Here’s a version of hypothesis #3 that sounds plausible to me: Humans have a preference for being consistent, and for other people to be so as well. If someone points out their inconsistency they often get upset, or try to rationalize it away. Many times a person caught being inconsistent will change their behavior to avoid future embarrassment. A common way to stir up anger against politicians is to point out times when they have behaved inconsistently.
Now, the obvious armchair ev-psych explanation for this consistency preference evolving is that consistent people are more predictable and stable, and hence make better allies and trade partners. But it occurs to me that this preference for being consistent in one’s behavior, especially in front of others, might also serve to protect us from money pumps to some extent.
Here’s a version of hypothesis #3 that sounds plausible to me: Humans have a preference for being consistent, and for other people to be so as well. If someone points out their inconsistency they often get upset, or try to rationalize it away. Many times a person caught being inconsistent will change their behavior to avoid future embarrassment. A common way to stir up anger against politicians is to point out times when they have behaved inconsistently.
Now, the obvious armchair ev-psych explanation for this consistency preference evolving is that consistent people are more predictable and stable, and hence make better allies and trade partners. But it occurs to me that this preference for being consistent in one’s behavior, especially in front of others, might also serve to protect us from money pumps to some extent.