Archive for the ‘#bookreview’ Tag

Does Any One Want to Review My Books?   Leave a comment

 

Two Cover Montage

I’m especially interested in getting reviews for my more recent books. I find it’s harder to get a review on latter books because of the need to commit to the earlier books in the series.

I will happily gift anyone with the desire with freebies of an entire series, although Daermad Cycle will be on 99-cent sale this coming week. Reviews by Verified Purchasers are always welcome.

Do you like high fantasy or apocalyptic? Or there’s a thin novelette of political satire?

Leave a comment here or send me an email at lelamarkham@gmail.com

Willow Branch Ad Dec 2017

Taking the Red Pill   1 comment

Before college campuses were adrift in the current morass of anti-thought, New York University social psychologist Jonathan Haidt published The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, a groundbreaking book that really ought to be read before wading into the tide of “trigger warnings”, “microaggressions”, and “safe spaces” that has become the dominate culture of college campuses. Haidt’s book is the most fascinating work on social science to come out in the last five years.  In 2012, our political landscape was already deeply polarized and that has been magnified by several times in a half decade, but Haidt offers hope and a way forward.

Image result for image of red pill blue pillHaidt starts by delving into the psychological causes behind our tribal politics. Drawing upon social psychology and 25 of original research on moral psychology, Haidt shows how evolution is responsible for shaping people’s morality that both binds and divides and how politics and religion create conflicting communities of shared morality.

According to Haidt, moral attitudes and judgments originate from intuition, not calculated logic. In his 1739 A Treatise of Human Nature, the philosopher David Hume remarked that, “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” According to Haidt, the findings of modern social psychology research largely vindicate Hume.

To illustrate his point, Haidt uses the metaphor of a rider and an elephant. The rider represents the conscious mind with its rational functions and controlled processes. But the domineering elephant is everything else outside the rider’s control: automatic processes that include emotions and intuitions. Although the rider can do “several useful things” such as planning for the future and learning new skills, ultimately “the rider’s job is to serve the elephant.” As a result of this one-sided relationship, the rider mostly “fabricat[es] post hoc explanations for whatever the elephant has done, and becomes good at finding reasons to justify whatever the elephant wants to do next.” In short, “conscious reasoning functions like a lawyer or press secretary.”

How is this reflected in political discourse? When people are asked to believe something that conflicts with their intuitions, they instinctively seek an escape hatch – any reason to doubt the argument or conclusion that is vexing their deeply held beliefs.

Moral judgment is not a purely cerebral affair in which we weigh concerns about harm, rights, and justice. It’s a kind of rapid, automatic process more akin to the judgments animals make as they move through the world, feeling themselves drawn toward or away from various things. Moral judgment is mostly done by the elephant.

If you’re trying to change someone’s mind on a moral or political issue, you have to “talk to the elephant first.”  You can rarely approach someone from a reasoned stance until you have satisfied their emotional or moral foundation.

I’m not going to say I completely agree with Haidt, because my initial first step toward Christianity was actually from a book on reason – Francis Schaeffer’s “The God Who Is There”, but I found a lot of compelling information in Haidt’s book. Through his interdisciplinary research, Haidt and his colleagues uncovered six moral foundations that are shared across human cultures:

1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]
3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it’s “one for all, and all for one.”
4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

6) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor. We report some preliminary work on this potential foundation in this paper, on the psychology of libertarianism and liberty.

Haidt found left-liberals and progressives recognize primarily the first two moral foundations, Care/harm and Fairness/Cheating, but tend to reject Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity, as proper morals. They feel these are base human traits responsible for patriarchy, racism, sexism, xenophobia, and other forms of oppression. The US/EU political left holds an outlier stand compared to most other parts of the world.

Haidt noted that in “Western, educated, industrial, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures,” the moral spectrum is “unusually narrow” and largely limited to the ethics of individual autonomy.

In contrast, many non-WEIRD societies and conservatives use all five moral foundations that include embracing the ethics of divinity and community. Libertarians are a truly unique political species and are not easily placed on the Left-Right political spectrum in that they prize the last moral foundation, Liberty, above all other values.

These are extraordinary differences and would explain the growing political polarization in the United States and why liberals can’t understand conservatives (and vice versa). In today’s political discourse, partisans often seem to argue not so much against each other, but past each other.

Given that human nature is tribal, people automatically form teams with those who share similar values and morals. While morality can “bind” people together through benefits such as group cohesion and unity, it also “blinds” them to the possibilities or even the existence of other legitimate perspectives. That’s the premise of The Matrix. This kind of “moral matrix” can be so strong that it “provides a complete, unified, and emotionally compelling worldview, easily justified by observable evidence and nearly impregnable to attack by arguments from outsiders.”

As challenging as it may be to see through one’s own ideological blinders, empathy is crucial for successful outreach, acts as an “antidote to righteousness,” and has the added benefit of expanding one’s own intellectual horizons.

Why Intellectual Diversity Matters

Human reason has inherent limits, so Haidt reminds us that “we should not expect individuals to produce good, open-minded, truth-seeking reasoning, particularly when self-interest or reputational concerns are in play.”

However, under the right circumstances and conditions, people can use their reasoning powers to check the claims of others. That’s what Schaeffer’s book prompted me to do. It’s what I still do when I encounter reasoning that confounds me or makes me feel uncomfortable. When people “feel some common bond or shared fate that allows them to interact civilly, you can create a group that ends up producing good reasoning as an emergent property of the social system.” It is especially “important to have intellectual and ideological diversity within any group or institution whose goal is to find truth (such as an intelligence agency or a community of scientists) or to produce good public policy (such as a legislature or advisory board).”

Companies that wish to attract top talent in an effort to remain innovative have long embraced intellectual diversity as a paramount ideal. Universities, most of which are still committed to the mission to search for truth and push the boundaries of human knowledge, in particular must embrace complete freedom of speechopen inquiryepistemic humility, and tolerance for the most radical and eccentric. Championing viewpoint and philosophical diversity goes hand in hand with these fundamental principles that form the bedrock of a liberal education.

Haidt’s findings from moral psychology are consistent with research from other fields highlighting the value of those who “think different.”

Saras Sarasvathy at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business profiled some of the most successful entrepreneurs and found them to be spontaneous contrarians who have “confidence in their ability to recognize, respond to, and reshape opportunities as they develop” to the point that they “thrive on contingency.” Unsurprisingly, entrepreneurs relish bucking conventional wisdom whether it be following standard management practices or any other kind of defined linear process.

Adam Grant at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School has extensively researched how “originals” move the world. Startups, which by their very nature are nonconformist, have a special obligation to hire originals who can seed a resilient culture, anticipate market movements under conditions of extreme uncertainty, and repurpose dissenting ideas in alternative ways. Grant emphasizes how originals can mitigate the risks every company faces:

Conformity is dangerous – especially for an entity in formation. If you don’t hire originals, you run the risk of people disagreeing but not voicing their dissent. You want people who choose to follow because they genuinely believe in ideas, not because they’re afraid to be punished if they don’t. For startups, there’s so much pivoting that’s required that if you have a bunch of sheep, you’re in bad shape.

Eric Weiner speculates that intellectual development is stimulated when one’s world is turned upside down:

Many immigrants possess what the psychologist Nigel Barber calls “oblique perspective.” Uprooted from the familiar, they see the world at an angle, and this fresh perspective enables them to surpass the merely talented. To paraphrase the philosopher Schopenhauer: Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see.

Broadly liberal attitudes towards risk-taking, unorthodox thinking, and entrepreneurship are among the reasons why the United States is still the richest country in the world. In science writer Matt Ridley’s wide-reaching book The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves, the writer traced the origins and spread of economic prosperity. He credits voluntary exchange and specialization, specifically what happens when different ideas meet, mate, and recombine to create new ideas, for being the main drivers of human economic and social progress.

Innovations often happen when you combine two or more things in unexpected ways. When you have a diverse group of people working on something, magic often happens because each person brings a different perspective and experience to the table. John Daly, University of Texas at Austin, McCombs School of Business

Authentic diversity must go beyond identity checkboxes to fully include diversity in ideas. Viewpoint diversity drives creative tension, cross-cultural understanding, and the ability to identify and solve problems from multiple perspectives. Creativity and innovation ultimately depend on people stepping outside of comfort zones and trying new things including exposure to radical and unorthodox ways of thinking.

 

Intellectual diversity creates awareness of our own blinders. While there are obvious economic benefits in that, a marketplace of ideas is one of the key underpinnings of a free society. Truth can emerge when views are freely exchanged, challenged, and refined. People’s individual reasoning have inherent limits but through our collective intelligence, we can achieve the impossible.

Even though our intuition-based morality divides our allegiances into different tribes that seemingly cannot coexist with others, accepting and encouraging intellectual diversity creates awareness of our own blinders and provides a possible escape path out of our moral matrices.

#Reviewers Wanted   1 comment

Image result for image of a threatening fragility markhamA Threatening Fragility publishes November 7, 2017, and I’m looking for reviewers … for the entire series.

I’m willing to give FREE ebooks for an honest review.

This is the third book for a libertarian-influenced apocalyptic series that asks “How would the people of a small Midwestern town survive if brought to a breaking point?”

If you’re interested, email me at lelamarkham@gmail.com with “Review Offer” in the subject line.

Posted November 6, 2017 by aurorawatcherak in books, Uncategorized

Tagged with , , ,

Dark Future   Leave a comment

To celebrate getting all of my books out of boxes (for the third time since moving into our house 14 years ago), I’ve been reading some old favorites and last week’s discussion about the science fiction I read as a teenager got me over in that area of the shelves, reading Isaac Asimov’s Foundation

If you’re unfamiliar –.

Hari Seldon knows with certainty that the galactic Empire will soon fall apart, ushering in a thousand generations of chaos. Hari also has a plan to keep the chaos to a mere 1,000 years, assuming things go right. He’s gathered a large group of scientists, and sets them up on a backwater planet called Terminus, where they will create the most extensive and comprehensive encyclopedia in human history.

Of course, this being science fiction and Asimov not being a utopian, Hari Seldon has not told them everything.

This book actually consists of five novellas, each seperated by several years of events. The first is about Seldon’s work and plan for The Foundation. The second and third share a common protagonist, Salvor Hardin, though they take place about 30 years apart. The fourth and fifth are about traders and merchants.

When I read Foundation so many years ago, I was engrossed in the science fiction of it all and didn’t really notice that the “good guys” were really pretty evil. Such is the maturity of age and wisdom of experience. There are two types of characters in this collection – hyper-competent good guys and extremely foolish bad guys. Present the good guys with a problem and they will MacGuiver their way out of any crisis. The bad guys aren’t really villainous, but they are portrayed as greedy, violent and lacking in vision. Normal folks are largely portrayed as wallpaper that follows the leader and women might as well not exist.

My anarchist senses began ticking over as I read. What were the real differences between the good guys and the bad guys? Both were determined to conquer and control people and maintain their power base. The Foundation used different (perhaps kinder and gentler) methods, but tyranny by another name still strangles.

Asimov was an atheist, so religion plays a very cynical role in The Foundation.

Terminus is the last remaining beacon of nuclear power as neighboring societies degrade. They set up a religion around nuclear power, complete with a deity called The Galactic Spirit. Terminus is advertised as a holy land where a priesthood is trained in maintaining nuclear power plants without really being taught much of anything. Religion becomes simply a means by which The Foundation expands its power and influence — a “conquest by missionary.”

In the third story, the Kingdom of Anacreon wants to attack Terminus, so Hardin uses this priesthood and the beliefs they have instilled in the people as a weapon. Hardin doesn’t believe in the Galactic Spirit and the Foundation leaders of the religion do not believe any of the religious aspects they teach. but they are quite happy to make use of it to manipulate the gullible people for their own ends.

When other planets’ kingdoms send people to Terminus to learn about nuclear power, the knowledge is dressed up in the trappings of a fake religion that The Foundation created. Hardin explains it, “I started that way at first because the barbarians looked upon our science as a sort of magical sorcery, and it was easiest to get them to accept it on that basis” (page 92).

He puts a more plainly a few paragraphs later:

“The best men on the planets of the kingdoms are sent here to the Foundation each year and educated into the priesthood. And the best of these remain here as research students. If you think that those who are left, with practically no knowledge of the elements of science, or worse still, with the distorted knowledge the priests receive, can penetrate at a bound to nuclear power, to electronics, to the theory of the hyperwarp— you have a very romantic and very foolish idea of science. It takes lifetimes of training and an excellent brain to get that far.” (page 92)

In Asimov’s world, religion is merely a weapon. If a weapon ceases to give the desired results, it is to be discarded, as it begins to be in the last story, when the Kingdom of Corell wants nothing to do with missionaries and the religion of the Foundation. The protagonist in that story, the trader Hober Mallow, says this to the ruler of Korell, “…I’m a Master Trader. Money is my religion. All this mysticism and hocus-pocus of the missionaries annoy me, and I’m glad you refuse to countenance it. It makes you more my type of man” (page 190).

Some aphorisms caught my attention, in part because they had stuck with me in a vague way for three decades. One is “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent” (page 90). They define “violence” very narrowly. To me, “conquest by missionary” is as much an act of violence as conquest by an invading army. Being robbed by identity theft (or taxation) is just as much an act of theft as being robbed at gunpoint. Intellectuals like Hardin may not want to use violence in the most literal sense, but he’s quite happy to make use of the threat of violence in the events that concluded the third story.

Hardin is quoted as saying, “Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!” (p. 143). What a great summation of relativism! It assumes we can determine right and wrong without morality and suggests that what is right might possibly be immoral.

The Foundation series continues from where I ended reading the other night, but I don’t have those books on my shelves. A lot of my paperbacks were picked up from used book marts, so I would guess I never ran across the others before my interest moved onto other genres. I read all of Isimov’s original Foundation stories by checking out books from the library. So I won’t speak on those.

Maybe the Foundation stories get better in later books, but I was surprised to find this first book filled with shallow and undeveloped characters and buffoonish bad guys being outsmarted by clever good guys. Hari Seldon has an almost God-like presence as the man who predicted almost everything. The Seldon Plan has a messianic feel to it. The characters will keep it going whether they understand it or not. If lies and manipulations are needed to keep the plan on track, HOO-HA.

If mankind’s only hope is a group of elites leading it to some made-up promised land, then I’d like to get off the bus now, because that version of the promised land will only be another disaster. Asimov may have discarded God, but what he uses to replaces Him is not something thinking people could realistically worship.

Who the Hell Knows?

The name says it all.

Rebellious Hazelnuts

Surreal Stories, Very Tall Tales

Adjusting My Sails

When the wind doesn't blow the way you want, adjust your sails

Stine Writing

Poetry, Positivity, and Connecting!

Writer vs the World

In search of beauty, inspired by literature.

Inside My Mind

Words from my brain

Happiness Between Tails by da-AL

Tales + Tales: Books + Compassion + Culture

Fairfax & Glew

Vigilante Justice

The Wolf's Den

Overthink Everything

SaltandNovels

Sprinkling wonder into writing

Remmington Reads

A book enthusiast bringing you all things bookish

MiddleMe

Becoming Unstuck

Magical BookLush

A New Dimension to Explore!! A reason to Love and A promise to fight the wrong is hidden in Books. Come, Let's Explore it!!!

Jacquie Biggar-USA Today Best-selling author

Read. Write. Love. 💕💕💕

Not Very Deep Thoughts

Short Fiction and Other Things

%d bloggers like this: