pc/get_simple/decide?url=https://www.amazon.com/There-Anything-Good-About-Men/dp/019537410X "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!"), archive.is

  3. Roy F. Baumeister - archive.org, [megalodon.jp*](http://megalodon.jp/pc/get_simple/decide?url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Baumeister "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!"), archive.is

    ^(I am a bot.) ^([Info](/r/SnapshillBot) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot))
u/SirTylerGalt · 1 pointr/MensRights

Stumbled upon this while reviewing old HN bookmarks. It seems Roy F. Baumeister wrote a book on the subject since then.

Some previous discussions on Hacker News:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=589346

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1634955

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2767867

u/Senven · 1 pointr/todayilearned

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/21/11/2047/1147770/Genetic-Evidence-for-Unequal-Effective-Population
^ This is the basis for most of the interpretations. Twice as many women reproduce as men.

https://www.amazon.ca/There-Anything-Good-About-Men/dp/019537410X
An interpretation of Wilders stats

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-evolving-father/201311/non-dads-or-childless-men
An interpretation of Australian's differential between childless men (13%) and childless women (10%).

and
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf
Look at tables on page 17 and 18. Which indicate a greater amount of sexually inexperienced men by 40 compared to their female counterparts.

You're free to interpret that data as you wish however. If a percentage of men are sexually inactive for whatever reason, and a lesser percentage of women are not: those women are having sex with someone. To the point that even if every woman only slept with one person in her life that X amount of men would have to sleep with more than 1 partner for this to be possible.

Ultimately you have some men for whatever reason having more partners than others as is evident by the % of men who at the very least have no partners. This is interesting for instance because North America is a female majority continent. If sex distribution was uniform it would be expected for more women to lack sex due to a lack of partners.




u/riverraider69 · 1 pointr/TheRedPill

Just a comment on EP (much agree with the rest btw). EP is a very solid science, with two big caveats:

  • it's incredibly easy to misuse by beginners. Just say "yeah, people are like that because in our ancestral environment..." and fill in the blanks with whatever sounds about right. There are ways to make it hard science, but you won't find them in casual discussions.

  • for humans, EP actually works on two completely unrelated levels. There is the genetic component, which is why everybody thinks about when talking about evolution. And there is the cultural, memetic component, which can be studied with much of the same framework, is a lot more fast moving and (like you say) a lot more relevant to our discussions.

    You may want to read this btw. It's not about EP, but I have a feeling you'll like it.




u/ttumblrbots · 1 pointr/TumblrInAction

SnapShots: 1, 2, 3 ^[?]

^^ttumblrbots ^^will ^^be ^^shutting ^^down ^^in ^^around ^^a ^^month ^^from ^^now.

u/MetaMemeticMagician · 1 pointr/TheNewRight

Sex

The Way of Men – Jack Donovan***
Sperm Wars – Robin Baker
Sex at Dawn – Christopher Ryan
Why Men Rule – Steven Goldberg
The Manipulated Man – Esther Vilar
Is There Anything Good About Men? – Roy Baumeister
Demonic Males – Dale Peterson
The Essential Difference – Simon Baron-Cohen
The Mating Mind – Geoffrey Miller
The Red Queen – Matt Ridley

****

Government

Mau-mauing the Flak Catchers – Tom Wolfe
Public Choice: An Introduction – Iain McLean
On Government Employment – Foseti (blog post)
Yes, Minister – TV Show

****

​

u/otaku_convention · 1 pointr/BlackPeopleTwitter

Late, but I recommend Traffic , from Tom Vanderbilt.

u/lettuce · 1 pointr/transit

Traffic by Tom Vanderbilt. There's also a good blog but isn't updated very often anymore.

u/CNoTe820 · 1 pointr/nyc

Actually I'm indifferent to the question of whether to add a subway to staten island. If it goes through Brooklyn then the commute will still be long and it won't be a rush to move there. If there's a tunnel straight to lower manhattan there will be a huge rush to move there.

I think Triboro Rx would help more people since it would help three boros instead of one, and it would help connect the outer boros in a way that might let businesses open outside of Manhattan and ease the pressure on the Manhattan side. But at the same time I see the fairness in making sure all 5 boros have a subway. Hence my indifference.

> Are you saying that people should suffer long inconvenient commutes so property values are kept low? Who would want that?

Lots of people want that. If you read the book Traffic (https://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194) they talk about how the average commute has stayed at 30 minutes throughout thousands of years of human history. Technological changes like cars and subways just allow us to live further out while maintaining the same average commute time.

So yes, some people want a very short walkable commute and are willing to pay a lot of money for that, some people are ok with a 30 minute commute for more moderate rent, and some people are fine with a 1.5 hour commute for even cheaper real estate. A lot of people would be very upset as the rents go up, just like they are in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx right now.

u/Delysid52 · 1 pointr/news

but seriously widening roads does cause more congestion. increasing more lanes does the same thing. more people start using it

https://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194

u/Francis_the_Goat · 1 pointr/sandiego

I read about it in this book:
Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us)
by Tom Vanderbilt

http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194

It's a really interesting book, highly recommended,

u/ChillSygma · 1 pointr/boulder

Still, be careful. Eye contract improved pedestrian recognition a bit but doesn't even come anywhere close to 100%

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/motr/safe-crossings-the-power-of-eye-contact.html

I believe there are also studies where motorcyclist perceived eye contact but the drivers were blind to the situation. Can't find that one so I am not 100% certain. It was referenced in what I think is one of the best books ever that everyone should read. And then also become a late merger.

https://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194/ref=sr_1_1?s=books

u/designerfx · 1 pointr/changemyview

I recall the book traffic talks about these kinds of things actually helping traffic flow and generally improving the scenario. I'd recommend reading https://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194 . What the book says tends to echo this article: https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/rude-drivers-who-merge-at-the-last-second-are-doin.html

Article:

>If you're traveling this holiday weekend, you might want to know the most efficient way to merge--and it's not what most drivers consider to be common courtesy.
>
>Say you're driving along in the center lane on a traffic-filled highway, and the left lane is ending in a few hundred yards, due to construction or the way the road is built. The polite drivers in that left lane put their blinkers on right away, and move over as soon as someone lets them in. The rude drivers zip to the end of their lane--passing you and many other drivers in the center lane. Then they merge in as soon as they can, effectively cutting in front of you and other center-lane drivers in the process.
>
>You might be annoyed enough to respond to one of those rude drivers with an obscene gesture. But guess what? A lot of studies show those rude drivers are helping traffic flow better. It makes sense if you think about it: Those apparently rude drivers are putting more of the roadway to use and thus helping speed things along, in much the same way water flows faster through a funnel than through a straw.

So, it's normal to feel the rudeness of the other person as you see them as "not being a part of your group" but in reality not only do they a: not have a sense of self (and a sense of you) from a brain standpoint (your brain sees it as another car, not another person), but you have almost NO method to communicate with them. So, whether you let them in or not your communication is disregarded. There's psychology behind that too but it'll take me a while to find the reference.

The book references that because you don't "See" people, you don't like to cooperate with them either.

​

​

u/buddhabelly18 · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

Also, a lot of the reason this occurs is because we do not perceive cars to be "human," so some of the social cues and norms we take from face-to-face interaction / eye contact tend to go out the window because we unconsciously forget that humans are in other cars.

Source: http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1412784945&sr=8-1&keywords=traffic+book

u/theJAW · 1 pointr/pics
u/ILXXLI · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

there's a very interesting book called Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do.

Basically, a small fluctuation in the flow of traffic on a highway will have repercussions that will affect dozens and dozens of miles of road and last for hours after the fluctuation. Now, consider how many fluctuations there are every minute on a crowded highway, and you can begin to understand what causes traffic congestion.

u/DaPM · 1 pointr/government

Did you read Traffic ?

That book had some very interesting insight on how streets can be made safer by making them less safe...

u/er0k · 1 pointr/Roadcam

Check out this book if you are interested

u/elus · 1 pointr/Design

Traffic

This book had great overview of various design choices taken in different countries.

u/lepht · 1 pointr/AskReddit

You should read Traffic then. Just got done reading it on my Kindle, and it's damn interesting, if a bit dry at times.

u/Drew707 · 1 pointr/AskReddit

You would like this book:

Check this out on AMZN:
http://amzn.com/0307277194

u/tremenfing · 1 pointr/KotakuInAction

Don't choose a side. If you say to yourself "I am an X" your brain will find itself completely compelled to irrationally defend X, wasting precious brain cycles that could be better spent on other things.

Read a book on moral psychology if you want to give up political tribalism. Here are some suggestions:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/dp/0307377903

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Tribes-Emotion-Reason-Between/dp/1594202605

u/Squirrel_In_A_Tuque · 1 pointr/skeptic

Please don't cheapen that word "consensus" with frivolous usage. The origins of religion is a highly contentious topic, and those who study it are absolutely not in full agreement with each other. You are trying to prop up your arguments with the authority of science while denigrating my intelligence. You don't convince people by arguing that way; you only satisfy your urge to crush an opponent.

Here's where we agree, and where you think we disagree:

  1. Religion is a natural phenomenon.
  2. Religion has been a part of human behaviour for tens of thousands of years.

    There. Half your post wasn't necessary, Mr./Ms. Read-More-Carefully.

    Where we disagree:
    You think religion... "exists because people believe the immaterial intentional entities (minds without bodies, gods.)" In a related concept, you indicate that we naturally ascribe agency to the natural world.

    Just so this is abundantly clear: I was arguing that gods are not required for religion. You misread Buddhism is but one example. "Most" Buddhists isn't "all" Buddhists, and "involves" is a far cry from "being the central element of the religion that defines its existence." Many totemic religions from tribal societies also lack gods. You end up having to redefine "gods" to "any supernatural agent" just to get this idea to work.

    But let's focus on the idea that it's natural for us to impose agency to things in the natural world, and this leading to the formation of religion. This also is not done in every religion. When it is done, it isn't relevant to every aspect of the religion in question. Even among Christianity, a great deal of worship is devoted to the saints, who were entirely human. Ditto with ancestor worship in Taoism.

    We have also seen the rise of new religions, and we know for a fact this idea of ascribing agency to the natural world was not involved in the creation of many of them: Scientology, or the various cults that are centred around extra terrestrials, or people from the future, or not eating (seriously!)

    Finally, it doesn't explain why we have the ability to feel transcendence; that feeling we get when our individuality melts away and we "give ourselves" to something greater. Where does that come from? How does that evolve?

    But for the sake of completeness, you would likely need to hear an alternative, so here is where I'm coming from. I ascribe to Emile Durkheim's theory of religion. He's a classic sociologist, and formally founded the field of sociology itself.

    Just to provide the brief gist:

    His definition of religion: "A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."

    The faithful believe in a force that is outside of themselves, and greater than themselves that enters into them usually during moments of collective ritual, giving them the feeling of transcendence. All religions have this force. It is often called a "god," though other terms are used (mana, ch'i, etc.) This force is the "energy," if you will, of the society of the faithful. In other words, god and society... are one and the same. Society is exterior to the individual, and greater than him. If you denigrate this symbol of their society, you are denigrating the society itself, and they will react accordingly. The morals preached by the religion are the morals that the society unifies under. They hold rituals to reinforce this collective bond, and that is really its purpose. Some things are made sacred (objects, values, people), and the community collects around those things, which become a sort of emblem. Rationality will serve the purpose of the community's religion. And, as I initially stated in my first post, the religion of the day will change as the needs of the society changes. Sometimes the religion itself alters, and other times it is simply abandoned for another one.

    We see religious behaviour in cruder moments all the time. The feeling of transcendence occurs among soldiers that fight and die together. They often describe their individuality melting away and becoming "whole" with their brothers in arms. They create a small system of morals and beliefs that are specific just to them. And they even sometimes have rituals.

    The same religious behaviour can be seen in revolutionaries who rationalize their oppressors as the ultimate evil. Or in nationalistic patriotism (why does a flag make someone cry? Why does it matter what the founding fathers thought?). Or college fraternities with their initiations and pledges. Or the obsession with all things natural and organic, and neo druidism, and Gwenyth Paltrow getting people to stick odd things up their vaginas. Or Trump supports who see Donald Trump as their saviour from the evils that plague them.

    We have evolved the innate ability to unite under an emblem and operate as a cohesive whole. That is religion, and no other animal seems to have it. It's the evolutionary trick that made us the dominant species on earth. It's utter shit for finding the truth of things, but it massively serves the purpose of our survival.

    Now, if you want religion to just go away so we can have a purely secular society based on reason, then what you want to believe is that religion is just some kind of fluke originally made to explain the world (and it clearly does a poor job of that). I admire that cause, but I doubt it's viability, and I certainly doubt the premise that's justifying it. Or perhaps I'm just making assumptions about your point of view. A purely rational society is one that I think a lot of skeptics dream of, and you are in this subreddit.

    Further reading, if you're interested: Emile Durkheim's "The Elementary Forms of Religious LIfe." Also, Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion."
u/roespuchiant · 1 pointr/politics

I've found The Righteous Mind is a good book to help understand where people on various sides of the political spectrum (conservative, liberal, and libertarian) are coming from and how their values differ from each other.

u/allaboutthebernankes · 1 pointr/Libertarian

The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt is a great book that makes pretty much your exact argument. Highly recommend it for people who want to better understand the origins of morality.

u/GreenStrong · 1 pointr/pics

Before you challenge your father, or anyone on this, read The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion There are multiple ways of perceiving morality, probably hardwired into the primate mind, liberal western values emerges only from the most cerebral of these moral systems. I can't speak for the more basic ones nearly as well as the author, I highly recommend the book for anyone who wants to understand conservatives better.

u/CaptainH0ok · 1 pointr/The_Donald

Did it ever occur to you that I didn't vote for Obama either? Seriously, why does it seem like 75 percent of trump supporters get their political education from click bait articles. All you tards have this "If they're not 100% with me, they're 100% against me". There is a fucking middle ground you anti-intellectual cock goblin. Ugh... That is all I have to say. I don't even care who the President is. Nothing is going to change. The only thing that will change is instead of Obamas SJWs all over the fucking web, it's you fucking trump-tards. Ugh...

Fuck it. Here is something that may help some of you not be condescending fuckwits and help restore a very divided country.
https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777

u/whitethunder9 · 1 pointr/exmormon

>You accused the left of not being patriotic

Wrong. I did not. Let me re-phrase: It is when left-of-center folks shun patriotism (especially where all can see and hear) that they lose all influence over the right-of-center. This does not imply that the entire left is not patriotic. I am left-of-center and consider myself patriotic. But it seems to have become cool in liberal circles to publicly hate on the US, and that's how we end up with someone like Donald Motherfucking Trump as president. Moderate conservatives were won over by such a dipshit because all he talked about was "Make America Great Again!" If you haven't read the book I recommended, you need to.

>Three examples that clearly don't bother you

Wrong. You are assuming. Please note that I said nothing about Russians whatsoever. Don't pin that shit on me.

I get the feeling that what you're thinking of patriotism and what I'm thinking of patriotism are not the same thing. Is colluding with Russians to win an election anti-patriotic? Of course it is. However, so is saying things like "my country is arrogant and the general populace is stupid". Totally an over-generalization and I guarantee you if any democratic candidate says anything of the sort, moderate conservatives will be turned off.

u/_Zer0_Cool_ · 1 pointr/Libertarian

Any theories for why this is the case?

I’m thinking it’s that people view us as double-agents looking to water down their beliefs while simultaneously siding with the enemy.

I call it the “Anakin” syndrome. E. G. If you’re not with me then your my enemy.

Because the Sith on both sides seem to only deal in absolutes. IMO It’s due to the climate of extremism and tribalism caused by the two-party system gone rampant.

Like... “How dare you have a moderate view? Can’t you see that [other political party] is Hitler!? They just want to murder puppies!”

Lol. Uh. No. They’re Americans with different moral values that believe the are doing what is right.


I’d like to take a moment to plug Jonathan Haidt’s work on Moral Psychology theory —

https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777

u/travisdy · 1 pointr/ffxiv

Human nature isn't a matter of opinion--modern psychology and associated disciplines show humans to genuinely care about behaviors that show good will toward most strangers. The idea of humans as having a selfish core with a friendly exterior has been labeled "veneer theory" by the leading primatologist Frans de Waal and thoroughly debunked in that form. The idea that humans are generally unsociable and won't be nice to strangers if given zero motivation to do so has been shown to be incorrect by social psychology. The "Lord of the Flies" view of humans as unable to self-organize in uncertain times is also false as argued by cognitive psychologists. Humans are severely interested in being nice to other humans, according to the latest multicultural research in moral psychology.

I could give scientific articles instead of books, but these books are actually fun to read!

u/hackersmage · 1 pointr/Republican

It sounds like you would be very interested in this book.

u/Not_Pictured · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

I've been reading The Righteous Mind and find it incredibly enlightening.

I come from a conservative background and am now a right anarchist (anacho-capitalist) and it helps explain my own moral journey in a way that fits global trends and humanity in general.

I really think liberals stand to gain the most from learning about the differences you talk about.

Good video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmz10uQsTYE

u/P15T0L_WH1PP3D · 0 pointsr/news

> how the fuck are they going to come out simultaneously?

I believe that's pretty much what just happened. And if your argument is "well someone had to get the ball rolling" then go back a decade or so when there already was an accusation with a dozen or so other accusers. Funny thing, a dozen is less than two dozen. And what I mean by that is, ten years ago when there were a dozen accusers, the other dozen (that have come forward in the past couple months) were silent. They had the chance then, and they didn't. That kind of inaction at the opportune moment does tarnish their credibility at least a tiny bit.

My working theory is based on something I read in a book called Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts. Basically, it starts with a hurtful accusation that may come from anything as simple as a nightmare, a dream, an OCD intrusive thought, or even a repressed fantasy. When one accusation is made, other people who may fit the criteria to have been a victim of the accused--even when the accused is legitimately innocent--gather bits and pieces of details from the previous accusation, building their own story with a similar mode of operation. The science indicates that people wouldn't remember the details as clearly as they're being told, but that's in another book. The discussion of hurtful accusations and their consequences is really quite interesting, and worth the cost of the book.

Having said that, Bill Cosby may rot in hell if he's proven to have done any or all of the things he's been accused of. I'm not saying those crimes aren't a big deal, or that I have reason to believe that he did or didn't do them, but what I am saying is the accusations themselves and the chronology of events are incredibly sketchy.

u/plarson · 0 pointsr/Austin

Read "Traffic" . It changed my mind about a lot of traffic ideas.

http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194

u/puma721 · 0 pointsr/lincoln

So you're still going to say that Lincoln drivers specifically are the problem, and not their unfamiliarity or reduced capacity to drive (old folks) or poor city planning?
https://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194

u/Lowbacca1977 · 0 pointsr/politics

Just finished reading a book on this, http://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777

In a nutshell, one of the things discussed is that when you look overall, there's 6 qualities people use when defining morality. Care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity.

When you look at a very narrow subset, like, say, progressives, you find that they only consider 3 of those important (and even then, primarily care). So much so that they don't comprehend that there could be any other values beyond that, and when experiments have been run, they simply don't know how to answer as if they're conservative. While moderates and conservatives can evaluate questions the way a liberal would pretty well.

Also does a really good job of looking at the biological motivations for this stuff.

u/lukeman3000 · 0 pointsr/videos

> Crazy to see how many people arent interested in watching a 42 minute video where someone disproves allegations on them, but would happy read and believe short twitter posts with cherrypicked evidence.

Yeah, this is one of the big points of the book I'm reading right now: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.

Here's a relevant quote from the book:

>“Reasoning can take us to almost any conclusion we want to reach because we ask “can I believe it” when we want to believe something, but “must I believe it” when we don’t want to believe. The answer is almost always “yes” to the first question, and “no” to the second.”

I've still got a few chapters to go, but the overarching theme seems to be that we, as humans, operate primarily on implicit associations/preferences/biases, which we are mostly unaware of. We then use reasoning to justify our automatic reactions to various stimuli.

Did you catch that? The book suggests that, in general, our reasoning is not responsible for our positions on various subjects, such as moral beliefs. Our reasoning is a post-hoc justification for the subconscious and automatic reactions that we have to those things. Chew on that for awhile.

Bonus: Extreme partisanship may, literally, be addictive (you get a dopamine hit when a member of the opposing party is found to be a hypocrite, for example).

u/Koolaid76 · 0 pointsr/datingoverthirty

I think Liberals and Conservatives alike could benefit from understanding a few things. One, personality usually dictates political leanings. So very likely many of the good things that you like about the man are some of the reasons he leans Conservative politically. Things like conscientiousness, work ethic, being protective of society at large and those he cares about can be part of a Conservative's mindset. You're a woman, so you're more likely to lean left/liberal from the get go. Women are higher in openness and empathy (in general).

I recommend reading this book, it's good science on how good people different in politics and religion: https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1521426339&sr=8-1&keywords=the+righteous+mind

But my personal take is as a society we've become so polarized that we won't just listen to each other without immediately thinking someone that disagrees with us is the enemy. I think if we could be more open minded, we'd find wonderful people that choose to vote differently but complement each other because we bring different qualities and perspectives that can balance each other out. The alternative is seeking a sycophantic partner that echoes our beliefs and doesn't challenge us.

u/k995 · 0 pointsr/belgium

> You've now handwaived my entire response, the question I posed is one neither one of us can answer, so I'm a little bit confused at how you came to a conclusion.

Because we were talking about de roover not about hedebouw. So either de rover made a comparison and then laughed with himself as everyone wrongly saw that as a joke, or he made a joke where people and himself laughed with.

​

> This might be a bit too forward of me, but if you ever have the time, I'd highly recommend this book. It doesn't take political stances, instead it showcases research on why political debates never end. I massively enjoyed reading it years ago, and gave me some introspection into why I took the positions I did back then, and my immobility of changing my point of view at times.

Recomending a book is never "too forward in my opnion.

​

And i'll check it out, thx.

u/BeeperProud · 0 pointsr/TraditionalCatholics

Take a look at The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haight. He proposes that we are all lead by our feelings and then justify them with logic. We actually make ourselves blind to evidence to the contrary:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307455777?selectObb=used

There’s probably no changing this guys mind - the book I’m recommending will help provide understanding to why he believes what he believes and will not budge despite evidence to the contrary. It taught me about myself as well.

u/Cloud-Atlas-Sextet · 0 pointsr/TwoXChromosomes

I think the central problem must be that you simply don't understand how inductive logic works. I'm talking about certainty. I'm making a general philosophical point about how knowledge works, and being careful about not overstating the certainty we possess.

To use a classic example: before Australia was discovered, Europeans believed that all swans were white. This was later discovered to be false when black swans were discovered. At no point in time, however, could a European say "It is impossible for any swan to be any color but white," because such a claim reflects a greater degree of certainty than they actually possessed.

My point, in a nutshell, is that we may someday be able to design a form of government that does not prioritize war and corruption. You claim that this is impossible. I reply that you do not have sufficient evidence for that claim.

May I suggest some reading on

u/Tajo990 · 0 pointsr/RandomActsOfGaming

Mistakes Were Made - Carol Tavris & Elliot Aronson - A great insight into how we justify our behavior, you can learn a lot about yourself from it.
https://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/1491514132

u/kilo-g · 0 pointsr/AskReddit

If you feel like a bitch then you are a bitch.

Get into shape and learn how to fight. Did your father not teach you this?

No one respects a weak man, regardless of what the internet tells you.

EDIT: Sorry, I was too glib and too assholish. That's what I get for posting before coffee.

Read this book and figure out for yourself what you are willing to take and what requires you to fight.

It's a no bullshit examination of the physical, psychological, social, legal, and economic consequences of fighting and it contains graphic photos of post-fight injuries to force you to think about how YOU will deal with fighting. And it's not full of tough guy macho posturing either, which is refreshing for books on martial arts and violence. It's really very practical.

The Little Black Book of Violence: What Every Young Man Needs to Know About Fighting

u/zbtax8 · 0 pointsr/AskReddit

The Cleanest Race

via amazon:
"Drawing on extensive research into the regime’s domestic propaganda, including films, romance novels and other artifacts of the personality cult, Myers analyzes each of the country’s official myths in turn—from the notion of Koreans’ unique moral purity, to the myth of an America quaking in terror of 'the Iron General.' In a concise but groundbreaking historical section, Myers also traces the origins of this official culture back to the Japanese fascist thought in which North Korea’s first ideologues were schooled."

u/lmkooa · 0 pointsr/worldnews

Did you think nobody was going to try to verify your bullshit? Haha.

This happened:

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Joseph_Dresnok

>After Bumbea's death, Dresnok married his third wife, the daughter of a North Korean woman and a Togolese diplomat. They had a son, Tony, in 2001. The family lived in a small apartment in Pyongyang, provided along with a monthly stipend by the North Korean government.

Nice lie tho.

>But I guess since they're not white they can't be racist, right?

Gotta love the white victim complex. North Koreans are alleged to be all kinds of things on reddit but according to this white victim, North Koreams are actually spared anti-racist denunciations because they aren't white.

Never mind that one of the best-selling books on North Korea explores in-depth the racial aspects of the ideology:https://www.amazon.com/Cleanest-Race-Koreans-Themselves-Matters/dp/1935554344/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1517452406&sr=8-1&keywords=cleanest+race

Oh no, that book never existed.

u/ilya88 · 0 pointsr/todayilearned

http://www.amazon.com/The-Cleanest-Race-Koreans-Themselves/dp/1935554344

Read this. Also... book a trip to the NK. You will see for yourself, if you can watch.

Nazis were softcore in comparison to the NK citizens.

u/Teeird · -1 pointsr/BitcoinMarkets

I believe this book is a more relevant read than the previously recommended 'Demagoguery/Democracy' book.

u/imstartingtogetangry · -1 pointsr/europe

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt wrote a nice book precisely on this subject, The Righteous Mind. It's a pretty good read, you should give it a try. My answer is going to be based on what I got from reading it.

> why? Consider happiness and lack of pain of people as the moral compass.

We don't just choose our moral compass, we're born with it. It's a biological tool for social life which evolved through millions of years, and it's not just about pain and happiness: ask a million people whether there is something wrong with incest between a couple of adult, consenting, simblings who use perfect birth controll and are never discovered; 90%+ is gonna tell you it's wrong, even if it doesn't cause pain and does cause happiness, even if they don't know why they find it wrong. See this for a better approximation of our moral compass.

> Now tell me which choice would be wrong following this simple rule...

At the individual level, it would cause anomie. That's just too simple a rule, and the human mind needs to be constrained by a social enviroment; too much liberty is unhealty. Then people start thinking they're cats...

At the social level, it would create a society of individualists who only ever follow the rules if they're afraid of being punished, without internalizing them; they would definitely not make self-sacrifices for the common good, since they'd have no concept of a common good (the common doesn't feel pain or happiness); and since they'd expect the same from others, they wouldn't trust each other very much. Expect mass tax evasion (sounds familiar?), little charity, low level of social capital, a lot of social conflict. Such a society would be very fragile and weak, and in the long run it would lose out against stronger societies.

u/comment_moderately · -1 pointsr/boston

> People fly down lane 2 past the queue and then squeeze in at the last minute.

Perhaps counterintuitively, this is actually the best policy to maximize traffic through-put--as noted above, it means more cars are traveling in the same amount of road. However seemingly unfair, it's more efficient. See Vanderbilt, Traffic, at 46-50. ("Late merge... showed a 15% improvement in traffic flow.")

u/adamchavez · -2 pointsr/latterdaysaints

Edit: downvotes, eh? I'm not sure how to take that! :) I didn't expect it from this community. The gist of what I was trying to say is said better by Pres. Hinckley in a different talk.

>"Women who make a house a home make a far greater contribution to society than those who command large armies or stand at the head of impressive corporations."
-Gordon B. Hinckley


--------------------------
My original comment:

The talk is beautiful; though I think you're confusing what he's saying with the modern dogma of "equality" that has become so popular.

The modern equality movement argues for equal roles that assumes that individuals are the most important players in society; this line of thinking typically leads to calls to get more women into traditionally male roles. While I personally will encourage my daughters to pursue their goals, whatever they may be, I'm hesitant to argue for equality in the way it's currently understood: equality of roles in one's career.

The reality is that the family unit is much more important, for society as a whole, as well as for the individuals who are influenced and raised by said families.

Often, having a strong family unit means having (at least) one person responsible for full-time teaching/training/loving of the little people in the home. My personal opinion is that it can be a man or a woman (though typically women are more willing and more able to fulfill this vital role).

American individualism can make this all seem very cloudy; I was recently reminded of this when I read this book, The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haidt, which I highly recommend.

Read the book if you haven't; I'm not sure I can do it justice. The basic idea is that there are three moral categories: the divinity ethic, the autonomy ethic, and the family ethic.

For many secular Americans, the only kind of morality that is "allowed" is the ethic of autonomy, which asks "is it fair? Does it harm any individual?"

But there is a much richer moral fabric, that includes divinity (ie allowing some things to be sacred) and family (ie putting the needs of the family/tribe before individual needs).

Also see a TLDR slideshare on the book edit: removed the Colbert video because it doesn't touch on the ideas from the book that were relevant.

u/TuCraiN · -3 pointsr/politics

What are you guys even fighting anyways? Are you trying to say that every Liberal is smarter than every Conservative? Are you trying to say that Liberals never participate in shit throwing? Are you trying to say that calling huge swaths of america racist misogynists HELPED your political cause? Or are you just mad because someone disagreed with you and posted a study that says you don't understand the motives of the other side as well as they understand yours?

Here read this book and tell me this author has a conservative agenda and that his studies are just plain false and extremely biased.

u/Immuchtooawesome · -3 pointsr/sociology

We tend to focus on the problems because large parts of American sociology is currently focused on changing the world. I highly recommend reading/listening to this book to temper some of the doom and gloom - https://www.amazon.com/Rational-Optimist-Prosperity-Evolves-P-s/dp/0061452068

It's not perfect, but it focuses on the positive aspects of how society has evolved over time.

I've also heard good things about Enlightment Now - but I haven't had the time to read it yet https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570

u/mddawso · -4 pointsr/programming

I would argue that within the current system of CS there is implicit oppression of gender and racial minorities. Providing access points for girls to get exposed to computer science isn't sexist, it's an attempt to balance the gender inequities in CS.

If anyone is really interested in the racial imbalance there are some great books that deal with this topic, two of my favorites:

Stuck in the Shallow End is about disparities in CS.
Whistling Vivaldi is about strereotype threat (whose principles are directly related to these issues).

Edit: I should add that a potential error in these programs is that in effect they may feed into developing the stereotype of girls being inferior in CS.

u/meetinnovatorsadrian · -5 pointsr/ancientrome

I disagree completely. This poster got it right:

>Won’t people be saying that about today’s writers in a few centuries as well. Everything that’s written is colored through the current events and while we may be able to see the flaws in older works doesn’t that just mean we’re now free to draw our own conclusions from it. Idk what I’m trying to say I haven’t even read the book or heard of it before I just wanted to pretend to be smart.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ancientrome/comments/bobq4y/how_historically_relevant_is_edward_gibbons_book/enefsri/

You may want to spend some time reading Haidt, to learn more about why so much ivory tower academic research is off base
https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=haidt&qid=1557807843&s=gateway&sr=8-2

u/dante662 · -5 pointsr/boston

I haven't voted GOP or Democrat in the last few races, either.

But if you really want to know why Libertarians tend to lean right in elections, read "The Righteous Mind":

https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777

Libertarians tend to value solely individual liberty over all other considerations. Democrats tend to value Care/Social/Fairness, but "fairness" to a Democrat is that everyone gets equally in the share of the wealth, while Libertarians (and ostensibly republicans) believe "fairness" is defined as "everyone gets what they work for themselves, and no one else (individual, group, or government) can take it by force, morally".

This one association, even though plenty of Libertarian concepts are left-leaning (pro-choice, ending drug prohibition, eliminating the power of police to oppress minorities, ending immigration laws, ending incarceration of non-violent "criminals") is the primary one for most Libertarians and hence, they vote republican.

Because Libertarian candidates have no shot at being elected for office. Some of us vote for them anyway, in hope to break the two-party binary system, but most look at it pragmatically and want to "minimize the damage", from their point of view.

u/westondeboer · -6 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

the less you are driving the less chance you will be in a car accident, so cutting in at the last minute reduces your chance of dying.

I read this brilliant book about trafffic https://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194/

Or something.

u/TroyStackhouse · -12 pointsr/news

Here’s why this is simply a terrible, terrible idea... crickets

Actually, if you want more insight into why this might just feel wrong to you, I highly recommend you check out this book by Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

Edit: If you’re going to downvote, please at least comment to explain your disagreement.