Reputation points

Scholbergs level of moral behaviour

duff_o_josh said:
rep points is just a way to try and control what we post on this forum. the people or person who leaves negative rep points because of a clash in beliefs is well...some words wont post because they will give me negative points

When you start letting the number of green lights next to your name control what you say, you're functioning at a lower level.

I guess I'll start giving my votes to people who have the balls to say what they think.

Josh,
I understand that YOUR point was made clearer by not finishing your statement.
 
Getting good reputation is nice, but honestly, I don't think anyone posts just to get good reputation points. At least I hope not.

I mean, truly, what good do they do you anyway?
 
Mikawa Ossan said:
Getting good reputation is nice, but honestly, I don't think anyone posts just to get good reputation points. At least I hope not.

I mean, truly, what good do they do you anyway?
Trade it in for food or meal tickets ? :p
From what I gather, it works a bit like gaming priviledges (Is that the right word ? I'm not a gamer.) The more rep accumulated, the greater the impact of a single rep. to anyone, pointwise. It can work like a huge stock of arsenal, so the higher the points, the greater the power, and the greater the restraint of the opponent in a confontational situation. Machiavelli's maxim of "better to be feared than loved" seems to apply. I am not sure that can be called good; suffice to say there is a game analogy in the rep. system.
 
re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development

NovaTeacher said:
When you start letting the number of green lights next to your name control what you say, you're functioning at a lower level.

I guess I'll start giving my votes to people who have the balls to say what they think.

Josh,
I understand that YOUR point was made clearer by not finishing your statement.
There's a misspelling in your title, but the content you wanted to convey is new to me, and was worth taking notice. Thanks for the pointer, Nova Teacher.

Wiki: Kohlberg's stages of moral development
Kohlberg's stages of moral development

were developed by Lawrence Kohlberg to explain the development of moral reasoning. He created it while at University of Chicago when becoming fascinated with children's reactions to moral dilemmas. He wrote his doctoral dissertation there in 1958, outlining what is now his stages of moral development.

Kohlberg's theory holds that moral reasoning, which he thought to be the basis for ethical behavior, has developmental stages. Building upon Jean Piaget's previous work, he concluded that there are six identifiable stages of moral development. Later his model was revised and reduced to five stages given there was a lack of responses in studies owning to a clear boundary of the last stage of moral development.

Stages

Kohlberg's stages were broken into 3 different levels, pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional. According to his model it is not possible to regress backwards in stages. It is also not possible to 'jump' stages; each stage provides new perspective and is "more comprehensive, differentiated and integrated than its predecessors."

Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
- 1. Obedience and punishment orientation
- 2. Self-interest orientation

Level 2 (Conventional)
- 3. Interpersonal accord and conformity (aka. The good boy/good girl attitude)
- 4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation (aka. Law and order morality)

Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
- 5. Social contract orientation
- 6. Universal ethical principles (aka. Principled conscience)
Pre-Conventional

(1-2) The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common in children, although adults can also exhibit this level of reasoning. Reasoners in the pre-conventional level judge the morality of an action by its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stage of moral development.

(1) Stage one, individuals focus on the direct consequences that their actions will have for themselves. For example, they think that an action is morally wrong if the person who commits it gets punished.

(2) Stage two espouses the what's in it for me position; right behavior being defined by what is in one's own best interest. Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, but only to a point where it might further one's own interests, such as "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours." Concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect in stage two.

(3-4) Conventional

The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. Persons who reason in a conventional way judge the morality of actions by comparing these actions to social rules and expectations. The conventional level consists of stages three and four of moral development.

(3) In Stage three, individuals whose moral reasoning is in stage three seek approval from other people. They try to be a good boy or good girl having learned that there is inherent value in doing so. Stage three reasoning may judge the morality of an action by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person's relationships.

(4) For Stage four, it is important to obey the laws and social conventions because of its importance to maintaining society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for approval exhibited in stage three.

(5-6) Post-Conventional

The post-conventional level consists of stages five and six of moral development.

(5) In Stage five, persons have certain principles to which they may attach more value than laws, such as human rights or social justice. In this reasoning, actions are wrong if they violate these ethical principles. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than dictums, and must be changed when necessary (provided there is agreement). By this reasoning laws that do not promote general social welfare, should be changed. Democratic governments are ostensibly based on Stage five reasoning.

(6) In Stage six, moral reasoning is based on the use of abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. One way to do this is by imagining oneself in everyone else's shoes, imagining what they would decide if they were doing the same. While Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he had difficulty finding participants who use it. It appears that people rarely if ever reach stage six of Kohlberg's model.

Other

Kohlberg also observed that there is a stage 4½ or 4+ which is a transition from stage four to stage five. This stage is where people have become disaffected with the arbitrary nature of law and order reasoning and become moral relativists. This transition stage may result in either progress to stage five or in regression to stage four.

Kohlberg further speculated that a seventh stage may exist (Transcendental Morality) which would link religion with moral reasoning (See James Fowler's stages of faith).
Theoretical assumptions

The stages of Kohlberg's model refer to reasoning, not to actions or to people themselves. Kohlberg insists that the form of moral arguments is independent of the content of the arguments. According to Kohlberg, moral reasoning is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for moral action. Additionally, Piaget's stages of cognitive development are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the development of moral reasoning. It is important to remember that he posits justice as the a priori summum bonum (justice is assumed to be equal with moral virtue).

According to Kohlberg, a person who progresses to a higher stage of moral reasoning cannot skip stages. For example, a person cannot jump from being concerned mostly with peer opinions (stage three) to being a proponent of social contracts (stage five). However, when persons encounter a moral dilemma and find their current level of moral reasoning unsatisfactory, they will look to the next level. Discovery of the limitations of the current stage of thinking promotes moral development.
Criticism

One criticism of Kohlberg's theory is that it emphasizes justice to the exclusion of other values. As a consequence of this, it may not adequately address the arguments of people who value other moral aspects of actions. For example, Carol Gilligan has argued that Kohlberg's theory is overly androcentric. His theory was the result of empirical research using only male participants.

Gilligan argued that Kohlberg's theory therefore did not adequately describe the concerns of women. She developed an alternative theory of moral reasoning that is based on the value of care. Although recent research has generally not found any gender differences in moral development, Gilligan's theory illustrates that theories on moral development do not need to focus on the value of justice.

Other psychologists have challenged the assumption that moral action is primarily reached by formal reasoning. For example, social intuitionists assume that people often make moral judgments without weighing concerns such as fairness, law, human rights and abstract ethical values. If this is true, the arguments that Kohlberg and other rationalist psychologists have analyzed are often no more than post-hoc rationalizations of intuitive decisions. This would mean that moral reasoning is less relevant to moral action than it seems.
 
NovaTeacher said:
Josh,
I understand that YOUR point was made clearer by not finishing your statement.


its not that i let it get to me, i enjoy this forum a lot. i just think that it is a interesting way of control. even if all i had was negative rep points it wouldnt stop me from posting or put me in fear for things that i say.
 
NovaTeacher said:
What I meant to say was,
If people have only a few green lights, I assume they speak their mind, direct and not scared of confrontation (or a troll).

I haven't been on this forum long but I can feel some differences.
I think maybe people who care about the green lights talk like those managers who want to be liked by everyone.
This is true to some extent, although a lot of, if not more, members who have disabled their points take that approach as well. Just as many of the more aggressive and confrontational ones are not afraid of showing them off.

On the other hand it does make people think and communicate their ideas in a more harmonious and understandable way.
It's very Japanese.
I personally don't see any difference between now and before the system began.
 
NovaTeacher said:
What I meant to say was,
If people have only a few green lights, I assume they speak their mind, direct and not scared of confrontation (or a troll).

I can't quite see how you arrive at that assumption.

I haven't been on this forum long but I can feel some differences.
I think maybe people who care about the green lights talk like those managers who want to be liked by everyone.
On the other hand it does make people think and communicate their ideas in a more harmonious and understandable way.
It's very Japanese.

I hope none of those last three sentences are true.
 
Last edited:
MikeCash said:
I hope none of those last three sentences are true.
I think I see your point. Could it be that...
NovaTeacher said:
I think maybe people who care about the green lights talk like those managers who want to be liked by everyone.
On the other hand it does make people think and communicate their ideas in a more harmonious and understandable way.
It's very Japanese.
... has different topics for each line, 1st about green lights, 2nd about red lights, and 3rd about the strong use of the colored lights to condition modes of communication in a uniquely Japanese way ? Nevertheless, although I can agree about the appearance of harmonious-sounding managers, I am also unsure how understandable he might be. To picture an idea as a harmonious one, when in reality it is not, involves either 1) an insightful reinterpretation departing from the ordinary or 2) a clever play with words that obscures genuine conflict making it seem the exact opposite.
 
NovaTeacher said:
What I meant to say was,
If people have only a few green lights, I assume they speak their mind, direct and not scared of confrontation (or a troll).
I don't look for fights, but I'm not at all averse to saying I disagree, and then attempting to articulate (without attacking the person) just why I disagree. I don't see any point in making a point with an insult, as in many cases, that will degenerate into just a lot of mudslinging. Were I up for simple mudslinging, I'd find a MSN chess room to do that in.

Even attempting to do all that, I have gotten a massive amount of negative rep at another forum. It just had a few very militant liberals, ones who kept on seeing the fairly clear disagreement I was giving. Guess they had their 'evil Christian fundamentalist goggles on', cause I was simply arguing that Christians were not wrong in saying a gay could control their impulses, but that I disagreed with the legislation of Christian morals. They kept giving me negative rep asking how the hell I could legislate my morals. The hell was I going to quit my argument just cause they kept giving me negative rep and missing my argument. After a lot of back and forth posts, they finally understood what I had been saying all along, and agreed with me. (I'm not Christian anymore, but my argument still remains the same, and can be found in this thread). I will continue an argument I believe in despite negative rep, yet I will try to stay away from simple mudslinging (once in a while I feel I've got to throw it back).

I haven't been on this forum long but I can feel some differences.
I think maybe people who care about the green lights talk like those managers who want to be liked by everyone.
On the other hand it does make people think and communicate their ideas in a more harmonious and understandable way.
It's very Japanese.
Hmmm....well, being liked or disliked will happen, and I won't worry that someone will dislike me, cause it usually happens that one, two, or a few people on every forum I've been to do actually dislike me. Errr, well, I don't know that people will suddenly stop articulating their true opinions just cause someone might redcard them.
 
Ricky Nelson said it best, perhaps

"But it's all right now, I learned my lesson well.
You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself"
 
How many people on this forum do you honestly think actively pursue reputation in one way or the other? Put differently, how many people on this forum do you think really are concerned with being liked or not?

I can understand younger members wanting to feel afirmed by their peers; it's a natural desire at a time when you're forming your worldview. It's the same reason that say high school students seem to have an inborn tendency to form cliques. Mankind is after all a social beast.

However, once one passes a certain age, outward recognition often becomes less of a factor in determining one's behavior. Once you've gained a certain amount of self-confidence, it's much easier to take a few hits and have people disagree with you.

Based on this reasoning, I would tend to assume that any member above a certain age would not find reputation to be a factor one way or the other in choosing how he or she writes posts.

Even if someone does care about receiving reputation, what does that matter? Why should I, you, or anyone else be offended by that? Because it's "fake"? Who cares? I would wager that the average poster on this forum will never meet over 99% of the other members here. So what does it matter?

Frankly, I'm quite suprised by how much attention this thread has received. It seems to me that the majority of people are posting the same thing: reputation doesn't matter. And yet we keep posting. Why is that?
 
Hahah, im gonna jump on board and have a bit of a say.
Look at me! I got a pretty light green light! Wow, what a surprise!
Its lucky because green is my favourite colour, and im guessing it just goes hand in hand with all the other good things that happened today!
I wonder if it has anything to do with Karma? Yesterday I gave a lovely monk some money, I have no idea what it was for, but anyway, with him being a monk, its bound to be for something good.

After that my luck changed! Everything was going so-so borderline bad, and then not even 12 hours later, everything was looking up!
Wow, I really did go on, accept my apologies, and feel free to go on talking about the pretty green lights.

What if it really represented how many times you'd been abducted by some green slime eating, snot bearing creature??? Heeheh!
 
Mikawa Ossan said:
[R]eputation doesn't matter. And yet we keep posting. Why is that ?
Because there is an injustice in the system, a betrayer among us, a coconspirator scheming to take over the remaining good areas over to the bad guys... by disrupting the rep system, by planting discord, by insinuating this member and that, with doubts, with jealousy, with hatred, and the desire to kill. It is the devil that is on trial, therefore we must keep posting to ward off the evil spells it tries to cast upon us unawares. When all else fails, all you need to do is to call out to Golden Skeleton, the Japanese cousin of Batman. Call out to him, chanting in unison, :nuts:

"O bat, o bat, o golden bat. The splitter's among us again.
Come and get him, come here quick. Chase him out with a whacking stick !" :smash:
 
Last edited:
lexico said:
Because there is an injustice in the system, a betrayer among us, a coconspirator scheming to take over the remaining good areas over to the bad guys... by disrupting the rep system, by planting discord, by insinuating this member and that, with doubts, with jealousy, with hatred, and the desire to kill. It is the devil that is on trial, therefore we must keep posting to ward off the evil spell it tries to cast upon us unawares; and when all else fails, all you need to do is to call out to Golden Skeleton, the Japanese cousin of batman, call out to him, "o bat, o bat, o golden bat. The splitter's among us again. Come and get him, come here quick. Chase him out with a whacking stick !"
Oh dear! Looks like Lex has finally gone mad. Maybe we should have purple balls for those that have lost the plot. The more you get, the closer to a straight jacket you get. Until you make it to fully padded cell status. At that point just stick two pencils up your nose, underpants on your head and type "wibble" on every thread. :nuts: :eek:
 
Kinsao said:
lol @ you all..... :giggle: ..... Red is my favourite colour - bring on the bad rep!!! :D


I cant.. you should be VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY NAUGHTY THEN... but ... mmm you aren't :?
 

This thread has been viewed 60785 times.

Back
Top