You can’t have it both ways with the universality. Generality of behavior as proof of genes and variability as proof of genes. … If there is inter-person variability, that reduces how universal it is, no?
Sorry if it wasn’t clear. I want to distinguish two things:
Variability across people who grow up in a similar culture and environment — As a rule, I think that kind of thing is often evidence of innate drives rather than convergent learning, because if adopting a certain habit or preference is a robustly good idea, why would only some people do that? (I can think of exceptions; this is just a general rule.)
Variability across cultures — As a rule, I think that kind of thing is usually evidence that innate drives are not directly incentivizing the behavior in question, but rather it’s a learned cultural norm.
I think status drive exists in all cultures, and I also think that within a culture, some people are more intrinsically motivated by status than others. Those both point towards an innate drive, IMO. That’s what I meant, although of course you’re entitled to disagree.
Sorry if it wasn’t clear. I want to distinguish two things:
Variability across people who grow up in a similar culture and environment — As a rule, I think that kind of thing is often evidence of innate drives rather than convergent learning, because if adopting a certain habit or preference is a robustly good idea, why would only some people do that? (I can think of exceptions; this is just a general rule.)
Variability across cultures — As a rule, I think that kind of thing is usually evidence that innate drives are not directly incentivizing the behavior in question, but rather it’s a learned cultural norm.
I think status drive exists in all cultures, and I also think that within a culture, some people are more intrinsically motivated by status than others. Those both point towards an innate drive, IMO. That’s what I meant, although of course you’re entitled to disagree.
I agree with this restatement. Makes sense. Sorry that I got it wrong.