Tue 4 Dec 2007
This years Winter Study seminar (EphBlog’s annual experiment in the possibilities of creating, in Professor Robert Jackall’s phrase, a “cross-generational community of learning” (CGCL)) will cover Education’s End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life by Anthony Kronman ‘68.
Those new to CGCL can check out last year’s version here. Basic plan is the same as always. We will have a “discussant” who will post her thoughts in each day’s reading. The floor will then be open to comments from everyone. I will see what I can do about getting a version of the book posted on-line, at least during of the class. But, since that probably won’t happen, participants should order their books now.
Best part is that Professor Kronman has agreed to join us.
Woo-hoo! So, discussants can be sure that the author himself will be reading their posts. (Whether or not Professor Kronman chooses to reply will be based on the quality of the posts and his other time commitments.)
I have already signed up Professor Alan White (who taught me philosophy 20 years ago) as the discussant for the Introduction, Chris Gondek ‘90 for chapter 2 and Trustee Fred Lawrence ‘77 for chapter 5. Want to be a discussant? Let me know. EphBlog is open to all. If I could draft one discussant, it would be “&”, a recent and most excellent addition to our collection of regular commentators. (Anonymous discussants are welcome.) I am especially interested in recruiting some students.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
The question of “Meaning In Life” is being addressed because within education the focus of our change agencies are consistent with global outcomes. Academic institutions are no longer ‘Ivory Towers’ independent for its own sake but ideological, political and sociological agents for the “New Thinking”. Any attempt to restore your proposal would have to give the appearances of adhering to your initial question, while still maintaining the discipline of PC within ED.
There is a European neurological scientist by the name of Antonio DImasio, originally from Portugal, now at the University of Iowa, who has been working on the revolutionary portrait of how reason and feelings come together in the brain.
He is studying the mind and behavior and the design of brain circuitries that represent the evolution of the body in its interaction with the world and it seems that the activities to which organisms are engaged in, and on the innate bio-regulatory circuitries of the brain, we react to such activities and input. He claims the brain is not an isolated, immutable structure, rather, a constantly evolving feedback loop of individual activity and circumstances, reaction and self-regulation.
In other words, some emotions influence decisions negatively. He found that most people display extreme levels of risk aversion to risk. He has worked on “risky decision-making tasking” where models were developed to demonstrate myopic loss aversion in the analysis. Their goals were to examine whether decision/outcome combinations affected decisions made by the control group and noted that the logistical regression yielded significant interactions which indicated that there were marked differences between normal groups and those control groups in their withdrawal from risk-taking as from the control groups. Control groups were more likely to avoid risk regardless of the outcome.
Decision making is largely a cognitive process of integrating the desirability of different possible outcomes with their probabilities. Emotions and particularly feelings play a central role in decision making under risk. Emotions serve an adaptive role in speeding up the decision making process.
On the basis of these results, he claims that moods and emotions can play useful as well as disruptive roles in the process of making advantageous decisions, depending on the circumstances.
In other words, he contends “that neural patterns engender mental “images” where an image is not just a visual percept but any mental pattern built with the tokens of each sensory modality.” Dimasio states: “There is no consciousness that is not self-consciousness” and especially with its relation to the knowledge or feeling of emotions.”
For Dimasio’s perspective there is the realization of a nexus between an object and an emotional body state.
Political correctness has induced a static state of mind. There occurs a cognitive dissonance within our institutions. “Cognitive dissonance” is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become “open” to them.
As an academic community and as a society, we have become risk-adverse to the point of we would rather go silent than ‘learn’ something new and endure the ‘pain’ of new learning and thus we are now at absolute risk because of our inability to make life saving ‘painful’ judgements.
“Meaning of Life” only has meaning when life is meaningful, when life is full of meaning for each of every one us in our own unique manner. Where we discover meaning through our stillness and free from negative emotions and the free from the assault upon our persons for asking what the meaning of our lives is within our understandings.
Best wishes to those taking the course.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I know why. The colleges and universities like many other historically admirable American institutions have allowed themselves to be seduced by Madison Avenue, Wall Street and Main Street. On balance they are engaged no longer in a search for truth, justice and beauty but are occupied by their own chase, and their advocacy (both open and clear and also subtle) to their wards of the virtues of the chase, of things material.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
So this is what CGCL is all about. Pretty terrific!
And what an honor that the author will be part of the discussion.
I look forward to hearing a fresh take on the significance of that age-old question “The Meaning of Life”.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
“On balance they are engaged no longer in a search for truth, justice and beauty but are occupied by their own chase, and their advocacy (both open and clear and also subtle) to their wards of the virtues of the chase, of things material.”
… which is not a bad thing. At all.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
It is neither good nor bad, but does it belong in the academy?
December 4th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Antonio Damasio has been at USC since 2005. Not really sure how the above author relates his theories to political correctness, or more broadly to the meaning of life, but this is probably because I don’t understand what extreme levels of risk aversion to risk are. Cogent discussion of the loss aversion puzzle and ongoing research is here.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Nice job Ephs. Congratulations on the anniversary of Ephblog for the lively forum you’ve created and the direction you’re taking it.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:12 am
I feel the same about my direction - if only I can get my head around a little further, I’m sure that then I will be able to see my sphincter.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:56 am
As a weak contrapoint, I’m coming back to this thread after pausing Luis Mandoki’s description of his being told, by the head of Warner Bros. Mexico, that WB was interested in the financial consequences of reporting on elections, not in their truth.
Now as for Frank’s direction of inquiry…
December 5th, 2007 at 11:51 am
“Decision making is largely a cognitive process of integrating the desirability of different possible outcomes with their probabilities. Emotions and particularly feelings play a central role in decision making under risk. Emotions serve an adaptive role in speeding up the decision making process.”
Fascinating!
One has to wonder about “gut” type decisions. When I make a “gut decision”, if there is time to critically analyze what my emotions are telling me is the correct course to follow, then I usually find that what my “gut” has told me, is the best course of action, after further analysis. I have always wondered why that is.. If my “gut” is truly “right”, or if the pattern in my brain justifies emotionally based decisions by using logic (sometimes flawed, I am sure)?
Perhaps this is the reasons so many of us cannot reverse poor decisions we make, because there is an emotional attachment to them in some way? No matter how much evidence refutes an emotionally based decision, we “stay the course.” What are the risks or perceived risks of admitting fault… ? To what extent is each decision made based on an emotional attachment founded on subconscious emotional connections, personal history/ relationships, psychology….ect?
How is the emotional/risk aversion decision making process changed when it applies to “group think”? Why is it that groups can get caught up in poor judgments when they “think together”? Does a group decision somehow make everyone involved feel less risk? More risk? Why? How does decision making in a group change the emotional aspect of decision making? What types of personalities or experiences make a person able to resist “group think”?
To what extent can training bypass risk aversion in decision making? The military is the obvious example. To what extent do men follow orders that involve huge risks because emotional training has given them the ability to do so, or trained them emotionally? Perhaps to the point where the emotional attachment to their structure supersedes any personal risk?
December 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
PTC:
There is a book out called “Blink” which is all about the process behind “split second” and/or “gut” decision-making. It is written by Malcolm Gladwell.
I haven’t read it yet, but I have read his other book, “The Tipping Point”, which is about how trends and ideas take off in the general population….entertaining writer!
December 5th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
For an obvious reason misanthropes and other iconoclasts tend to find it easy to avoid group think. Furthermore, those 51/49 decisions are best made on a night’s sleep - difficult decisions made hastily tend to be disproportionately regrettable.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Somtimes circumstances call for an immediate decision and there isn’t the luxury of a night’s sleep or group think.
Let me think of an example…hmmmm…
ok…. like when the sale lasts for only 3 more minutes and another gal is making a beeline for the nice red leather Prada bag….
December 5th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
The decision relates solely to the question…to whom do I have to pay big bucks so that I am absolutely and unconditionally assured that I never would be caught, dead or alive, owning, possessing, having custody of or otherwise controlling a Prada bag?
December 5th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Pay it to me!
Now see? I made that decision completely off-the-cuff…with no group think…and no good night’s sleep.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
If you happen to have the bag, I’ll take that too.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Returning to the original subject of this thread:
There is a podcast on the Williams site of a lecture by Professor Joe Cruz, titled “Knowing One’s Mind” in which he focuses on “certainty” and “consciousness”.
It could be an interesting reference for a segment of your CGCL.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:55 am
Thank you for the thread.
I was assuming that Uilble’s bags were getting to your head.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:08 am
Meaning in Life has become less of an interest not only in ED but to individuals themselves. The diversity of society has increasingly removed individuals from asking those questions because we no longer have common interests strong enough to motivate us to think on meaning when it pertains to ourselves in relation to a world that we are estranged from.
Meaning has relevance to individuals through their defining group out of which culture extends. Where is the meaning to be grounded to. Are we to derive meaning from a cosmopolitan community we cannot relate to? There has been many attempts to redefine meaning in life through movements and symbols and constructs to no avail. They do not materialize or sustain themselves.
Meaning can only be found within the individual who identifies with the larger context of his society that best reflects common interests, language, religion.
Where have we observed meaning of life to have a steady influence that is felt throughout a civilization?
Any system of values that consistently weakens, or poisons, or frustrates life is seen to be in fact the supreme immorality.
When the essential means for accomplishing the extraordinary results through deception, obfuscation, intimidation, and the all encompassing organization of - money, we do not possess ourselves.
Aristocracy is the penultimate defining nature of superior man, for men are not born equal and of equal potentialities, which no mere environmental qualities would ever bear out.
Democracies have used the people to exploit and pollute the environment and the people within it. No person should have freedom who cannot be depended upon to balance life with a sense of responsibility, or have rights until they have learned to measure up to the duties that they impose.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:22 am
“When the essential means for accomplishing the extraordinary results through deception, obfuscation, intimidation, and the all encompassing organization of - money, we do not possess ourselves.”
Interesting. By manipulating others, we lose ourselves. I am not sure that I agree 100%. We still possess, and cannot deny, our emotions and the personal meaning of what we do, even if we give part of ourselves up being deceptive and intimidating. As a society we “obfuscate” in order to find personal and positive meaning in what we do.
At what point does the Diplomat, soldier, contractor believe “we are in Iraq for the money and oil only.” My guess is that most of them never do, and find some higher meaning to their lives. Is it wrong to use deception, obfuscation and intimidation for a greater good? If we understand what we are doing, do we truly no longer possess ourselves?
I can reach out and touch the earth, feel a place, touch a face, know a person, a culture- love them… but I cannot attach myself to their fate… not 100%. What does that mean?
March 30th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Funny to see this thread after the fact.
The truth is, I have never desired, or owned a Prada bag. But I do believe in my ‘gut’ decisions. Mostly because they hold no room for argument. They have a strength and duty all their own…and in my experience, happen rarely.
Difficult to describe until you experience it.