Thanks Ali,
Those seem like very useful additions to
the discussion.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ali Hashemi
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011
6:30 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self
Interest Ontology
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:16 AM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
ML
> I would be happy to be included in its continued discourse, but
> would be even more delighted if the ontology focused on lower levels
> of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, in terms of survival--with special
> attention aimed at characterizing fitness as composed by a person's
> trajectory toward desired metabolic, physical, emotional, cognitive
> and ??? phenotypes.
I would consider that more promising than starting with Hutter's theory.
I would recommend taking a close look at:
Authors: Douglas T.
Kenrick, Vladas Griskevicius, Steven L. Neuberg and Mark Schaller
Title: Renovating
the Pyramid of Needs : Contemporary Extensions Built Upon Ancient Foundation
Publication: Perspectives
on Psychological Science 2010 5: 292
Abstract: Maslow’s pyramid
of human needs, proposed in 1943, has been one of the most cognitively
contagious ideas in the behavioral sciences. Anticipating later evolutionary
views of human motivation and cognition, Maslow viewed human motives as based
in innate and universal predispositions. We revisit the idea of a motivational
hierarchy in light of theoretical developments at the interface of evolutionary
biology, anthropology, and psychology. After considering motives at three different
levels of analysis, we argue that the basic foundational structure of the
pyramid is worth preserving, but that it should be buttressed with a few
architectural extensions. By adding a contemporary design feature, connections
between fundamental motives and immediate situational threats and opportunities
should be highlighted. By incorporating a classical element, these connections
can be strengthened by anchoring the hierarchy of human motives more firmly in
the bedrock of modern evolutionary theory. We propose a renovated hierarchy of
fundamental motives that serves as both an integrative framework and a
generative foundation for future empirical research.
Another good resource, for thinking about self-interest in group
dynamics is work by Jonathan Haidt:
This paper, is a good starting point:
Title: The New
Synthesis in Moral Psychology
Publication: Science
18 May 2007: Vol. 316 no. 5827 pp. 998-1002
Abstract: People
are selfish, yet morally motivated. Morality is universal, yet culturally
variable. Such apparent contradictions are dissolving as research from many
disciplines converges on a few shared principles, including the importance of
moral intuitions, the socially functional (rather than truth-seeking) nature of
moral thinking, and the coevolution of moral minds with cultural practices and
institutions that create diverse moral communities. I propose a fourth
principle to guide future research: Morality is about more than harm and fairness.
More research is needed on the collective and religious parts of the moral
domain, such as loyalty, authority, and spiritual purity.
Though the following is more comprehensive (and significantly longer):
Authors: Haidt,
J., & Kesebir, S. (2010).
Publication: In S.
Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.) Handbook of Social Psychology, 5th
Edition. Hobeken, NJ: Wiley. Pp. 797-832.
you can request a copy from his main home page.
|
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01)
|