At least in my experience talking to biologists, the general view has been “there’s a version of group selection that, if defined the right way, we all accept.” But, maybe that’s my limited view as someone who wasn’t a biologist in the 70s, and who hasn’t ever picked a fight with Richard Dawkins.But, Haidt does a great job of offering a pathway to understanding each other in an increasingly polarized political climate.My Self-Summary I’m a Ph D student in London, researching women in the boardroom. I’m in the last 6 months of my Ph D, so I spend most of my time re-reading sections of my thesis that I have already re-written many times over, and drinking too much coffee, and getting angry with people who get between me and the coffee. Music – Classical, ambient, or generally anything that doesn’t have words to it, so I can listen to it while I work.
The most exciting days are when conferences take place in our building and there’s free sandwiches. Long words that other people don’t understand, that give me an inflated sense of self-importance. [Once, someone brought in a box of Krispy Kremes and there was nearly a riot.] The six things I could never do without… This is interesting on its own, but Haidt adds an argument about how and why humans tend to view their personal moral value system as the only true one, which results in uncooperative “righteous” behavior.This is an interesting approach, especially in that it turns what most people would call “outrage” into “righteousness” which reframes it in a way that’s interesting to consider. In particular, there’s an argument about group selection that (like a lot of arguments about multi-level selection theory) seems to me to be semantic to a large degree, and perhaps to overplay the idea that group selection is some sort of scientific heresy.True story - long ago when I was on the dating market, every time I talked to a grad student who found out I was a cartoonist, she'd say "ARE YOU JORGE CHAM? But, the basic core here is that it’s a book about moral psychology, or what you might call an empirical look at human morality.
There’s a lot here, so I won’t try to unpack it all.That, and all the interesting facts and arguments, make this a very enjoyable read. D.: New Orleans After the Deluge (Neufeld) I really enjoyed this comic book.Before I get into it, let me just say by the way that, as a cartoonist, I appreciate Neufeld’s dedication to drawing gorgeous and detailed backgrounds.Her reply summed it up: “That’s probably for the best.” Relationships are incompatible with Ph Ds, seems to be the conclusion. Anything by Erving Goffman, Michel Foucault, Judith Butler or Pierre Bourdieu. Although I definitely don’t want to talk about my thesis.A recent Buzz Feed article really hit home with lots of my Ph D friends – ‘24 Struggles You’ll Only Understand If You’re Dating A Ph D Student’ – it covers a lot of the issues Ph D students in couples have. Mainly I am good at buying theory books I wont have time to read, and stacking them around me on my desk to make myself feel like I’m working. Trying to disguise the fact that all I can think is: “You should be writing. Which is awkward, because I can only think about my thesis. | Relationship Chemistry Predictor | Relationship Needs Assessment Or, take our new psychological assessment that will tell you what you really want versus what you say you want.