Essentialism vs Situationism (7-20-21)

Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=139670

Philosopher John M. Doris writes: * I regard this renaissance of virtue with concern. Like many others, I find the lore of virtue deeply compelling, yet I cannot help noticing that much of this lore rests on psychological theory that is some 2,500 years old. A theory is not bad simply because it is old, but in this case developments of more recent vintage suggest that the old ideas are in trouble. In particular, modern experimental psychology has discovered that circumstance has surprisingly more to do with how people behave than traditional images of character and virtue allow.

* It’s commonly presumed that good character inoculates against shifting fortune, and English has a rich vocabulary for expressing this belief: steady, dependable, steadfast, unwavering, unflinching. Conversely, the language generously supplies terms of abuse marking lack of character: weak, fickle, disloyal, faithless, irresolute. Such locutions imply that character will have regular behavioral manifestations: the person of good character will do well, even under substantial pressure to moral failure, while the person of bad character is someone on whom it would be foolish to rely. In this view it’s character, more than circumstance, that decides the moral texture of a life; as the old saw has it, character is destiny.

* Behavior is – contra the old saw about character and destiny – extraordinarily sensitive to variation in circumstance. Numerous studies have demonstrated that minor situational variations have powerful effects on helping behavior: hurried passersby step over a stricken person in their path, while unhurried passersby stop to help…The experimental record suggests that situational factors are often better predictors of behavior than personal factors, and this impression is reinforced by careful examination of behavior outside the confines of the laboratory. In very many situations it looks as though personality is less than robustly determinative of behavior. To put things crudely, people typically lack character.

* When compared with advances in the natural sciences, psychology has exhibited little uncontroversial progress.

Am I a laughing stock? The answer might shock you. (7-17-21) https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=141266

Join this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSFVD7Xfhn7sJY8LAIQmH8Q/join
https://odysee.com/@LukeFordLive, https://lbry.tv/@LukeFord, https://rumble.com/lukeford
https://dlive.tv/lukefordlivestreams
Listener Call In #: 1-310-997-4596
Superchat: https://entropystream.live/app/lukefordlive
Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/lukeford/
Soundcloud MP3s: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593
Code of Conduct: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=125692
https://www.patreon.com/lukeford
http://lukeford.net Email me: lukeisback@gmail.com or DM me on Twitter.com/lukeford
Support the show | https://www.streamlabs.com/lukeford, https://patreon.com/lukeford, https://PayPal.Me/lukeisback
Facebook: http://facebook.com/lukecford
Feel free to clip my videos. It's nice when you link back to the original.