In the meantime we do our best to consider other possibilities. The scientific mind values skepticism – even about one’s own premises. Righteous minds go about life differently – and more dangerously. Consider:
Our country is divided. Political differences are often presented as the explanation. But what if there is something more fundamental, something that explains better the core of our conflict? What if psychological factors play a leading role as to why we advocate for different political goals? In the news we have seen a lot of comment about “science based” conclusions. But often, when examined, the “method” used to justify the conclusion was a violation of science.
So, what motivates us? Is one’s driving force really science, or something else —- such as:
“Righteousness” is not “Science.”
They conflict. To the degree one exists, the other does not.
“Righteous” consists of and prioritizes the easy feelings.
“Science” is an excellent method for the clarification of facts.
To feel righteous is no more difficult than recruiting an ego-serving imagination. But when righteous beliefs conflict with facts, they lead to suffering. When massively shared, these righteous feelings can lead to explosive levels of trouble.
To prioritize science requires disciplined effort. When factual understandings are accurate, a person is less likely to be in conflict, more likely to find success, and more likely to experience proper feelings.
Yes, all have feelings. When science reveals the probable truth of things, our feelings, when they are tied to probable facts, evolve appropriately. They are less likely to drive one’s ego into the dangerous state of mind called “righteous”.
When science dominates, feeling that people are good or bad is insignificant. Instead, does what they do work, or make sense, becomes the focus. With pleasure, you seek the views of others in order to test and improve ideas. Correction isn’t painful because it represents growth. All beliefs are correctable given better evidence. Skepticism and inquisitiveness rule over the temptations of ego enhancing, but unjustified, certitudes.
When righteousness dominates, it becomes important to judge self and others as good or bad. The beliefs that are most ego satisfying become truths written in stone, possessed and certain. Questioning them is seen to be a waste of time. A righteous person tends to identify with such beliefs. For such a person criticizing these beliefs is experienced as a personal attack. When shared with others of like sentiment, the ego-enhancing power of being righteous is magnified.
Further clarification:
If the “map” you rely on to visualize your place in life and where you want to go in life is factually accurate, you are much more likely to be successful in your endeavors. If the “map” is not accurate, but you love its look, how it elevates you to a special place, and seems to provide great places to go, your ego may favor it over something more factual. Protection of it, and a denial of other options describes a person who favors righteousness. Thus, an objectively accurate map may be ignored, denied, and even attacked. A mind that favors a science-based map will enjoy testing its accuracy and correcting it to conform to the best current evidence.
Which political party has a membership that is most likely to “cancel” those who disagree?
The Octogenarians 
Reblogged this on daedal2207's Blog and commented:
Blue planet is at risk.Sars,Ebola,Homicide,Genocide and climate change are on the march leading to extinction.
In the meantime we do our best to consider other possibilities. The scientific mind values skepticism – even about one’s own premises. Righteous minds go about life differently – and more dangerously. Consider:
Our country is divided. Political differences are often presented as the explanation. But what if there is something more fundamental, something that explains better the core of our conflict? What if psychological factors play a leading role as to why we advocate for different political goals? In the news we have seen a lot of comment about “science based” conclusions. But often, when examined, the “method” used to justify the conclusion was a violation of science.
So, what motivates us? Is one’s driving force really science, or something else —- such as:
“Righteousness” is not “Science.”
They conflict. To the degree one exists, the other does not.
“Righteous” consists of and prioritizes the easy feelings.
“Science” is an excellent method for the clarification of facts.
To feel righteous is no more difficult than recruiting an ego-serving imagination. But when righteous beliefs conflict with facts, they lead to suffering. When massively shared, these righteous feelings can lead to explosive levels of trouble.
To prioritize science requires disciplined effort. When factual understandings are accurate, a person is less likely to be in conflict, more likely to find success, and more likely to experience proper feelings.
Yes, all have feelings. When science reveals the probable truth of things, our feelings, when they are tied to probable facts, evolve appropriately. They are less likely to drive one’s ego into the dangerous state of mind called “righteous”.
When science dominates, feeling that people are good or bad is insignificant. Instead, does what they do work, or make sense, becomes the focus. With pleasure, you seek the views of others in order to test and improve ideas. Correction isn’t painful because it represents growth. All beliefs are correctable given better evidence. Skepticism and inquisitiveness rule over the temptations of ego enhancing, but unjustified, certitudes.
When righteousness dominates, it becomes important to judge self and others as good or bad. The beliefs that are most ego satisfying become truths written in stone, possessed and certain. Questioning them is seen to be a waste of time. A righteous person tends to identify with such beliefs. For such a person criticizing these beliefs is experienced as a personal attack. When shared with others of like sentiment, the ego-enhancing power of being righteous is magnified.
Further clarification:
If the “map” you rely on to visualize your place in life and where you want to go in life is factually accurate, you are much more likely to be successful in your endeavors. If the “map” is not accurate, but you love its look, how it elevates you to a special place, and seems to provide great places to go, your ego may favor it over something more factual. Protection of it, and a denial of other options describes a person who favors righteousness. Thus, an objectively accurate map may be ignored, denied, and even attacked. A mind that favors a science-based map will enjoy testing its accuracy and correcting it to conform to the best current evidence.
Which political party has a membership that is most likely to “cancel” those who disagree?