ddrcrono t1_j4wfwti wrote
Pinker always takes some interesting angles. My simplified version of this that I use to explain to my rationality-obsessed friends how humanity works is that, if there is a behaviour that is common, there is a situation in which it's rewarding. We are extremely highly evolved both genetically and socially, and much of what people think to be a game of "Who has the highest stats" is much more like a very complex game of rock, paper, scissors.
Alternatively I'll use my anime reference where there's a card game with 7 cards: 5 commoners, 1 king and 1 fool. The commoners tie, they beat the fool and lose to the king. The king ties the king, beats the commoner, and the only one he can lose to is the fool. I think there is a lot of truth to this and I've seen it myself in the dynamics of some social circles. (It's also why I think being able to adapt different strategies socially is the best tactic).
allsheknew t1_j4yk9yr wrote
I don’t think we’re rewarding behavior as much as there’s a lack of consequences and consistency for shitty behavior. It takes a lot of patience and self discipline from individuals in order to do so.
ddrcrono t1_j4yle0u wrote
Being illogical doesn't always mean being shitty. Many very logical people are very selfish.
allsheknew t1_j4zsjjo wrote
Then why is it problematic if it’s rewarded?
ddrcrono t1_j57dju0 wrote
I'm not sure what you're actually referring to with this sentence. I didn't say something was problematic. Saying something is problematic is a prescriptive (this is how things should be) judgement. I am making a descriptive (how things are) argument.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments