Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • UM. NOPE. Moral psychology is relationship regulation: moral motives for unity,

    UM. NOPE.

    Moral psychology is relationship regulation: moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality.

    Tage S. Rai, Alan Page Fiske

    Published in Psychological review 2011

    Genuine moral disagreement exists and is widespread. To understand such disagreement, we must examine the basic kinds of social relationships people construct across cultures and the distinct moral obligations and prohibitions these relationships entail. We extend relational models theory (Fiske, 1991) to identify 4 fundamental and distinct moral motives. Unity is the motive to care for and support the integrity of in-groups by avoiding or eliminating threats of contamination and providing aid and protection based on need or empathic compassion. Hierarchy is the motive to respect rank in social groups where superiors are entitled to deference and respect but must also lead, guide, direct, and protect subordinates. Equality is the motive for balanced, in-kind reciprocity, equal treatment, equal say, and equal opportunity. Proportionality is the motive for rewards and punishments to be proportionate to merit, benefits to be calibrated to contributions, and judgments to be based on a utilitarian calculus of costs and benefits. The 4 moral motives are universal, but cultures, ideologies, and individuals differ in where they activate these motives and how they implement them. Unlike existing theories (Haidt, 2007; Hauser, 2006; Turiel, 1983), relationship regulation theory predicts that any action, including violence, unequal treatment, and “impure” acts, may be perceived as morally correct depending on the moral motive employed and how the relevant social relationship is construed. This approach facilitates clearer understanding of moral perspectives we disagree with and provides a template for how to influence moral motives and practices in the world.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-02 09:24:00 UTC

  • It’s fine. It’s what we want. More and more of this is the best solution. Until

    It’s fine. It’s what we want. More and more of this is the best solution. Until we want more than this.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-01 18:03:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256283022552436736

    Reply addressees: @EricLiford @Nationalist7346

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256264046996832256

  • Data check: U.S. government share of basic research funding falls below 50% By J

    Data check: U.S. government share of basic research funding falls below 50%

    By Jeffrey Mervis

    For the first time in the post–World War II era, the federal government no longer funds a majority of the basic research carried out in the United States. Data from ongoing surveys by the National Science Foundation (NSF) show that federal agencies provided only 44% of the $86 billion spent on basic research in 2015. The federal share, which topped 70% throughout the 1960s and ’70s, stood at 61% as recently as 2004 before falling below 50% in 2013.

    The sharp drop in recent years is the result of two contrasting trends—a flattening of federal spending on basic research over the past decade and a significant rise in corporate funding of fundamental science since 2012. The first is a familiar story to most academic scientists, who face stiffening competition for federal grants.

    But the second trend will probably surprise them. It certainly flies in the face of conventional wisdom, which paints U.S. companies as so focused on short-term profits that they have all but abandoned the pursuit of fundamental knowledge, an endeavor that may take decades to pay off. (This month, for example, Duke University’s Center for Innovation Policy will hold a conference entitled “The Decline in Corporate Research: Should We Worry?”)

    NSF defines basic research as “activity aimed at acquiring new knowledge or understanding without specific immediate commercial application or use.” In contrast, it says applied research is “aimed at solving a specific problem or meeting a specific commercial objective.”

    The U.S. pharmaceutical industry is the major driver behind the recent jump in corporate basic research, according to NSF’s annual Business Research and Development and Innovation Survey (BRDIS), which tracks the research activities of 46,000 companies. Drug company investment in basic research soared from $3 billion in 2008 to $8.1 billion in 2014, according to the most recent NSF data by business sector. Spending on basic research by all U.S. businesses nearly doubled over that same period, from $13.9 billion to $24.5 billion.

    Basic research comprises only about one-sixth of the country’s spending on all types of R&D, which totaled $499 billion in 2015. Applied makes up another one-sixth, whereas the majority, some $316 billion, is development. Almost all of that is funded by industry and done inhouse, as companies try to convert basic research into new drugs, products, and technologies that they hope will generate profits. (The pharmaceutical and biotech industry, for example, spent a total of $102 billion on research and development in 2015, according to Research!America, an Arlington, Virginia–based advocacy group.)

    Those private sector efforts are now the dominant form of research activity in the United States, with business spending $3 on research for every $1 invested by the U.S. government. In the 1960s the federal government outspent industry by a two-to-one margin, but the balance tipped in 1980.

    Although eye-opening, the NSF business data are not as definitive as agency officials might like. About 30% of the companies that receive the BRDIS don’t respond; in comparison, nearly every university fills out NSF’s survey on research in higher education. And even companies that do return the business survey often ignore the question asking them to divide the company’s overall research investment into basic and applied pots, notes John Jankowski, head of R&D statistics within NSF’s National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics in Arlington.

    The NSF data capture another notable trend: a slow but steady rise in spending on basic research by universities and private foundations. Their combined $22 billion investment in 2015 represents a 25% share of the U.S. total, up from 21% in 2010 and 17% in 1995.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-01 09:42:00 UTC

  • thats the general idea

    thats the general idea.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-01 01:59:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256040474961498120

    Reply addressees: @georgerockwel23 @carterforva

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256040350608736264

  • I’m sure that makes sense in clown world. Not here in reality

    I’m sure that makes sense in clown world. Not here in reality.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-01 01:58:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256040372276465664

    Reply addressees: @Exyrtt @richcomdnd @AholiabBezaleel @FeldheimBaruch

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256038470914580480

  • As if you were capable of challenging me. 😉 There are only a handful of whites

    As if you were capable of challenging me. 😉
    There are only a handful of whites that can. 😉
    And they would be afraid to.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-01 01:48:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256037710847979522

    Reply addressees: @AholiabBezaleel @Lazuli_OW @FeldheimBaruch

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256037481797033989

  • What does antifa carry?

    What does antifa carry?


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-01 00:12:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256013577221222401

    Reply addressees: @msfoodie @itsJeffTiedrich

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1255985252939575299

  • So you mean when antifa regularly does the same and engages in the same using vi

    So you mean when antifa regularly does the same and engages in the same using violence (but these men don’t), it’s ok?

    Why are you so selective in your outrage?


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-01 00:09:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256012928605655045

    Reply addressees: @mikeduncan

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1255969101236834304

  • Yep. Beautiful thing. Raleigh this week too. 😉

    Yep. Beautiful thing. Raleigh this week too. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-30 22:43:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1255991292129050629

    Reply addressees: @I_Vae_Victis_I @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1255991199393034248

  • He isn’t looking for opportunities. He’s a wrecking ball against postwar social

    He isn’t looking for opportunities. He’s a wrecking ball against postwar social pseudoscience and your ambitions. And right now, he’s becoming irrelevant. Because while we gave him a change to save you, we’ve about decided we must take matters out of political hands. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-30 21:51:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1255978194097897472

    Reply addressees: @ezraklein

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1255963553284059136