Jonathan Haidt: Universities Are Digging Their Own Graves

 

  1. Jonathan Haidt: Universities Are Digging Their Own Graves
    Published On :-2017-April-2nd
    Link

 

Indepth

  1. Micro-aggression
    • Wikipedia
      Link
      A microaggression is the casual degradation of any marginalized group. The term was coined by psychiatrist and Harvard University professor Chester M. Pierce in 1970 to describe insults and dismissals he regularly witnessed non-black Americans inflict on African Americans.
      Eventually, the term came to encompass the casual degradation of any socially marginalized group, such as the poor or the disabled.
      Psychologist Derald Wing Sue defines microaggressions as “brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership”.
      The concept is frequently taught by those seeking to resist racism and oppression.
      However, a number of authors, including Bradley Campbell, Heather Mac Donald, Amitai Etzioni, Jonathan Haidt, Greg Lukianoff, Jason Manning, Ralph Nader, and Christina Hoff Sommers, have argued that the concept of microaggressions may be harmful to both individuals and society.
  2. Moral Dependency
    • Victimhood Culture
    • Culture
      • Honor Culture
        • Small insults have to be addressed by you
      • Dignity Culture
        • Trade
        • Little understanding was use
        • I will not make a little thing out of a little name calling
        • Great for diversity
        • What is happening in some small universities
          • In small egalitarian universities, authorities were been brought in to address little things
          • Everyone was trying to get prestige by showing what a victim they are
          • Or by punishing people who they feel might have harmed people
        • Where did this come
          • In the 90s, kids started to be raised by active parents
          • In response to child abduction and things of the sort, parents started to be more active in parenting their children
          • Kids noticed and started using parents as problem solvers and co-opt to punish their siblings
          • Not learnt to
            • Deal with insult
        • Encourage moral dependency
        • Mob Punishment
        • Fear of saying something wrong

Jonathan Haidt

Background

It always humbles me to see how far ahead so many of these guys really are.

Profile

 

Quotes

“If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between ‘for’ and ‘against’ is the mind’s worst disease.”
Sent-ts’an, Buddhist, around c. 700 C.E.

 

 

Videos

  1. Tim Keller & Jonathan Haidt at NYU – The Closing of the Modern Mind – Identity Politics
    Link
  2. Jonathan Haidt: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives
    March 2008
    Link

David Brooks – This Age of Wonkery

Background

Newspaper Man, David Brooks, writes an article only he can write; as it takes not being solidly behind an Ideology.

 

Story

 

Link

If you were a certain sort of ideas-oriented young person coming of age in the 20th century, it was very likely you would give yourself a label and join some movement. You’d call yourself a Marxist, a neoconservative, a Freudian, an existentialist or a New Deal liberal.

There would be certain sacred writers who would explain the world to you — from Jung to Camus, Dewey or Chesterton. There’d probably be a small magazine where the doctrines of your sect would be hammered out.

People today seem less likely to give themselves intellectual labels or join self-conscious philosophical movements. Young people today seem more likely to have their worldviews shaped by trips they have taken, or causes they have been involved in, or the racial or ethnic or gender identity group they identify with.

That’s changed the nature of the American intellectual scene, the way people approach the world and the lives they live.

In his book, “The Ideas Industry,” Daniel W. Drezner says we’ve shifted from a landscape dominated by public intellectuals to a world dominated by thought leaders. A public intellectual is someone like Isaiah Berlin, who is trained to comment on a wide array of public concerns from a specific moral stance. A thought leader champions one big idea to improve the world — think Al Gore’s work on global warming.

As Drezner puts it, intellectuals are critical, skeptical and tend to be pessimistic. Thought leaders are evangelists for their idea and tend to be optimistic. The world of Davos-like conferences, TED talks and PopTech rewards thought leaders, not intellectuals, Drezner argues.

Intellectual life has fallen out of favor for several reasons, he continues. In a low-trust era, people no longer have as much faith in grand intellectuals to serve as cultural arbiters. In a polarized era, ideologically minded funders like George Soros or the Koch brothers will only pay for certain styles of thought work. In an unequal era, rich people like to go to Big Idea conferences, and when they do they want to hear ideas that are going to have some immediate impact — Jeffrey Sachs’s latest plan to end world poverty or Amy Cuddy’s findings on how to adopt the right power stance.

Drezner doesn’t call this a decline, just a shift (let’s not underestimate how silly and wrong some of the grand, sweeping intellectuals could be). But I’m struck by how people’s relationship to ideas has changed.

In the first place, public thinkers now conceive of themselves as legislative advisers. Drezner writes a book called “The Ideas Industry,” but he is really writing about public policy. When George Orwell, Simone de Beauvoir or even Ralph Waldo Emerson were writing, they were hoping to radically change society, but nobody would confuse them with policy wonks.

Second, there was a greater sense then than now, I think, that the very nature of society was up for grabs. Call it a vestige from Marxism or maybe Christianity, but there was a sense that the current fallen order was fragile and that a more just mode of living was out there to be imagined.

Finally, intellectual life was just seen as more central to progress. Intellectuals establish the criteria by which things are measured and goals are set. Intellectuals create the frameworks within which politicians operate. How can you have a plan unless you are given a theory? Intellectuals create the age.

Doing that sort of work meant leading the sort of exceptional life that allowed you to emerge from the cave — to see truth squarely and to be fully committed to the cause. Creating a just society was the same thing as transforming yourself into a moral person.

For George Orwell, this meant being with the poor and the oppressed — living as a homeless tramp in England, a dishwasher in Paris, getting shot through the neck as a soldier in the Spanish Civil War. It meant teaching himself how to turn political writing into an art form.

For the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci, it meant committing fully to ideas, even if it meant years in prison, and doing the rigorous mental work required for a life of hard thinking. He was as left as can be, but he believed in traditional school curriculums, the tough grinding of learning Latin and Greek grammar. “It will be necessary to resist the tendency to render easy that which cannot become easy without being distorted,” he wrote.

It also meant joining a tradition and a team. There were a whole set of moral tests involved with obedience to the movement, breaking ranks when necessary, facing unpleasant truths, pioneering a collective way of living, whether feminist, Marxist or libertarian.

The 20th century held up intellectuals like that, and then discredited them — too many were too wrong about communism and fascism. But we’ve probably over-adjusted, and deprived a generation of a vision of the heroic intellectual. It’s good to have people who think about North Korean disarmament. But politics is most real at a more essential level.

Continue reading

TheAtlantic – How Brain Scientists Forgot That Brains Have Owners ( By Ed Yong )

Introduction

Ed Yong has an interesting article in the Feb 2017 Edition of the Atlantic.

I especially like it as it shows that we can disagree without being disagreeable.

 

Story

Link
It’s a good time to be interested in the brain. Neuroscientists can now turn neurons on or off with just a flash of light, allowing them to manipulate the behavior of animals with exceptional precision. They can turn brains transparent and seed them with glowing molecules to divine their structure. They can record the activity of huge numbers of neurons at once. And those are just the tools that currently exist. In 2013, Barack Obama launched the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative—a $115 million plan to develop even better technologies for understanding the enigmatic gray blobs that sit inside our skulls.

John Krakaeur, a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins Hospital, has been asked to BRAIN Initiative meetings before, and describes it like “Maleficent being invited to Sleeping Beauty’s birthday.” That’s because he and four like-minded friends have become increasingly disenchanted by their colleagues’ obsession with their toys. And in a new paper that’s part philosophical treatise and part shot across the bow, they argue that this technological fetish is leading the field astray. “People think technology + big data + machine learning = science,” says Krakauer. “And it’s not.”

He and his fellow curmudgeons argue that brains are special because of the behavior they create—everything from a predator’s pounce to a baby’s cry. But the study of such behavior is being de-prioritized, or studied “almost as an afterthought.” Instead, neuroscientists have been focusing on using their new tools to study individual neurons, or networks of neurons. According to Krakauer, the unspoken assumption is that if we collect enough data about the parts, the workings of the whole will become clear. If we fully understand the molecules that dance across a synapse, or the electrical pulses that zoom along a neuron, or the web of connections formed by many neurons, we will eventually solve the mysteries of learning, memory, emotion, and more. “The fallacy is that more of the same kind of work in the infinitely postponed future will transform into knowing why that mother’s crying or why I’m feeling this way,” says Krakauer. And, as he and his colleagues argue, it will not.

That’s because behavior is an emergent property—it arises from large groups of neurons working together, and isn’t apparent from studying any single one. You can draw parallels with the flocking of birds. Biologists have long wondered how they manage to wheel about the skies in perfect coordination, as if they were a single entity. In the 1980s, computer scientists showed that this can happen if each bird obeys a few simple rules, which dictate their distance and alignment relative to their peers. From these simple individual rules, collective complexity emerges.

But you would never have been able to predict the latter from the former. No matter how thoroughly you understood the physics of feathers, you could never have predicted a murmuration of starlings without first seeing it happen. So it is with the brain. As British neuroscientist David Marr wrote in 1982, “trying to understand perception by understanding neurons is like trying to understand a bird’s flight by studying only feathers. It just cannot be done.”

A landmark study, published last year, beautifully illustrated his point using, of all things, retro video games. Eric Jonas and Konrad Kording examined the MOS 6502 microchip, which ran classics like Donkey Kong and Space Invaders, in the style of neuroscientists. Using the approaches that are common to brain science, they wondered if they could rediscover what they already knew about the chip—how its transistors and logic gates process information, and how they run simple games. And they utterly failed.

“What we extracted was so incredibly superficial,” Jonas told me last year. And “in the real world, this would be a millions-of-dollars data set.” If the kind of neuroscience that
has come to dominate the field couldn’t explain the workings of a simple, dated microchip, how could it hope to explain the brain—reputedly the most complex object in the universe?

This criticism misses the mark, says Rafael Yuste from Columbia University, who works on developing new tools for studying the brain. We still don’t understand how the brain works, he says, “because we’re still ignorant about the middle ground between single neurons and behavior, which is the function of groups of neurons—of neural circuits.” And that’s because of “the methodological shackles that have prevented investigators from examining the activity of entire nervous system. This is probably futile, like watching TV by examining a single pixel at a time.” By developing better tools that can watch entire neural circuits in action, programs like the BRAIN Initiative are working against reductionism and will take us closer to capturing the emergent properties of the brain.

But Krakauer says that this viewpoint just swaps “neuron” for “neural circuit” and then makes the same conceptual mistake. “It’ll be interesting to see emergent properties at the level of the circuit, but it’s a fallacy to think that you get closer to the whole organism and understanding will automatically ensue,” he says.

He and his colleagues aren’t dismissing new technologies, either. They’re not neuro-Luddites. “These new tools are amazing; I’m using them right now in my lab,” says Asif Ghazanfar from Princeton University, who studies communication between pairs of marmoset monkeys. “But I spent seven years trying to understand their vocal behavior first. Now, I have some specific ideas about what the neural circuitry behind that might look like, and I’ll design careful experiments to test them. Often it seems that people do the reverse: They look at the cool tech and say, ‘What questions can I ask with that?’ And then you get these results that you can interpret in vague ways.”

This point is crucial. Unlike others who have levied charges of reductionism against neuroscience, Ghazanfar and his peers aren’t dualists—they aren’t saying there’s a mind that sits separate from the brain and resists explanation. They’re saying that explanations exist. It’s just that we’re looking for them in the wrong way. Worse, we’re arriving at the wrong explanations.

Consider mirror neurons. These cells, first discovered in monkeys, fire in the same way when an animal performs an action and when it sees another individual doing the same. To some scientists, these shared firing patterns imply understanding: Since the monkey knows its intentions when it moves its own body, based on the firing of the mirror neurons, it should be able to infer similar intentions upon whomever it watches. And so, these neurons have been mooted as the basis of empathy, language, autism, jazz, and even human civilization—not for nothing have they been called the “most hyped concept in neuroscience.”

Here’s the problem: In the monkey experiments, scientists almost never check the animals’ behavior to confirm that they genuinely actually understand what they’re seeing in their peers. As Krakauer and colleagues write, “An interpretation is being mistaken for a result; namely, that the mirror neurons understand the other individual.” As others have written, there’s little strong evidence for this—or even for the existence of mirror neurons in humans. This is the kind of logical trap that you fall into when you ignore behavior.

By contrast, Krakauer points to his own work on Parkinson’s disease. People with the disease tend to move slowly—a symptom that’s been linked to a lack of dopamine. Increase the levels of that chemical, and you can hasten a person’s movements. That’s could lead to new treatments, which is no small victory. But it doesn’t tell a neuroscientist why or how the loss of dopamine leads to the behavior.

Krakauer found a clue in 2007 by asking Parkinson’s patients to reach for objects at varying speeds. These experiments revealed that they’re just as capable of moving quickly as healthy people; they’re just unconsciously reluctant to do so. They suggested that dopamine-producing neurons that connect two parts of the brain—the substantia nigra and the striatum—determine our motivation to move. Deplete that dopamine, and we opt for less energetic movements for a given task. Hence the slowness. Later experiments in mice, in which modern techniques were used to raise or lower dopamine levels, confirmed this idea.

There are many other examples where behavior led the way. By studying how owls listen out for scurrying prey, neuroscientists discovered how their brains—and later, those of mammals—localize sound. By studying how marmosets call to each other, Ghazanfar has learned more about the rules that govern turn-taking in human conversation. Critically, these cases began with studying behaviors that the animals naturally do, not those that they had been trained to perform. Likewise, bats, sea slugs, and electric fish have all told us a lot about how brains work, because each has its own specialized skills. “If you pick a species that does one or two behaviors super-well, you can identify the underlying circuits more clearly,” Ghazanfar says. “Instead, mice are treated as if they’re this generic mammal that have smaller versions of human brains—and that’s preposterous.”

“I am thrilled to see this paper emphasize the importance of carefully studied behavior,” says Anne Churchland, who studies decision-making at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. “I’ve seen in neuroscience that behavior is often an afterthought, studied with insufficient understanding of the animal’s strategy.” But she adds that such studies are hard. It’s difficult to get animals to behave naturally in a lab, because you might need to recreate aspects of their world that aren’t obvious to us.

Ghazanfar agrees. “If your goal is to understand the brain, you have to understand behavior, and that’s not trivial. I think a lot of neuroscientists think it is,” he says. “Perhaps one way forward would be to develop tools to help address the complexity of behavior” suggests Ed Boyden from MIT, who pioneered the breakthrough technique called optogenetics. “Behavioral investigation has a strong tradition in neuroscience and I hope it grows even stronger.”

For the moment, the problem is that it’s getting harder to publish such studies in flagship neuroscience journals. Behavioral studies get rejected for “not having enough neuro”, says Ghazanfar, and “it’s as if every paper needs to be a methodological decathlon in order to be considered important.”

Marina Picciotto from Yale University, who is editor in chief of the Journal of Neuroscience, says it boils down to how studies are framed. If they’re just describing behavior, they’re probably more appropriate for a journal that, say, focuses on psychology. But if behavioral experiments explicitly lead to hypotheses about circuits in the brain, or something of that kind, they’re more relevant for the neuroscience field. But “the line between ‘pure’ behavior and neuroscience is fluid,” she admits, and she’s both appreciative of the new paper and open to discussions about the issues it raises.

To Krakauer, the current line demeans behavioral work, deeming it valuable “as long as it tells us where to stick the electrodes.” But it’s important in itself. “My fear is that people will say: Yes, of course, we should continue to do everything we’ve been doing, but also do better behavior studies. I’m trying to say: You’ve got to do the behavior first. You can’t fly the plane while building it.”

Listening

Wretch 32 ft Jacob Banks – ‘Doing OK’ (Official Video)
Link

Dissociative Identity Disorder

Cases

  1. Herschel Walker – Dissociative Identity Disorder
    • Discussion with Herschel Walker, Cindy DeAngelis Grossman ( his ex-wife ), and Jerry Mungadze ( his therapist )
    • Uploaded On :- 2010-Apr-28th
    • DID – Dissociative Identity Disorder 1 of 2
      Link
    • DID – Dissociative Identity Disorder 2 of 2
      Link
  2. Kanaan Ministries – Foundational Understanding of Mind Control – Dissociative Identity Disorder
    • Dissociative Identity Disorder
      Link

 

Indepth

Herschel Walker

Herschel Walker is widely regarded as one of football’s greatest running backs. He led the University of Georgia to victory in the Sugar Bowl on the way to an NCAA Championship and he capped a sensational college career by earning the 1982 Heisman Trophy. Herschel spent twelve years in the NFL, where he rushed for more than eight thousand yards and scored sixty-one rushing touchdowns.

But despite the acclaim he won as a football legend, track star, Olympic competitor, and later a successful businessman, Herschel realized that his life, at times, was simply out of control. He often felt angry, self-destructive, and unable to connect meaningfully with friends and family. Drawing on his deep faith, Herschel turned to professionals for help and was ultimately diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder, formerly known as multiple personality disorder.

While some might have taken this diagnosis as a setback, Herschel approached his mental health with the same indomitable spirit he brought to the playing field. It also gave him, for the first time, insight into his life’s unexplained passages, stretches of time that seemed forever lost. Herschel came to understand that during those times, his “alters,” or alternate personalities, were in control.

Born into a poor, but loving family in the South, Herschel was an overweight child with a stutter who suffered terrible bullying at school. He now understands that he created “alters” who could withstand abuse. But beyond simply enduring, other “alters” came forward to help Herschel overcome numerous obstacles and, by the time he graduated high school, become an athlete recognized on a national level.

In Breaking Free, Herschel tells his story — from the joys and hardships of childhood to his explosive impact on college football to his remarkable professional career. And he gives voice and hope to those suffering from DID. Herschel shows how this disorder played an integral role in his accomplishments and how he has learned to live with it today. His compelling account testifies to the strength of the human spirit and its ability to overcome any challenge.

Kanaan Ministries ( South Africa – SA )

Narrator

Amanda Buys, Kanaan Ministries, South Africa, is the instructor.

 

Discussions

  1. Captive Spirit
    • The following is an extract from the latest course ACTS (Advanced Counsellors Training School). For the complete course – there are 23 DVDs and 3 manuals, which can be purchased from our office, please contact our office:
    • Parts
      • Captive Spirit – Part 1
        Published On : 2016-May-27th
        Link
      • Captive Spirit – Part 2
        Link
      • Captive Spirit – Part 3
        Link
  2. Foundational Understanding of Mind Control
    • Foundational Understanding of Mind Control – Part 1
      Published on :- 2016-May-30th
      Link
  3. SRA / Dissociative Identity Disorder ( DID ) Advanced Training Sessions
    • SRA / DID Advanced Training Sessions 1 – 3
      Added On: 2017-Jan-16
      Link
  4. Neshamah – Journey to Freedom
    • Amanda Buys, Kanaan Ministries, South Africa, is the instructor in this video seminar on the Neshamah and is supplemental to the teaching “Understanding Neshamah in Counseling DID/SRA”. It was recorded in January of 2013.
      Published On :- 2013-Sep-27
      Link

InDepth

Captive Spirit

Captive Spirit Part 1

  1. The enemy comes against the Counselor and places fear in his heart and mind
    • Every new level comes with his own level of intimation
    • Balance between Faith and Fear
  2. Isaiah 42:22
    • But this is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared in holes, and they are hid in prison houses: they are for a prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore.
  3. Wound Type
    • It is a Spirit wound [ Segment 11 ]
      • It is not just a soul wound
      • Once it gets into captivity, it is both a Soul and Spirit wound
  4. The Captive in the Tower
    • The enemy takes advantage of these moments of great suffering and trauma to capture a fragment/piece of us and takes us prisoners in his kingdom
    • When a person suffers from intense trauma, regions of fear capture his spirit and soul
  5. In her youth, she suffered through an alcoholic father
    • She built a stronghold
    • Others those it was just stubbornness

Captive Spirit Part 2

  1. Lord, I repent that I did not run to you
    • Proverbs 18:10
      • He also who is slack in his work Is brother to him who destroys.
        The name of the LORD is a strong tower; The righteous runs into it and is safe.
        A rich man’s wealth is his strong city, And like a high wall in his own imagination.…The name of the Lord is a strong tower

Captive Spirit Part 3

  1. Lies of the Evil one
    • Isaiah 28:16-18
      • A Cornerstone in Zion
        …Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed.
        He who believes in it will not be disturbed.
        I will make justice the measuring line And righteousness the level; Then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies And the waters will overflow the secret place.
        Your covenant with death will be canceled, And your pact with Sheol will not stand;”
  2. Repeated Transgressions
    • Prisons of Sin
      • Sexual Immorality

 

SRA / Dissociative Identity Disorder ( DID ) Advanced Training Sessions

  1. Now people can say that I have prayed, but how do they live
  2. The physical traits of the fruit can be there and exists, but how is being expressed
    • They can be pray
    • But how does that person live?
  3. Really have to live and pray
  4. The way we live is a testament to God’s ability to change lives
  5. It is not just about sitting in Church every Sunday and making sure that I keep that sit…
    • That is a joke
    • That is playing a Church
  6. Am I changing the community around me
  7. Am I there for my neighbor
  8. It does not matter what my skin color is
  9. It does not matter what my Political Party is
  10. Checked
    •  I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming, and he has no claim on Me. ( John 14:30 )
  11. Anointing
    • If you want Authority before the Lord, it is based “On how are you Living
    • It does not mean my gifts
      • I can be very gifted, but not have any anointing

 

Screen Shots

Fruit of the Spirit

Definition ( Segment Part 1 – 25th Minute )

definitionoffruitofspirit

Anointing Is

anointing

 

Life Talks – 2016 / Sept

 

Background

Human lives still hold the strongest and most poignant stories of all tales and fables.

I have listed some of them below.

They range from Mark Henick’s opening up about his attempted suicides.  The presentation was part of series of talks given at Ted’s Talk Toronto.  The theme of the series is “The Choices we make“.

I found Shraddha’s story along the same topic so personal and endearing.  And, I think you will remember her for a long time.

But, first Kofi Boahene. His story is so uplifting as it talks about how chance encounters can right paths.

And, to close things out a good family and redeeming movie.

 

Talks

Medicine

  1. Kofi Boahene
    • Johns Hopkins Surgeon: The Long Way Here – Kofi Boahene’s Story
      Link
    • Dr Kofi Boahene – The doctor who rebuilds faces (CNN African Voices)
      Link

 

Mental Illness

  1. Shraddha Shankar
    • Suicide: How my failed attempts became my biggest success | Shraddha Shankar | TEDxUIUC
      Link
  2. Mark Henick
    • Why we choose suicide | Mark Henick | TEDxToronto
      Link

Movies

And, so round up things, please watch “Lyfes Journey”.

It is available here.