透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.215.16.238
  • Journals

化解社會對立?海特的認知模型及其批判

Defusing Social Conflicts? A Critical Note on Haidt's Cognitive Model

Abstracts


為何不同政黨的支持者總深信自己才是代表正義的一方?為何都認為對方昧於黑白分明的事實卻不願「覺醒」?為何美國南方的工農階級明明是共和黨主政下的經濟受害者,卻不投票支持捍衛他們權益的民主黨?面對民主國家日益嚴重的價值對立,心理學家Jonathan Haidt 研究大腦所演化的認知結構與決策程序來提出解決方案。本文目的,正是針對海特在政治與道德判斷的認知模型提出三個建設性批判。我將論證,海特的優點在指出人類判斷與決策時,心理機制中鮮少被注意的重要因素。但他對心理的「實然」描述因僅著重於部分事實,從而削弱他所提出的「應然」對策。

Parallel abstracts


Jonathan Haidt (2012) presents a socio-psychological analysis on the nature of social conflicts-the widespread disagreements on race, politics, and religion among different groups-in democratic societies. Despite Haidt's insights, this paper criticizes and complements his analysis in three ways. First, it examines the relationship between the "intuitive dog" and its "rational tail," and explains how the latter affects the former. It then offers counterexamples to show that Haidt's use of the modularity of mind to justify his six fundamental moral principles may be problematic. Finally, to complement his valuable suggestions, it proposes three additional ways to defuse conflicts.

References


Acemoglu, Daron and James Robinson. 2012, Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. New York: Crown Publishers.
Ahn, Woo-Young, Kenneth T. Kishida and Xiaosi Gu et al. 2014, “Nonpolitical Images Evoke Neural Predictors of Political Ideology,” Current Biology 24(22): 2693-2699.
Bechara, Antoine, H. Damasio and D. Tranel et al. 2005, “The Iowa Gambling Task and the Somatic Marker Hypothesis: Some Questions and Answers,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(4): 159-162.
Baron-Cohen, Simon. 2002, “The Extreme Male Brain Theory of Autism,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(6): 248-254.
Boehm, Christopher. 1999, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press.

Cited by


陳冠廷(2017)。心安即理得?論法律規範性的理由與守法動機〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201702299

Read-around