Me too. Keltner respectfully delineated the opposing camps that clearly favor nature over nurture. What are the chances or incentives for the selfish gene adherents to meld with the idealistic altruists? (Simplification granted).

I also liked it. I don't think I agree with McCullough's and Keltner's thoughts about whether their view is Hobbesian or Rousseaian though. Hobbes didn't just say sometimes people are brutish, he said in the absence of a strong authority that tit-for-tat killings (among other crimes) will take place - the same thing they say here. Rousseau argued the opposite, that life without a strong state is a life of complete liberty and when people create a state they're foolishly enslaving themselves for little gain. The whole diavlog after the introduction they argue that revenge has a purpose and that a strong state also serves the same purpose but (generally) more effectively so it seems to me to be completely Hobbesian. Even when they're criticizing Western (or at least American) justice for not creating the right kind of emotional relationship between transgressor and transgressed they're just comparing it to another kind of enforced justice system not to a Rousseauian state of nature

... to the Spanish Inquisition ... (cf.) But never mind the hard-wired trigger phrases in my twisted mind. I also liked this diavlog. I's like to hear Joshua Knobe follow up with either, to discuss the recent clinical work they touched on, too.

Great diavlog. Both speakers cite the Selfish Gene and both acknowledge the brain hardware involved in cooperation and revenge. But neither seems to realize that they are essentially two sides of one coin. There is an equilibrium between cooperation and revenge. Both speakers seem to be holding on to the idea the cooperation is the "better" emotion and if we can just increase our understanding of revenge that we can reduce it. You might be able to change the balance between cooperation and revenge temporarily, but it will revert back to its equilibrium.
Another point, both speakers seem to think that the reduction in revenge killing is a reduction in revenge overall. We live in a society now that has forbidden killing and physical violence as accepted behavior and instituted a "leviathan" to disincentivize that particular expression of revenge. But that does not equate to reducing revenge overall. There are lots of ways of getting revenge beside physical violence.
The speakers seem to have missed this point in the incident between Gates and Crowley. This was an incident where both parties felt wronged, but neither perpetrated

Spanish Inquisition? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHGOl-jfUK0 Seriously, this was a great diavlog! I wish it could be repeated with the participation of John Horgan. He had touched on several of the topics in previous diavlogs. I wonder if the participants are agnostics?

I'm just adding my positive comment to the above. This was a great diavlog. When anger no longer has an adaptive function, it leads to detrimental effects to the individual or the group. Cooperation is most likely a more mutually beneficial response. The problem of reciprocity, or lack of, still remains. Overall it's a very interesting topic which I hope will be discussed again in the near future.

Was very interested in the story of the 'It Takes A Village' bird.

Quoting SkepticDoc: Spanish Inquisition? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHGOl-jfUK0

Do you think I put my "(cf.)" link there for my health??? ;^)

This was very good, makes you wish you had colleagues, you could almost feel the love at the end.
I do wonder though whether these guys have any wish for revenge to stick around. They acknowledge it, but seem to wish it diminished in society, see it as a volatile vestige for modern civilizations (and it is volatile). I guess I wish it diminished as well, but I wonder if they wish it could be removed completely from our species? My hunch is that they would not go there completely, but I don't know.
For myself, I do not want to see revenge disappear, without it I do not even know what it would be like to be human. To see an atrocity committed and have no wish to enact retribution would be such a detached human nature to our current state it would be more alien than anything else.
I WANT to want to see the malevolent punished. I want civilization to temper that impulse, the impulse for revenge, but not remove it. Without that the future I see would be indifference to wrongs, the kind you see spring up with cultural moral relativists who refuse to pass judgement on

I guess I wish it diminished as well, but I wonder if they wish it could be removed completely from our species?

I think you need look no further than the international sphere. I starting wondering about the relationship between society and state as I was listening. The state might have quelled revenge domestically through its legal apparatus, but what disciplines the state?

Quoting JonIrenicus:
I WANT to want to see the malevolent punished. I want civilization to temper that impulse, the impulse for revenge, but not remove it. Without that the future I see would be indifference to wrongs, the kind you see spring up with cultural moral relativists who refuse to pass judgement on another societies practices, thereby rejecting human rights by default, something many delude themselves into thinking they actually believe in.

I would say that the thrill of seeing the malevolent punished, or more accurately maladjusted, is a common and fun pastime but if you interested in reducing crime than hitting more and more people with bigger and bigger hammers might not be the most efficient way of doing things. As for the "moral relativists" or whatever group you think fits the label, I would doubt they are against human rights ( they certainly complain when it doesn't happen in this country ) but are against trying to violently impose our way of thinking on other people who don't think the way we do. There maybe uber-hippies that think everything is zen and female circumcision is jest fine but I don't see them much

Interesting, but psychology has been promising to become a science since the middle of the 19th century. Good luck gentlemen! There are so many nuances of emotion--and when you throw in history and culture so many weird permutations of the emotions--that I wonder how a strictly Darwinian perspective will ever be able to explain them in a scientifically satisfying way. Darwin himself seems to have had his doubts when he argued that civilization reversed many of the "laws" that supposedly hold in the struggle for existence. I was happy to see both speakers point this out.

Quoting thouartgob: I would say that the thrill of seeing the malevolent punished, or more accurately maladjusted, is a common and fun pastime but if you interested in reducing crime than hitting more and more people with bigger and bigger hammers might not be the most efficient way of doing things.

Thrill is not the proper word for it, it is more like a feeling of justice served. A cosmic correction, a divine economy. This does not mean punishments need to be draconian, or that there is free reign to enact punishments not tied to more positive results (yes, this presupposes that punishments CAN be tied to more positive results, that the absence of ANY punishments is often Worse for society, do not agree, then you need to show how not punishing someone in a specific case is more beneficial in terms of outcomes, not just a harsh punishment, but no punishment at all), it simply means from my vantage point, it seems better a person be punished in SOME way for committing a wrong than not at all. Put it like this, if there were two solutions to deal with a murderer, one involving the

Human rights. The implication in the very wording suggests as plain as day there are rights that extend to all human beings. Rights that in theory no culture can dismantle. But there is a faction of people with a stupefied ethic framework (unfortunately often coming from a listless secular vacuum) that actually make the statement we have no basis by which to pass judgement on another cultures practices. We can say something is wrong for us, but not another society.

It always astonishes me that right-wingers have met scores of people on the left (the "faction") who espouse absolute permissiveness regarding other cultures' customs, yet I, who have spent my entire life on the left, have never met one.

Quoting JonIrenicus: They often claim they believe in human rights of course. But lets look at those two words. Human rights. The implication in the very wording suggests as plain as day there are rights that extend to all human beings. Rights that in theory no culture can dismantle. But there is a faction of people with a stupefied ethic framework (unfortunately often coming from a listless secular vacuum) that actually make the statement we have no basis by which to pass judgement on another cultures practices. We can say something is wrong for us, but not another society....

If there is nothing one can claim is wrong, no matter what, no matter who does it or what culture commits it, the claim of a belief in human rights is at best a confusion, at worst a lie.

I think this mixes up two or three different issues: (1) do you believe something is wrong (or is a right)?; (2) how certain is that belief and on what is it based?; and (3) what actions would you be willing to take to convince others of your beliefs or impose them on others? It is

Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation: "Reconciliation means accepting you cannot undo the murder but you can decide how to want to live afterwards."

Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation:

"Reconciliation means accepting you cannot undo the murder but you can decide how to want to live afterwards."

After reading the web site home page a more honest title for that group would be: People against the death penalty. I question their grouping together both those murdered and those who murder as 'victims'. I absolutely support their right to protest against the death penalty but I hope they also support people's rights to advocate capital punishment I'm reminded of the victims families from the Manson murders who have to go back to court every five years or so to plead with parole boards not to release those who butchered their loved ones. Imagine making them re-live the crimes as they have to recount the suffering their loved one endured (not to mention their own suffering) as they take the opposite side from those who argue for release. I also remember reading about a parents of a little boy who was sexually assaulted and murdered. They had to walk past the boy's bedroom everyday knowing the animal who took out his

Quoting JonIrenicus: T
I do wonder though whether these guys have any wish for revenge to stick around.

my understanding is that they see that "anger protects cooperation" (sorry no dingalink) and they have a similar view of revenge. revenge acts as a tax on the antisocial behavior of others. this lead into their discussion of buddhism and the idea that it is not so easy to lump emotions into "good" and "bad" since they work together. so the short answer is "no"(in my opinion), they don't want to see the urge for revenge disappear, but violence is reduced when the state takes over the duty of revenge.

Quoting harkin: One subject I would like to hear Michael and Dacher discuss is the incredible amount of hatred directed at Sarah Palin. It's truly amazing how many people (esp in the media) just can not get over her, even after Obama won. Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Bill Maher, Juan Cole etc could sure use a dose of the healing powers of losing the hostility and hatred.

One thing you ought to get clear on is that there is not an "incredible amount of hatred." To the degree that the h-emotion exists, it is much more about the proud know-nothing attitude and the "Us (Real Americans™) versus Them (everybody who doesn't live in some imaginary small town paradise)" mentality that she both symbolizes and preys on/plays on among the people who still revere her. As far as Palin -- personally -- goes, the continued attention paid to her is more along the lines of the fascination for trainwrecks and the awareness that she presents an apparently inexhaustible vein of comedy gold. And let us not forget that her protestations notwithstanding, she does her level best to keep herself in the spotlight. You

Now That's A Campaign Slogan!!

I would also love to see one of these guys do a diavlog with Mark Kleiman or Glenn Loury on how their research could be applied to prison reform. [added #1: also it would be interesting to hear the connections explored between our conflict-resolution instincts, and the way language often serves a similar function (see: Stuff of Thought by Pinker) and adheres to fairly universal patterns of allowing people to save face and other aspects of more inter-personal concerns.] [added #2: also Fred Luskin (studies forgiveness) would be a great B-head.]

This one was terrific! I'm going to have to listen to it again and post more later.

Quoting harkin: After reading the web site home page a more honest title for that group would be: People against the death penalty. I question their grouping together both those murdered and those who murder as 'victims'. I absolutely support their right to protest against the death penalty but I hope they also support people's rights to advocate capital punishment

I'm reminded of the victims families from the Manson murders who have to go back to court every five years or so to plead with parole boards not to release those who butchered their loved ones. Imagine making them re-live the crimes as they have to recount the suffering their loved one endured (not to mention their own suffering) as they take the opposite side from those who argue for release.

I also remember reading about a parents of a little boy who was sexually assaulted and murdered. They had to walk past the boy's bedroom everyday knowing the animal who took out his depraved longings on their child before slitting his throat was in a warm jail cell getting three meals a day

Agreed. This was one of the best diavlogs in ages. I hope these two do it again, and maybe have some beer next time!

So you don't like the word "thrill" but accept that you get some irrational "something" out of hurting evildoers?

As far as Palin -- personally -- goes, the continued attention paid to her is more along the lines of the fascination for trainwrecks and the awareness that she presents an apparently inexhaustible vein of comedy gold.

Yes, the amount of attention she receives for her 'gold' is proportional to the amount Joe Biden receives for his incredidle output and The One receives for his (not to mention the lies) isn't it? That is why those named have their obsession, it's all about comedy. I don't think even you really believe this. If Palin had this gem, I'm sure it would get a bit more play. Are you laughing? Change you can believe in.

Quoting claymisher: Yikes. Lotta blood and gore there. I'd be more interested in what they'd say about you.

Nice substance there. Yes, the real world has blood and gore. How we deal with it says a lot about society. The organization named promotes the idea that we deal with this blood and gore with 'morality and a commitment to forgiveness'. I'm sure most of these same people would be against CA's three strikes rule. I hope their love and spirit of forgiveness helps them deal with the consequences.

Quoting JonIrenicus: Thrill is not the proper word for it, it is more like a feeling of justice served. A cosmic correction, a divine economy.

Quoting JonIrenicus: I WANT to want to see the malevolent punished. ...

I want to see rights wronged, I want the divine ledger to be in the black. I also understand the phrase "want to want", that sounds more adamant than just balancing the scales. As my subject change said I want to want to see evil punished harshly as well, it feels good, cathartic would be a word, thrilling would be another.
Well I haven't finished the diavlog but I think we can all agree that punishment can have beneficial effects on individuals as well as society to one extent or another. I don't know that I was arguing against punishment per se but we have a tendency in this country to that "justice" is proportional to "punishment". I find that as a linear relationship it never seems to be effective. Punishing the girlfriend "who happens to be in her boyfriends car" the same as the boyfriend who actually did the drug deal does not seem to add much justice. 150 years for Bernie is all well and good but you

Quoting harkin: Yes, the amount of attention she receives for her 'gold' is proportional to the amount Joe Biden receives for his incredidle output and The One receives for his (not to mention the lies) isn't it? That is why those named have their obsession, it's all about comedy.

I don't think even you really believe this.

If Palin had this gem, I'm sure it would get a bit more play.

Are you laughing?

Change you can believe in.

Man, when did you turn into such a whiner? Look, harkin, be your age. You know that there is no ideological predictor for what people will find funny. You can point to the occasional slip of the tongue from Obama and Kinsley gaffes from Biden all you want, but the fact is, they're not anything like the word salad that comes shooting out every time Sarah Palin opens her mouth. And as far as your whimpering about bias goes, I'll remind you that you still can't go three days in a row in this country without hearing someone make a Clinton blowjob joke. More than ten years later, mind you.

One of the best diavlogs yet. Thanks, Bob! McCullough was a great bundle of energy, knowledge, and enthusiasm for his subject. Get him back on paired with Richard Wrangham, who was also fabulous. Would make for an excellent discussion.

I have mediated many thousands of disputes, and when opponents talk together with a third party who listens respectfully to both points of view,
about two thirds of the time things get better, and about five percent of the time things get worse, and the rest results in no change.

"many thousands" You must be a very busy man or as old as Methuselah.

"many thousands" You must be a very busy man or as old as Methuselah.

Court mediators: 10 mediations per day = 50 per week = 2400 per year. What's so amazing?

Quoting Wonderment: Court mediators: 10 mediations per day = 50 per week = 2400 per year.

What's so amazing?

So the average mediation takes less than 48 (given a true 8 hours of work a day by the mediator) minutes. I find that somewhat difficult to accept in any but the most trivial of cases.

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/leg...1819984-1.html, the average time to resolve an employer dispute by arbitration or mediation is 104 days, and the average cost of resolution is $870.

which by your figures would make the average arbitrator charging around 1095.00 dollars per hour. Pretty good pay for a mediator don't you think. My bet is on average they make less than $200.00 (a fairly standard lawyers rate) so that would imply some 4 hours per mediation. If you have some source to back up your figures please supply it as I can find nothing that suggests this sort of efficiency.

the first google i got for "mediation average time" was alink to a law office, that stated their divorce mediations averaged 2-5 hours. also, mediators make pretty decent money, if it takes 104 days and only costs $800.00 - then the vast majority of the time is not actually spent with a mediator mediating. the labor dispute i am familiar with took about 8 hours of a mediators time, split into three sessions over the course of about a month and a half. all of which is to say, sounds totally in the realm of the plausible.

The 104 days was time of filing to settlement not actual time spent on the case it was just part of the quote, I generally prefer quoting full sentences if not the surrounding context. Yea mediated divorces are relatively quick, once the preliminary ground work is done, as they are usually amicable as opposed to conflict just short of armed conflict. Labor disputes, that are settled through mediation, are also fairly straight forward and from my experience, union mediations for work rule violations, matters of discipline, etc., are also don't require all too much effort or compromise but I have never seen one go down in less than an hour.

If the average time it takes is 3 hours, then that means about 2000 (i.e. "thousands of") mediations in 3 years. I don't think 3 years of experience is so implausible that it's worth not taking someone at their word, especially when there doesn't seem to be any particular agenda being pushed.

So the average mediation takes less than 48 (given a true 8 hours of work a day by the mediator) minutes. I find that somewhat difficult to accept in any but the most trivial of cases.

The mediations I've seen are in small claims court. The judge asks the parties (plantiff and defendant) if they would be amenable to talking with a mediator. The mediator can easily do several cases a day. Typically, the mediation takes a half hour, to the best of my recollection. Of course, if you're mediating between Ahmadinejad and Obama, or you and Brendan, it might take longer.

Quoting Wonderment: Of course, if you're mediating between Ahmadinejad and Obama, or you and Brendan, it might take longer.

Could you speculate on which of those two would take longer?

Could you speculate on which of those two would take longer?

Much as I'm tempted to suggest an intervention rather than a mediation, in the interest of world peace, I will have no comment.

Quoting Wonderment: Much as I'm tempted to suggest an intervention rather than a mediation, in the interest of world peace, I will have no comment.

Wise words, Wonderment.

It was more the unsubstantiated appeal to authority that the snark was aimed at not the actual possibility that he may have done "many thousands." Perhaps it is my naturally distrusting nature that found it strange that he claimed a success rate of 2/3 when taken in conjunction with his email address as his pseudonym this comment seemed to me to be more a solicitation than a genuine comment. I responded to Wonder only because the figures, at first glance, seemed so out of whack that I had to go do some looking around.

Quoting piscivorous: he claimed a success rate of 2/3 when taken in conjunction with his email address as his pseudonym this comment seemed to me to be more a solicitation than a genuine comment.

that thought crossed my mind also.