Quotes 2-24-2015
by Miles Raymer
“The adult world has so much less to offer than adolescence does.”
––Tampa, by Alissa Nutting, pg. 140
“If we are merely slaves to our groupish tendencies and our inbuilt decision-making machinery, then what of free will, moral responsibility, and intellectual growth? But take heart, fellow travelers: Ironically, the very social processes that constrain the free will of individuals may also serve to aid the broader mission of intellectual and ethical progress. In particular, provided that there are at least two groups with opposing opinions, then competition between groups for the best evidence, the most convincing arguments, and ultimately the correct answer may spur progress on both sides. In short, intergroup competition may function something like an arms race.
Perhaps the best-known example of this effect is the space race, in which the former Soviet Union and the United States competed to have the most advanced space technologies. Competition between these bitter enemies led to tremendous progress in both pure and applied sciences and also led to an American push for better science education. Such arms races may occur whenever people form groups that compete to achieve the same goal. In the academic arena, groups of people with differing opinions are competing to uncover the truth; in the moral arena, groups are competing for their moral stance to become the normative view. When one side acquires new evidence or finds a flaw in the opposing side’s logic, the other side must shore of their arguments or find better ones. Competition between groups may also serve as a check on coherence effects: With the other side drawing attention to the holes in one’s position, it becomes more difficult to ignore competing evidence or maintain a blithe certitude in one’s conclusions. Thus, our own groupish tendencies may be both our destruction and our salvation.
Of course, there are important differences between intellectual and military arms races. In a military arms race, it is difficult to ignore when one side is ahead: If the other guys have a satellite in space and you don’t, then evidently you’re doing something wrong and you need to change your approach. However, when the competition is between ideas, the outcomes are less clear-cut. The danger here is that if both sides think they’re winning, they may simply ignore the other side, thereby circumventing the possibility of a productive arms race. As a result, it is not simply enough to sit back and let intergroup competition work its magic. Rather, each of us has a personal responsibility to actively listen to people who have a different view, both as academics and as citizens of the world. In this way, individual responsibility and intergroup processes may work synergistically, allowing social and intellectual progress to be made, scientific revolutions to occur, and people to change their minds from time to time.”
–– “Social Groups: Both Our Destruction and Our Salvation?” by Hanah A. Chapman and William A. Cunningham, Moral Psychology, Vol. 4, ed. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, pg. 400-1
Good quote and excellent observations by the author. It is not difficult to see the detriment of cultures that fail to advance scientifically and technologically. Even ideally, we have advanced considerably since the days of Rome. And if Pinker is to be believed, we are less violent. Additionally, we are more hygienic as are our streets. Of course, I am impatient and would like to see greater advances in our willingness to reason well and to be more humane.
Agreed, but I also think this quote paints “progress” with a rather broad brush, ignoring the negative results of technological development, hyper-competitive economies, and globalization. It’s not that I think Chapman and Cunningham are wrong about claiming the space race had some great outcomes, but rather that they’re omitting the darker sides of that process.