Why do groups only focus on their own well being and not the well being of all people?
First of all, I think you have to be careful declaring that minorities care more about their own group than the larger diverse group as a whole. It happens for sure, but for clarity, it is good to point out that not every minority individual believes this. And also, plenty of people who are in the majority feel this way too about focusing on their majority group’s well being. I think when Lana rewrote the question she changed it because she recognized her rewrite was more accurate in some ways for the reasons above.
But yes, there are a lot of reasons that people tend to prioritize the well being of their own group over others. First of all, we sorta just feel a connection to the people who are around us. Meaning, we might care more about a neighbor scraping his knee on our driveway than we do about a person dying of diarrhea in Africa. Just because the knee scrape is closer to us. So since minority groups tend to live and just have closer relationships with people also in their group, they sorta just have a preference to help the people they know.
Secondly, from a biological perspective, if we look at the gene as the unit of selection rather than the individual, we are all just robots programmed to pass our genes on. And the genes that make this more likely are the genes that get passed to other humans, and so even tho humans die, the genes never do. This idea offers an explanation as to how we care more about our kids and siblings than random strangers. Because our kids share half our genes. So our genes have programmed us to care more about our kids – to ensure that our genes survive.
So in these way, we are innately predisposed to care more about people based on how similar their genes are to our own. So white people may innately care more about other white people because they perceive other white people as being more likely to share genes with them than a black person. This is all subconscious of course.
The other biological reason we may be subconsciously predisposed to favoring our own group is group selection. Small groups, uniting under any banner, like race, can reap benefits in selection over other groups.
The big disclaimer in all of this is that evolution can explain why things are the way they are. But it doesn’t justify them as being right or wrong. Biology says nothing about whether its right or wrong to favor your own group, it just offers explanations as to why we seem to innately do it.

This is a fascinating topic to me. Risk perception is something that is really interesting to me, so I’ve sorta looked into this topic before. There was a youtube video on it that I can’t find but it had some really cool stats similar to the one about how child abductions are far lower than many people think.
The two things I remember from that video are that we are attracted to hearing about negative events because we are evolutionary developed to do so. Sam mentioned this at the beginning of the year when he talked about his highdea with his wife about how we subconsciously like hearing about murders on the news and stuff like that just because hearing about dangerous situations used to keep us safe. Back in the tribal environment we are essentially still evolved for, knowing about a dangerous snake in the grass was important, as people with any genetic predisposition to ignore this info would be more likely to die out and not pass that predisposition on to the next generation . So knowing bad news was more important than knowing good news. As a result, we seek out bad news, like child abductions, and ignore good news, like people making fantastic recoveries at hospitals. We’d rather hear about someone getting hospitalized after a mugging.
So since we self select hearing about bad news, we perceive it as happening more than bad news. That’s what Sam’s slide about actual top causes of death vs how often various causes of death are reported on the news. The video that I can’t find had crazy stats about how few people tornados and hurricanes kill each year relative to less reported causes of death.
And the second point in the video was that the news can amplify our perception of risk that aren’t even near us. Meaning, the news will report a murder in a town 5 towns over. Which doesn’t really pose a real risk to your town, but it feels like it. And the bottom line is that what makes something news is that its dramatic and rare. Like an airplane crash is both dramatic and rare, so its newsworthy and makes people fear it, but it really shouldn’t be something people worry about as per mile, flying is way safer than driving. But few people worry about driving. Therefore, objectively, if something is on the news, don’t worry about it.
So the takeaway is just that, if its on the news, don’t worry about it. The world is much much better than the news would have us believe. There are a lot of misconceptions out there, and our guesses about the risk of a lot of things are often surprisingly wrong. We can all relax, because the world is a better place than we know.

First of all, I guess this question was inspired by how we were talking about imams and pastors, and how lots of American non-Muslims get scared by reports of what various imams say, and how we tend to have a hard time recognizing that the words of one or a few imams is not representative of all Muslims, just like the hateful speech of any one or a few pastors is not representative of all Christians.
As an atheist, I might have a different perspective on this question. Some may say that makes me unqualified to respond to this, but I’m not in love with any of the other video questions this week and it can’t hurt to post a different perspective here.
First of all, and I could be totally wrong about this, but I actually think the question is a bit misleading. There are definitely people who feel they need a pastor, but I personally sense that most people feel they don’t need an intermediary. Which is a step in the right direction, because half the problem with religion is its hierarchical nature, and people are growing more and more away from accepting the institution of religion and so many people are moving toward their own personal spiritual relationship with god, and others are moving toward atheism. So I just had to say that in my perspective of religion, people already are growing weary of dealing with priests/ pastors/ imams/ rabbis, etc speaking for them.
So not to be the cliché cynical atheist, but for the religious people who still do feel like they need pastors and imams, I think it is for two reasons. First, I think a good portion of the appeal of religion is the community is brings. Having a pastor or an imam to lead a community is somewhat necessary for a religious community to exist. Thus, people are accepting of having one of their fellow religious people being the leader of this community.
Second, I think that people like having a spiritual leader because its reassuring. Meaning, most people when they pray, I’m quite confident (although of course I can’t claim with certainty that I know what other people hear when they pray) don’t hear or see any response to their prayer. But then they have a imam or pastor who claims to have an even deeper relationship with god. And it gives them hope to keep praying because they have this illusion that it is possible to have a deeper relationship with god. Also, for when god doesn’t “talk back” in people’s prayers, they find comfort in being able to go to an expert like a pastor, and talk to the pastor about the same things they prayed about. And then the pastor can tell them what god would want them to do. So people have ideas about what they think god wants them to do, and then they can confirm those ideas based on what the pastor says. So people enjoy having the pastor to help interpret what god wants.

Seriously? Can't not point on that conservatism and religiousness causing happiness has absolutely nothing to to with the validity of conservatism or religiousness.
Some theorize that conservatives are happier than liberals because conservatives, by definition, are more tolerant and accepting of inequality and the status quo, while liberals by definition are frustrated at inequality and the status quo. *I'm not at all trying argue that conservatism is right or wrong here* - just pointing out that it's outrageous to assert that causing happiness is any sort of "proof" that conservatism is the more correct ideology.
This error in logic is even more absurd for the assertion that since religious people are more happy than atheists, religious people must "get it" better than atheists.
Drunk people on average are more happy than sober ones. But who has a better perspective on reality? Believing that everybody loves me might make me happy, but that doesn't make it true.
I'm actually kinda mad that people hear Haidt spew that garbage logic and use it to justify believing in the superiority of their views. You're entitled to believe your views are superior, but please use some real reasons.

I think that that is a really good point to point out the discrepancy between police presence and screening procedures at a predominantly white county school vs a predominantly black/Latino inner city school. This is very likely a huge factor in the fact that minorities are more likely to get caught and sentenced for drug possession.

There’s lots of conspiracy type theories about how the war on drugs is a way to legally go after minorities. I don’t think it is deliberately targeting minorities, but I think the results make it clear that whether intended or not, that has been the effect. From the data Sam showed in class, as well as the personal tale of Janessa’s niece pointing to houses of white people who sell drugs, minorities definitely suffer more from our nation’s drug policy.

As far as metal detectors and higher police presence, that may actually be justified. Maybe. The issue I have is with the dogs. Because the dogs are only there to find drugs. Whereas the other measures are about deterring violence. And the inner city school likely has violence at higher rates than the county school. However, the data clearly show that drug use rates should be very similar. So while there may need to be different amounts of police at each school, there’s no way that there should be more dogs at one school than the other. Personally I don’t think there should be drug dogs at either school, but the fact that there are drug dogs at the poor black/Latino school and zero at the white school is absurd. They are surely aware that drug use rates are roughly the same. So for them to send dogs to one school but not the other sure does seem like unfairly targeting the black and Latino group.

I also want to briefly address the other question about the candidates with black and brown sounding names not winning elections. First of all, it is waaay too small of a sample size to even begin speculating that race is a factor there. Second, last year, and I’m not 100 percent sure on this, but I believe the president of the student body here at Penn State was black. And third, a man named Barack Obama is president of the country. Not only does he have a very not-white name, but Americans know he’s black (since he is half black). And on top of that, a 2010 Pew survey shows that 20% of the nation (incorrectly, of course) thinks he’s Muslim! And yet he was elected president of the county! I recognize that racism is still prevalent in people’s subconscious (as the bike thief video showed), so there may be truth to the idea that people subconsciously avoided voting for minorities, but I definitely need more info before I believe that race played a role in the outcome of the PSU student elections. Not saying it couldn’t have – I just need more info for the reasons stated above.

I actually don't remember exactly what Chenjerai said but I do remember when he asked us to imagine if the shooter had been black and the victim had been white. First, I must put in the disclaimer that I haven’t followed this story very closely. But I have seen some things on the news when I go to the dining halls and it's on. And also, the people I follow on twitter have tweeted about it a lot. And most of the stuff I see is from people in complete outrage mode. Normally, I try to ignore emotional stuff, go directly to objective sources, and make my own opinion. But I haven’t done that yet, so I’m just going to write this post operating under the assumption that the widely held public opinion that Zimmerman committed murder, unprovoked, either because he saw Trayvon's blackness as a sign that he was dangerous or he wanted to kill Trayvon directly because he pretty much just wanted to kill a black person.

So based on my unfortunately limited perspective on this issue, regarding how this situation would have played out if Zimmerman were black and Trayvon white, I have no way to disagree that the police would have considered it a murder and arrested Zimmerman. But it is really significant the amount of public outrage. While the police may not be calling Zimmerman a criminal, i sense that a large percentage of the public certainly has. And while i personally have not been gauging how much more black people tend to care about Trayvon’s murder than white people, the sense I have gotten is that minorities, who are more closely related to the victim than whites, care more than whites since they are the victim. I had a test during the march, so I didn’t get to go, and so I didn't get a chance to see how many white people showed up, showing that they care. But obviously, white people definitely ought to care just as much as black people. Primarily because the race of a murderer and a murder victim shouldn't matter, but also because it makes white people look bad. What I considered to be the key point of his lecture when he said that white people, even though they are not the victim in this situation, need to see this as their problem too.

So I'm really curious to hear how many white people showed up, and I will definitely look deeper into the situation.

There’s also an idea from Tuesday's class that resonated. And it was the part where Sam talked about using races as identifiers. I had definitely noticed people who awkwardly avoid using races as identifiers. For instance, one time someone asked me if I knew about Michelle Rhee (former head of public education in Washington, DC).And i drew a blank for a second before blurting out "oh yes the Asian lady from (the movie) Waiting for Superman." And the person I was talking to chuckled and I sensed it's because the first thing I identified her as was by her race. But I didn't mean to imply any sort of racism with the comment, and it really was the most distinct identifier for her, so looking back, I think it was a completely acceptable way to use race as and identifier, and by my friend's reaction, I understand what Sam meant when he said a lot of times people are afraid to point out race even when it's totally helpful and appropriate to do so.

The concept of stereotyping positive traits to certain races is really interesting. The definition of racism is a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. So even though saying Asians are naturally smart isn’t directly promoting a negative view of Asian people, saying that Asians are naturally intellectually superior, by the definition of racism, is still racism.
The first issue with such an assertion, regardless of whether it’s harmful or not, is that it’s probably false. While the data show that Asians do tend to do better academically, we know it’s not fair to assume that their membership to the Asian race is the primary cause of that. And even if genetics were a factor, economics and culture clearly outweigh genetics as an influence on academic success.
But the real question is whether such statements and other positive stereotypes are harmful or not. And now that I think about it, I think they certainly do do harm. First of all, it creates expectations for Asians to do better at academic things. And that’s not fair to them. For instance, if an Asian student is really good at sports and/or art but is even just slightly below average academically, they may feel bad because the societal expectation placed on them is that they should be smarter. It’s wrong to tell Asians what they’re supposed to be good at because they shouldn’t have to be worried about meeting unfair expectations.
Second, saying that Asians are smarter than the other races makes it easy to imply that Asians must have a weakness in another area to balance it out. So a lot of the people who say that Asians are naturally smarter are then more likely to believe that it’s okay to think Asians are naturally less able to learn sports. And that is a negative stereotype.
On a similar note, exaggerating the differences between the races makes it easy to think that certain races must be inherently superior to others. Also, saying that Asians are naturally smart can sort of be taken to imply that all the other races are dumber than Asians. I think the reason positive stereotyping is accepted as ok far more often than the negative stereotypes is when it’s about minorities. If people went around saying that white people were naturally smarter, most people would have no problem declaring such as statement as racist. So the only stereotypes about white people that are considered acceptable to say are the ones that portray white people as relatively inferior like whites can’t dance or whites can’t jump. So the bottom line is that I feel like toning back even “positive” stereotypes is definitely a good thing because not only are they usually false, but they impose unfair expectations on Asians, and exaggerating the differences between the races and makes negative racism easier.

Ok, I would technically identify as an atheist, so I will reply to this question even though I thought all the blog questions were awesome this week.

What set this whole thing in motion? I don’t know. Neither do you. No one does. All I know is I’m a lot more satisfied by legitimate attempts to figure it out compared to being satisfied with “Oh God did it.” “God did it” explains absolutely nothing. So I might as well admit that we currently don’t know why something exists rather than nothing, just like how not too long ago nobody knew why the sun rose and set every day. Sure, maybe we’ll never know, but there’s no point in saying “God did it.”
Lawrence Krauss has examined this question from a scientific perspective. Check it out if youre interested: http://genesis1.asu.edu/newscinov19.html
He also has a youtube video lecture about how the total energy of the universe is probably exactly zero and thus wouldn’t require a creator. Still doesn’t exactly explain why there’s something rather than nothing, but it sure as hell (actually I’m pretty confident there’s no hell) tells me a lot more than “God made it so”.
Also, Carl Sagan has some great thoughts on the origin of the universe. If interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeVhkXW6BKY
Also, Vic Stenger has a book called God: The Failed Hypothesis. I’ve never read it, so I feel like a typical Christian in asserting that a book I personally have never actually read is absolute truth (hehehehe), but he claims to prove that God, beyond any reasonable doubt, does not exist. *Of course it’s just my confirmation bias telling me that this book is true*, but I figure he has a better perspective on things than they did in the Middle East thousands of years ago.
I’m not asserting any of the info in the links above as undeniably true. I just put them there because they demonstrate the kind of thinking that allows me to be comfortable not believing in any theistic creator of the universe.

What’s the life energy? Again, I don’t know (Sorry to make that a theme. But at least I can admit when I don’t know), but I’m not exactly convinced that there’s a life energy. Yeah I think life is incredible, but perhaps it does all happen in a completely deterministic universe, and atoms have assembled into molecules and proteins and life, and that eventually, this life developed the illusion of consciousness. But I’m far more agnostic on this than I am about the existence of an invisible celestial dictator.

Regarding the size of the universe, yeah it’s freaking incredible. Just because I don’t think any gods designed it doesn’t make it less amazing. In fact, to think that it happened naturally makes it even more incredible to me.

So I probably am coming across as the stereotypical overconfident atheist by writing a response complete with a reference to Carl Sagan and a few comical jabs at religion, but I try not to be. I’m all for people believing whatever they want. But I’m also a huge advocate for people (including me) challenging their beliefs, and not condemning others for not sharing those beliefs. Peace.

First of all, this story was fascinating. Regardless of whether or not the shaman’s healing methods are valid or not, it’s amazing to think that in certain parts of the world, this is indeed how they think of medicine. Based off of one story of the shaman’s method working, I cannot definitively declare whether or not it the shaman’s methods are legitimate. I mean, yes, for the most part, alternative medicine is a waste, as by definition they are methods that haven’t been proved to work. So when alternative medical methods do work, it is most often the result of the placebo effect. What makes Sam’s story especially interesting is that I think the placebo effect can be ruled out based on the fact that 1- Sam said he had no expectation of the shaman’s methods working, and 2- Sam claims that when he was getting out of his hammock for the first time, he had forgotten to be gentle with it because he forgot he sprained it. So if he hadn’t remembered that he hurt it, I don’t see how he could have been thinking about how the treatment may have cured the ankle.

All that being said, seeing that I have just one story to go off of, I have to remain skeptical. But I am all for testing this further. The shaman’s methods of learning are as legitimate as any provided that the information they gain from “talking to plants” or however else they get there info is tested repeatedly and verified. If their knowledge is repeatedly verified as accurate, then this learning method is as valid as any. That’s what science is.

That being said, until these methods are verified (and I insist that it’s worth refinding that exact shaman Sam used [if he’s still alive, making him about 140 years old now?] or others like him and trying to discredit or verify their methods), I can’t say that the shaman’s methods are any greater than more well-known alternative medicines that we have shown are not proved to work. But the bottom line is that the reason we assume that our studying our biology-based understanding of medicine is a valid way of learning is because we know that it works. If any other method somehow turns out to work just as well, then it too is valid.

The thing I want to close with is unrelated to this specific blog question, but it has to do with the question Sam asked on Tuesday about whether the religious students were offended at his idea that not loving your body as it is like saying “fuck you” to God. I think about 75% or so of those who responded said that they were offended. I thought that was really interesting. Sam’s just kicking around ideas to make people think. He didn’t discriminate against anyone. He's not gonna make a test question about whether there's a god or not and mark it wrong if you say there is. You have the right to disagree with him. And he even encouraged people to respond and use their blogs to explain why he’s wrong. Whether or not Sam is right or wrong, I don’t think people should ever be offended by the fact that other people have different ideas than them.

I learned a lot in class today. I’m really into understanding why different ethnicities have different traits, and like a lot of people I understood the evolutionary explanation for black and white skin, but the explanation for kinky hair was new to me. The first thing I want to say is on the concept of good hair vs bad hair. I’m not black, and I had only barely head of the concept of “good hair” before. But when I had heard of it previously, it’s funny because I thought that the ”good hair” was the kinky afro hair. I guess it’s just because I think afros look sweet. But apparently the good hair is the hair that is like white people’s hair. So good and bad probably aren’t the best terms to describe the hair.

Another thing from class that stood out was when we demonstrated how people seem to be less attracted to people who look different from them. The white chick said she wasn’t normally into Asian men, and the black guy joked about how he knows white women don’t want his sperm. I found this really interesting because I know that I tend to be less attracted to people who have a very different background. But at the same time, I once saw this thing about monkeys that live in groups. And when a male monkey left his group and went to a new one, the females showed a strong preference to mate with him rather than monkeys from their own group. And the male monkeys who left often had little success trying to mate with females from their own group. And the scientists studying this proposed that female monkeys developed a preference to mate with males that were very different as a way to increase genetic diversity. I don’t fully understand the science behind this, but if it’s advantageous, why don’t many of us seem to have this preference?

So as for why black people tend to straighten their hair, while whites curl it, and dark people often use skin whitening cream, while light people go tanning, I don’t really know. I’d never thought of it before, but it’s interesting. My best guess is simply that people don’t like to be extreme of anything. Dark people don’t want to be extremely dark. People with light skin don’t want to be extremely light. I don’t think that white people getting perms are trying to look like black people. I just think they are trying to change their look up a bit.

The last thing I want to comment on is learning Spanish. I think it’s completely ridiculous to impose English on others. People naturally communicate in many ways. English, Spanish, sign language, body language, etc. I get that people would be frustrated at not being able to communicate with others because they don’t speak the area’s common language, and I know why people would be frustrated at feeling like they ought to learn Spanish since it is hard to learn languages (I’m trying and I've always had a really hard time with it), but it’s pretty absurd to condemn Spanish speakers for preferring to communicate in a way that is natural to them.