Davidian philosophy: Sci/Hum and choice

[Tabouli]

I've been having one of those times where I can't bear to start what I'm meant to be doing.  The result?  Checking HPFGU every couple of hours and, as procrastinato-avoidance bites deeper, writing copious posts.  Just as I was about to get cracking on "proper" writing, or worse still, tidying my flat (yik!) I thought... ah!  I never responded to David's philosophical posts!  Far more urgent task.  Yes.  Better switch my computer on again.

David:
> I get the reverse experience here too.  I have learnt a lot, reading 
the posts of those with a background in the humanities.<
>
>I think this cultural difference is probably more significant than 
that across the Atlantic (or Pacific, Tabouli?), or between liberal 
and conservative, for our discussions.  As scientists here, we are 
guests in the natural territory of the artists/humanitarians, and 
sometimes struggle to cope with the habits of thought assumed 
natural.<

Hmm... where are you classifying psychologists here?  In third year Psych we did an interesting little unit on science types vs humanities types; in fact, IIRC they were referred to as "convergers" and "divergers", which nicely fits in with David's comments here.  Something along the lines of "convergers start with the questions and find the answer; divergers start with the answer and find the questions", which could perhaps be parallelled (sp?  too many Ls, or is this just through exposure to non-doubling consonanted US English?) with the process of solving a mathematical problem versus analysing a novel.  We all did the test, and to no-one's surprise I came out as a diverger.  There's a fair bit of research on how these types differ, and how valid the categories are, though I can't remember that much.

What are these habits of thought assumed natural?

(and yes, I'd guess that the converger/diverger thing is probably a more significant division in the way you mean than cultural differences between Anglophone countries in terms of list discussions.  IMO the trans-Atlantic differences show up more in discussions of social issues and styles of expression).

> This is particularly the case when we discuss the processes 
that are involved in reading and interpreting the books.  IMO, the 
scientists view it as mostly passive, sitting at JKR's feet to 
understand her world, so to speak, while the artists see it as 
active, where the readers use canon to invent their own world.<
>
>In consequence those with a scientific background tend to make a 
sharp distinction between interpreting canon and writing fanfic; 
those with a humanities background don't and indeed can't.<

I think this links in to all that "there is nothing outside the text" and physics envy stuff.  Sciences as about making objective observations about the physical world and identifying pre-existing laws; humanities as an exploration of the constructed world in which all observation is fundamentally subjective, and therefore the observer is an active participant in generating meaning and interpretation.  Something like that.

David:
>How does choice work?  If there is an element of causation to choice, in what sense is it choice? If not, in what sense is it not random?
>
>So if Snape (but this really isn't a HP issue - name any fictional character with a bit of depth) left Death Eaterism because there was a bit of good still struggling to come out then his good side was winning out and always (but for circumstance) would do - but if it was because it was Monday and so he had changed his mind is that human?<

Ah, the free choice issue.  Interesting.  That's what the "free world" is meant to be about, isn't it?  Freedom of choice?  But how free are our choices really?  After all, we can only choose from what's on offer, and not all choices are equally accessible (the ol' what is easy versus what is right).  What about the freedom from having to make choices?  It's an awful lot of pressure, being completely responsible for yourself, having to live with the idea that *everything* that happens to you is the result of your own choices and can't be blamed on other people, the situation, etc.etc. (and therefore, by extension, everything bad that happens to you is Your Fault).  Hence the popularity of institutions and people which help shift or at least control the feelings of self-blame (the courts?  therapy? reassuring friends and relatives?) in the free world.

I suppose we could look at this in terms of motivating factors which impact on the choosing process.  When observing other people, it's usually easier to identify extrinsic motivators than intrinsic ones.  However, there seems to be an interesting value judgment placed on these in Anglophone society.  For some types of choice, intrinsic motivators are considered morally superior to extrinsic ones.

Take Snape, for example. Not long ago, people were taking issue with LOLLIPOPS (sacrilege!) on the grounds that leaving the Death-Eaters because he was "wanting to be on the same side as Lily" was a "bad" motivator, and one unlikely to be of any lasting worth (i.e. if that was *all* he wanted, who's to say he won't just swap sides again when he develops a crush on Mrs Lestrange?).  Extrinsic motivator, and therefore lightweight, lacking integrity and permanence, fickle, self-interested, etc.etc.

(I should add at this point that in my version of LOLLIPOPS it's nowhere near that simple.  I was being crudely misrepresented!  Maligned!  Misinterpreted!)

OTOH, the same people thought that Snape deciding to leave the Death Eaters because of a *moral* crisis about Voldemort's activities (intrinsic motivator) was far more palatable.  It would, they argued, show Snape to be a genuine man, of depth and conviction and strong moral values.

Interesting, eh?  Upholding a principle for its own sake is a sign of integrity; making decisions based on what benefits you personally in a particular situation is morally dubious, perhaps because it implies that your intrinsic motivator is self-interest not the greater good.  (Is that universalism I see before me?).  Apparently, then, it's the intrinsic motivator behind your actions that really counts.

Of course, the intrinsic/extrinsic division isn't that simple, but it seems to be important nonetheless.  In fact, the problem with a moral code based around people's intrinsic motivations is just that - it *isn't* that simple.  Extrinsic motivations, where your choice gets you something concrete, are easier for people to identify and understand than intrinsic motivations.  Then again, the higher status accorded to intrinsic motivations in our society means that people are inclined to look for them and attribute their behaviour to them, so as to appear to have more depth and integrity.

(for example, compare a doctor whose motivation for studying Medicine was making lots of money and gaining high status with a doctor whose motivation was becoming a healer who helps other people.  Not much contest, is there?  Medical students know this.  Behind the scenes some of the doctors I knew at the start of their degree admitted that they'd done Medicine because they got the marks, and it was a high-status, high-earning profession, but they'd never admit this on camera, so to speak, and they often hastened to add that of course the real reason was that they wanted to help others)

(Note also, of course, that different cultures cut the morality meatloaf in different places.  Different societies embrace different types of motivators as "good" and "bad".  It's like the infamous argument I had with my mother about contacting pest control to come and check out the potential fruit fly larva in my peach.  I considered my motivations very moral - social responsibility, that high universalist value.  She considered them very immoral - putting the family home at risk by having a stranger visit, inconveniencing my mother for some faraway "fruit industry" of no specific consequence to my family, etc.)

Even when it comes to less momentous decisions, such as what brand of detergent you buy, this intrinsic/extrinsic factor comes in.  Marketing types make their living out of the assumption that *no* choice, however trivial, is random.  People might try a different brand for an extrinsic reason, e.g. because it has nicer packaging, or is a colour that matches the season's fashionable colour for kitchen decor ("bad" reasons, technically, but in so unmomentous a domain most people would see it as hardly immoral), or they might choose it for an intrinsic reason, e.g. because it's environmentally friendly (and because this is a "good" reason, people who virtuously uphold it may feel justified in criticising those who choose for other, trivial reasons.  "You're buying that ecologically destructive brand because it Matches Your Decor?  Don't you care about the planet you live on?").

> David, who has spent many hours wondering why he does things, and, if there is a reason, does that make him not accountable<

Oh yes, I think the most interesting questions are the "why" questions.  I'm always trying to figure out why people do the things they do, it's the sinister social scientist's creed.  And when figuring people, collective, out, self-analysis makes a lot of sense... after all, you don't get that sort of access to anyone else, do you?

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]