Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Moral Principles Make Us Dumb
http://www.psychologytoday.com ^ | July 26, 2010 | Jeremy Sherman, Ph.D.

Posted on 07/27/2010 12:05:32 AM PDT by Maelstorm

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
What interests me the most is the weakness of this man's argument and that he has a Ph.D. Conservatism is not the adherence to non change. Also when did clinging ever become a moral principle? This is abstraction gone mad. This is a good example of why academia is so screwed up. First a person defines a false context, then they proceed to build upon the clearly false context. This kind of argument would never have been accepted 100 years ago. This man would've been laughed out of the room.
1 posted on 07/27/2010 12:05:35 AM PDT by Maelstorm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

... all the while clinging to his own sacred cows. My late grandmother had a great, archaic phrase for such people. Addlepated nincompoops.


2 posted on 07/27/2010 12:14:36 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Odd, because there seems to be a strong correlation between increasing moral decay in America and decreasing academic performance over the last 40 years.


3 posted on 07/27/2010 12:24:11 AM PDT by TheThinker (Communists: taking over the world one kooky doomsday scenario at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Jeremy Sherman, Ph.D., M.P.P. is a generalist enjoying serious middle-age spread as a professor of social and life sciences. In the past six years he taught over 200,000 college/student hours and wrote over 250 articles(www.mindreadersdictionary.com) with a focus on how to transfer as efficiently as possible the introspective intelligence and doubt management skills that constrain (for personal, social, and political benefit) natural human small-mindedness.

"College teaching tends to attract the kind of people who are incapable of making a living with either their minds or their hands." --Florence King

4 posted on 07/27/2010 12:24:37 AM PDT by Huntress (Who the hell are you to tell me what's in my best interests?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
I agree with you 100%, utter illogical twaddle, but he knows his intended audience and they lap this stuff up.

Liberal lefties say Pink is bad as it stereotypes girls but Codepink is good, because they only want change and inhale without exhaling. Say what? Logic out the window on every level.

5 posted on 07/27/2010 12:28:16 AM PDT by vimto (To do the right thing you don't have to be intelligent - you have to be brave (Sasz))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
What's the difference between clinging and commitment? From what I can tell, they are indistinguishable except that clinging is bad and should never occur and commitment is good and should always occur.

One need not read farther than this to see that this guy is a complete idiot. This is a Ph.D. who writes an article based on the premise that his own inability to distinguish between the meanings of two entirely different words constitutes an infallible proof.

Hey, Dr. Retard, here is the difference between clinging and commitment:

I marry a woman and every time she wants to leave the house I ask her where she's going and how come she doesn't want me to come. That's clinging.

Or, I marry a woman and we argue a lot and I don't always approve of what she does and says, plus the pretty neighbor next door keeps hitting on me, but I am resolved to stay married and faithful to my wife forever. That is commitment.
6 posted on 07/27/2010 12:31:09 AM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huntress
"College teaching tends to attract the kind of people who are incapable of making a living with either their minds or their hands." --Florence King

Kind of the old "Them that can do, those that can't teach" scenario.

7 posted on 07/27/2010 12:32:10 AM PDT by The Cajun (Mind numbed robot , ditto-head, Hannitized, Levinite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Yep. We all have sacred cows we all have deficits of truth.
Yet this man believes he alone holds the key to invalidate all “moral principles” why just “moral principles” and not all principles?


8 posted on 07/27/2010 12:33:37 AM PDT by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "give me liberty or give me a govt check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
This is an example of an author writing about something that is beyond their comprehension, thus their limited perspective from outside the experience misses the point.

For example, take the concept of addiction. Although the twelve step process has helped many, many people and is an excellent program, I disagree with their contention that “Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic!” Neither attachment to alcohol, nor aversion to alcohol is a good thing. In the twelfth step, through ones spiritual growth, they fill the void that created the attachment with Divine Love, that person is no longer an addict. Whether one is drawn toward something or pushing off that same something, they are still attached to it.

To the Buddhist, awakening to the Spirit creates “non-attachment.” To the Christian, it is the “dying daily” concept that Paul spoke of that allows the Holy Spirit” to enter. When a person is connected to the Divine, attachment of the Soul is on the vertical axis and not the horizontal axis, thus there are no opposites. It is the perfect union. The strength comes from above, not from attachment to or aversion from the physical things around us. This, the author of the “Psychology Today” article does not understand.

Remember, money is not evil, but attachment to it(love of) is.

9 posted on 07/27/2010 12:39:18 AM PDT by tired&retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

I guess you could call the author’s words “psycho-babble.”


10 posted on 07/27/2010 12:41:26 AM PDT by tired&retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
Bingo.... Doesn’t take a PhD in psychology to figure that one out.

I have a degree in psychology, among others, and the first thing you learn is that most people who reach the career level in this field, do it to work on their own issues as they are screwed up. I could have written excellent papers about the psychological instability of most of the psychology department, including the chairwoman, but their aversion to self reflect and grow would have created even more tension than I already did. They hated me as their student and asked me to leave! I didn't though, I just took more of their classes. (Helped me overcome my dominant mother issue.. LOL)

11 posted on 07/27/2010 12:52:08 AM PDT by tired&retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

Here is a cut & past from his facebook! Please read the next to the last line.... it explains it all... and his not understanding committment. And to think, this guy is teaching our children!

Jeremy Sherman is a generalist, enjoying serious middle-age spread as a professor of social sciences, spreadingly defined to include psychology, sociology, evolutionary theory, history, rhetoric, philosophy, critical thinking and economics, lecturing 30 hours a week at Expression College for Digital Arts, in Emeryville Ca; as a chief researcher in Berkeley’s Consortium on Emergent Dynamics (www.teleodynamics.com), where he researches the physical origins of purposive systems, (how matter becomes mattering), the relationship between energy and information, and the nature of physical and mental work; and as author of a weekly column and podcast on everyday decisionmaking at www.mindreadersdictionary.com. He writes romanticynical songs, and plays upright and seven string bass and sings in jazz combos at cafes and restaurants three nights a week. Married once with three children (28, 24,18), fianced thrice since his divorce, Jeremy is now partnered with a fellow ambigamist with whom he enjoys among many things singing and playing romantic jazz standards at cafes around the San Franscisco bay area. Jeremy has a Masters in Public Policy from U.C. Berkeley and a Ph.D. in evolutionary epistemology from Union University.

His PT blog is Ambigamy. (read less)
Jeremy Sherman is a generalist, enjoying serious middle-age spread as a professor of social sciences, spreadingly defined to include psychology, sociology, evolutionary theory, history, rhetoric, philosophy, critical thinking and economics, lecturing 30 hours a week at Expression College for Digital Arts, in Emeryville Ca; as a chief researcher in Berkeley’s Consortium on Emergent Dynamics (www.teleodynamics.com), where he researches the physical origins of purposive systems, (how matter... (read more)Personal Interests:Jamming on the Bass
Crack Parties
Radio Lab WNYC


12 posted on 07/27/2010 12:59:16 AM PDT by tired&retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

I had the exact reaction you did. It always amazes me how many “smart” people are really stupid as hell.
“Clingy”
Weak, desperate, needy, fearful, insecure, obsessed, manipulative, and a million other unflattering adjectives come to mind.
However

“commitment”

Consent to an informed CHOICE.


13 posted on 07/27/2010 1:02:00 AM PDT by MestaMachine (De inimico non loquaris sed cogites- Don't wish ill for your enemy; plan it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Don’t cling. Show commitment.????

Well, let’s try this for an analogous concept.

Clinging is likened to a weed that grows and grows, choking all the other life out of existence.

Commitment, of love, would be like a Rose. Inviting and beautiful, with limits. Hence the thorns.


14 posted on 07/27/2010 1:10:26 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Clinging — Hanging on too tight.
Committment — Hagning on even through change

Yes, I want my hubby’s committment. No, I don’t want him following me everywhere.

It didn’t take 3/4 of a decade in “higher education” to know the difference... and this guy still hasn’t learned.


15 posted on 07/27/2010 1:14:42 AM PDT by dajeeps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

Unless, of course, you just smoke it, and IT only chokes YOU.


16 posted on 07/27/2010 1:16:16 AM PDT by MestaMachine (De inimico non loquaris sed cogites- Don't wish ill for your enemy; plan it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

Crack parties? Actually says that? Good Grief.


17 posted on 07/27/2010 1:23:14 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

LOL, though I am in California, I wouldn’t touch that stuff.

Scotch is more predictable.


18 posted on 07/27/2010 1:30:14 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
The man is very confused. Who ever said that "Don't cling. Show commitment." are moral principles? Both can be useful psychological tools but only if carefully clarified. It is necessary to know exactly what not to cling to or make a commitment to.

I am sure his Buddhist friend told him that concepts like "don't cling" and "show commitment" are guiding reminders for a psychological/spiritual practice of meditation or contemplation not absolutes. He probably also gave him the litmus test he is asking for and it applies to either phrase. If it is neurotic you're doin' it wrong!

He is really doing it wrong.

19 posted on 07/27/2010 1:31:49 AM PDT by TigersEye (Greenhouse Theory is false. Totally debunked. "GH gases" is a non-sequitur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

Those are seriously good analogies. They cover every point necessary to understand both concepts completely and their difference in two sentences.


20 posted on 07/27/2010 1:44:54 AM PDT by TigersEye (Greenhouse Theory is false. Totally debunked. "GH gases" is a non-sequitur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson