GYre0ePJhZ

I do agree with you in a general sense. In this case, however, using utalitarian ethics is merely applying the same standards that global warming advocates generally use as a justification to infringe upon our liberties. I would suggest that if the results of this report is not taken into consideration, they are clearly exposing their biases (whatever they may be). From this I think you could make a reasonable case for that they do not really care about utilitarian ethics applied to humanity as a whole or the environment. And I think there is value in that. I am also curious whether Professor Myers has been in the media protesting the so-called Stalinists in the global warming advocate camp. Although I do not know, my guess is that he has not.

This report from The Global Warming Policy Foundation "addresses the question of whether, and how much, increased carbon dioxide concentrations have benefited the biosphere and humanity by stimulating plant growth, warming the planet and increasing rainfall sheds very interesting statistics on the debate on global warming and CO2 emissions. From the summary (my bolding): Empirical data confirms that the biosphere’s productivity has increased by about 14% since 1982, in large part as a result of rising carbon dioxide levels. Thousands of scientific experiments indicate that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the air have contributed to increases in crop yields. These increases in yield are very likely to have reduced the appropriation of land for farming by 11–17% compared with what it would otherwise be, resulting in more land being left wild. Satellite evidence confirms that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have also resulted in greater productivity of wild terrestrial ecosystems in all vegetation types. Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have also increased the productivity of many marine ecosystems. In recent decades, trends in climate-sensitive indicators of human and environmental wellbeing have improved and continue to do so despite claims that they would deteriorate because of global warming. Compared with the benefits from carbon dioxide on crop and biosphere productivity, the adverse impacts of carbon dioxide – on the frequency and intensity of extreme weather, on sea level, vector-borne disease prevalence and human health – have been too small to measure or have been swamped by other factors. Models used to influence policy on climate change have overestimated the rate of warming, underestimated direct benefits of carbon dioxide, overestimated the harms from climate change and underestimated human capacity to adapt so as to capture the benefits while reducing the harms. It is very likely that the impact of rising carbon dioxide concentrations is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally. These benefits are real, whereas the costs of warming are uncertain. Halting the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations abruptly would deprive people and the planet of the benefits of carbon dioxide much sooner than they would reduce any costs of warming. Very interesting facts that should have impact on the public discourse on CO2, but Breitbart reports that: In other words, we are reading the opinions of a concern troll. Other sources: The Global Warming Policy Foundation press release. Who The Global Warming Policy Foundation are.

Very interesting!

I am a fan of both. Each of them have their strengths I think.

Sorry! Fixed it now

Recommended. Link: http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/a/9/4/a94c4ad5149b279e/cswdcc93.mp3?c_id=9292118&expiration=1435585133&hwt=acd246c85934bd7f591315474fbf5b2d

I have tried to investigate NVC with an open mind and have some thoughts I’d like to share and get everyone's thoughts on. I will focus on the three central concepts of NVC: self-empathy, empathy, and honest self-expression. In the end I will provide suggestions for improvement. I will not make full fleshed-out arguments for every statement that I make: I need to cut some corners so the post won’t become too long. Source is the Wikipedia-page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication The definitions: “[NVC is] a communication process that focus on three aspects of communication. Namely, self-empathy (defined as a deep and compassionate awareness of one’s own inner experience), empathy (defined as listening to another with deep compassion), and honest self-expression (defined as expressing oneself authentically in a way that is likely to inspire compassion in others).” I consider pros to be that NVC has a focus on walking a mile in the other person’s shoes as well as one’s own. Communication-schemas that call attention to another person’s experience may in some cases be associated with self-erasure, which I generally think is unhealthy. NVC also emphasizes honest expressions that I, at least on face-value, can appreciate. I consider cons to be the definitions of the three aspects: self-empathy, empathy, and honest self-expression. Regarding the definition of self-empathy (a deep and compassionate awareness of one’s own inner experience) I find problematic the use of the word deep and compassion. To me it seems vague. For example, what is the difference between deep and compassionate awareness? An alarm-bell rings for me when I see this because it seems to me to be an appeal to emotion. I felt a little annoyed when I read that, and I think it is because I evaluate it to be manipulative. “Inner” as prefix to “experience,” I also find redundant since the definition refers to “one’s own.” Is it possible to have an outer experience? I think the definition of empathy (listening to another with deep compassion) is problematic for the use of the words “deep compassion” for similar reasons of vagueness. Also, is listening to another person enough for it to be empathy? I think I am missing a component that refers to an act of processing what the other person is communicating as in integrating it into your own schemas of the world. The definition of honest self-expression (expressing oneself authentically in a way that is likely to inspire compassion in others) I have some criticisms of as well. Again, I am not sure what compassion means. More importantly, I think the condition that your authentic expression has the goal of inspiring compassion in the other could be a set-up for inappropriate guilt, abdication of responsibility, and manipulation on both ends. Inappropriate guilt because if the other person does not become compassionate through your communication it can be evaluated as a failure that you yourself has the responsibility for. This may induce guilt. I think listening and processing what the other person is communicating is a responsibility of the receiver of the communication. If this is understood the honest self-expression is less likely to be associated with guilt if it fails to inspire compassion. This ties closely to abdication of responsibility to listen and process what the other person is communicating: “I didn’t inspire the other person to feel compassionate. I failed and I feel guilty” or “the other person didn’t inspire me to feel compassionate. The other person failed his or her responsibility to inspire my compassion.” Manipulation because this definition could entice a conflict of who has the responsibility to inspire compassion in who. Maybe define self-empathy as awareness to and processing of one’s own experience? Maybe define empathy as awareness to and processing of what the other is communicating? Honest self-expression I find harder to find alternative definitions of. But maybe define it as describing your perceptions, describing your evaluations of those perceptions, and describing the consequent feelings those evaluations created? I want to emphasize that I am not an expert on these matters by any stretch of the imagination so I find it likely that I am mistaken about some things I have written in this post (I only heard about NVC yesterday). I have more thoughts on the matter, but I think this is enough for now. I look forward to everyone's thoughts

It definitely seems like people use SDT on faulty grounds to further their own agendas while stealing scientific credibility. Personally, I find that utterly disgusting on so many levels. On what you write about the Occam's razor I don't feel I really have enough knowledge to evaluate that one way or the other. But I am thinking it might be contextual. I.e., what we use it for or what we want to investigate. For your use it seems perfectly valid to use the Occam's razor. I do want to correct something I said earlier though: "My opinion on this is that the key difference is whether a person feels that an action is imposed from an external source or feels that an action comes from a place where many options are available. I.e., you feel free versus limited in your options." I don't agree with this since externally motivated behaviors might be a result of healthy negotiation. The use of the word imposed is therefore totally misplaced. I am not sure whether I have much to add this conversation by now, but I want to thank you for helping me think more clearly on this topic. I hope you found our discussion fruitful as well. Take care and good luck with your educational endeavours.

Here is an article that summarize the intrinsic-extrinsic motivation theory from the standpoint of the founders of the theory. Search for it on scholar.google.com and I think you should be able to access it. I think it is important to keep in mind that there is a difference between how psychologists use these terms and how people who for their own selfish agendas transmogrify and apply them into something hideous. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.

I agree with you that it is often very difficult to know the source motivation of someone's action due to limited self-knowledge and that this undermines the usefulness of the labels. Still, people do give reasons for their actions and they often report that it is important to them whether they do it because the activity makes them happy or to get a reward that will make them happy later on. Statistically speaking, this seems to be a pattern. This discussion reminds me of this meme: : I will withdraw from this thread now as I don't feel I have enough time to participate further. It has been fun. Thanks jpahmad for bringing up important issues.

Matt: I want to make sure I understand what you are arguing. You think that people do things because they think it will make them happy? Thus, whether people do things because the activity makes them happy or because it leads to something else that makes them happy does not matter. Is this accurate of your position?

Apologize for misrepresenting you. I do think you misrepresent my arguments too though. I did apply the terms to activities and experience. So when you quote me writing: "An action imposed from an external source" and say that it is completely unscientific you are not arguing against what I actually was writing. What I wrote was: "whether a person feels that an action is imposed from an external source". This makes it clear that I am talking about the experience of where a motivation to do something comes from. I.e., does a person experience the motivation as coming from extrinsic factors (e.g. rewards, force) or from intrinsic factors: "I enjoy doing this as an end in itself". Notice that I am talking about an experience in relation to an acivity and not as a label of the personality of someone. People that label, judge or shame anyone (including oneself) as good or bad depending on the answer to whether one is intrinsically or extrinsically motivated to do something are engaging in a non-sequitor. Therefore, it is not an argument against the usefulness of the distinction. Useful in this context means that the concepts help explain the reality of why people do what they do and the resulting experience of an activity due to this reason (the theory fit the data). After all, words are tools. To sum up: I think you bring up good critiques of how these terms are used, but I disagree with them being unscientific.

First of all, cool of you to put yourself on the spot like this. The terms intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation come from Deci & Ryan's Self-Determination Theory which is a "macro theory of human motivation and personality, concerning people's inherent growth tendencies and their innate psychological needs. It is concerned with the motivation behind the choices that people make without any external influence and interference. SDT focuses on the degree to which an individual’s behavior is self-motivated and self-determined" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination_theory I have not seen all of your content on this (it is in total a bit too long for the time I have available right now), but I do agree with you, philosophically, in that motivation without any external influence is a misnomer. We all have those we admire, advisors, parents, and a life lived with unique experiences that can be said to atleast have some influence on your motivations. However, these terms are useful in explaining human happiness as evidenced by empirical research on the matter. My opinion on this is that the key difference is whether a person feels that an action is imposed from an external source or feels that an action comes from a place where many options are available. I.e., you feel free versus limited in your options. This feeling can, of course, be based on irrational thinking/expectations, but it still does explain a lot of what makes people feel good about what they are doing.

What better to do on New Year's Eve than to philosophize, am I right? So I am reading "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff and I want to share with you how I came to accept the axioms of Objectivism because this was a big struggle for me. Maybe this can be of help to others and perhaps I can have any potential mistakes corrected. My understanding is that there are no contradictions between the metaphysics of Objectivism and UPB. However, the approaches are distinct in that Objectivism has a focus on establishing its theoretical framework in a more formal way as can normally be found in philosophical works while UPB focuses on establishing its tenets through looking at what people do in conversation. In other words, UPB does not really contain axioms in the traditional sense other than what is self-evident when people argue. I.e., UPB takes a shortcut and I assume this is done due to it being more effective and practical in everyday life. Objectivist metaphysics, on the other hand, goes deeper in that it uses axioms that refer to our first sensation of the world. The three Objectivist axioms are Existence, Consciousness, and Identity. My error in grasping them was that I am used to evaluating concepts through the method of how one establishes arguments: Through evidence plus deductive or inductive reasoning. The challenge here is that the validation of the Objectivist axioms require no deductive or inductive reason. It is not something that is grasped through analysis. Rather, what I needed to do was to dilute my focus on the abstractions and simply look at the world around me with its various objects, actions and properties. When I focus on just looking around I have to accept that something (identity) exists (existence) of which I am aware (consciousness). This is self-evident just by perceiving the world. I am not sure whether identity are a function of existence, of consciousness, or of both, but I think that it does not fundamentally matter because without accepting this axiom I contradict myself. This because I have to implicitly rely on identity when I use concepts which I evidently do since I am writing this forum post. Another interesting thing about Objectivist metaphysics is that identity is an implicit of existence rather than something that refers to an essence that are in the things. The latter is what Aristotle stated in one of his principal works: "Metaphysics." In other words, in Objectivism existents do not have identity. They are identity. I am not sure what to make of that but I really find that fascinating. Hope that helps and please point out any errors. Happy 2015!