As I’ve heard it explained, there was a lot of contention for the free food in the garbage pit. It was highly desirable, so the most agressive alpha males took it over, and jealously guarded it. So, the weaker males (and females and young) stayed behind.
So the true lesson of this post is that we should get rid of all the aggressive alpha males in our society. I guess I always found the idea obvious, but now that it has been validated, can we please start devising some plan for implementing it?
So the true lesson of this post is that we should get rid of all the aggressive alpha males in our society. I guess I always found the idea obvious, but now that it has been validated, can we please start devising some plan for implementing it?
Sod off! Overt aggression is a pleasant relief compared to the subtle, catty ‘niceness’ that the most competitive humans excel at. Only get rid of aggressive alpha males who act out violently (ie. those without sufficient restraint to abide by laws.)
Hmm… Doesn’t this look like something an aggressive alpha male would say?..
It’s almost as though I responded to scheming to kill all people with the traits ‘male’ and ‘aggressive’ with benign aggression deliberately. For instance it could be that I would prefer to designate myself as part of the powerful group as opposed to the embittered group trying to scheme against them!
If we want to keep the aggressive alpha males who don’t abide by the rules of subtle catty ‘niceness,’ why not also keep the aggressive alpha males who don’t abide by ‘laws’?
If we want to keep the aggressive alpha males who don’t abide by the rules of subtle catty ‘niceness,’ why not also keep the aggressive alpha males who don’t abide by ‘laws’?
I don’t understand the relevance here. Why on earth should keeping people who aren’t bitchy Machiavellian moralizers mean you must also keep people who break the laws to do physical violence upon one another. That’s a seriously bizarre reference class to try to enforce consistency within.
In general I don’t put much stock in moral, ethical or values based arguments of the form “If X then why not also Y. I say X is similar to Y!”. Usually the appropriate response is “because I want X and I don’t want Y—the fact that you identify one common feature between the two is meaningless to me”. In this case however the “if then you must” barely makes sense at all!
There are some things we collectively discourage one another from doing.
Some of those, we discourage via laws. Call that set A. Some of those, we discourage via “the rules of subtle catty ‘niceness’”. Call that set B.
(Of course, A and B are not disjoint.)
For some of those discouraged things it turns out to be valuable, or at least desirable, to have some people around who do them anyway. Call that set C.
It seemed to me you were suggesting that the intersection of B and C is non-empty (and therefore we should keep the people who ignore “the rules of subtle catty ‘niceness’”) but that the intersection of B and A is empty (and therefore we should get rid of people “without sufficient restraint to abide by law”).
I find it pretty implausible that we’ve defined our laws in such a way that that’s true, especially given how much variation there is in law from place to place. So I find it implausible that getting rid of the A-averse B-doers in each municipality is the optimal approach.
I have no idea what the phrase “if then you must” is doing there.
It seemed to me you were suggesting that the intersection of B and C is non-empty
For what it is worth, I didn’t. I didn’t suggest anything about set B whatsoever. The closest relationship of that concept has is that the behavioral tendencies declared to be more undesirable than aggressive alphaness—the more sophisticated and hypocritical aggression—can sometimes superficially portray themselves as “set B enforcement”.
I have no idea what the phrase “if then you must” is doing there.
It means I would probably have rejected the game of “Moral Reference Class Tennis” even if this one wasn’t non-sequitur. I reject nearly all of them.
As I’ve heard it explained, there was a lot of contention for the free food in the garbage pit. It was highly desirable, so the most agressive alpha males took it over, and jealously guarded it. So, the weaker males (and females and young) stayed behind.
So the true lesson of this post is that we should get rid of all the aggressive alpha males in our society. I guess I always found the idea obvious, but now that it has been validated, can we please start devising some plan for implementing it?
Sod off! Overt aggression is a pleasant relief compared to the subtle, catty ‘niceness’ that the most competitive humans excel at. Only get rid of aggressive alpha males who act out violently (ie. those without sufficient restraint to abide by laws.)
Or just use advanced technology to make it so that violence has no overly unpleasant or permanent consequences.
Hmm… Doesn’t this look like something an aggressive alpha male would say?..
Uh-oh!
It’s almost as though I responded to scheming to kill all people with the traits ‘male’ and ‘aggressive’ with benign aggression deliberately. For instance it could be that I would prefer to designate myself as part of the powerful group as opposed to the embittered group trying to scheme against them!
If we want to keep the aggressive alpha males who don’t abide by the rules of subtle catty ‘niceness,’ why not also keep the aggressive alpha males who don’t abide by ‘laws’?
I don’t understand the relevance here. Why on earth should keeping people who aren’t bitchy Machiavellian moralizers mean you must also keep people who break the laws to do physical violence upon one another. That’s a seriously bizarre reference class to try to enforce consistency within.
In general I don’t put much stock in moral, ethical or values based arguments of the form “If X then why not also Y. I say X is similar to Y!”. Usually the appropriate response is “because I want X and I don’t want Y—the fact that you identify one common feature between the two is meaningless to me”. In this case however the “if then you must” barely makes sense at all!
There are some things we collectively discourage one another from doing.
Some of those, we discourage via laws. Call that set A.
Some of those, we discourage via “the rules of subtle catty ‘niceness’”. Call that set B.
(Of course, A and B are not disjoint.)
For some of those discouraged things it turns out to be valuable, or at least desirable, to have some people around who do them anyway. Call that set C.
It seemed to me you were suggesting that the intersection of B and C is non-empty (and therefore we should keep the people who ignore “the rules of subtle catty ‘niceness’”) but that the intersection of B and A is empty (and therefore we should get rid of people “without sufficient restraint to abide by law”).
I find it pretty implausible that we’ve defined our laws in such a way that that’s true, especially given how much variation there is in law from place to place. So I find it implausible that getting rid of the A-averse B-doers in each municipality is the optimal approach.
I have no idea what the phrase “if then you must” is doing there.
For what it is worth, I didn’t. I didn’t suggest anything about set B whatsoever. The closest relationship of that concept has is that the behavioral tendencies declared to be more undesirable than aggressive alphaness—the more sophisticated and hypocritical aggression—can sometimes superficially portray themselves as “set B enforcement”.
It means I would probably have rejected the game of “Moral Reference Class Tennis” even if this one wasn’t non-sequitur. I reject nearly all of them.
You might want to be extra-careful with your plan. Because, you know, power corrupts.