Because society is not particularly well optimized, the implication of goodness in the modifier “well” is deceptive—a well-socialized person is quite likely to be tribalistic and repressed, for example.
Sounds like your definition of “well-socialized” is closer to “well-adjusted” than RobinZ’s.
As I understand them, skill in navigating social situations, epistemic rationality and psychological well-being are all separate features. They do seem to correlate, but the causal influences are not obvious.
ETA: Depends a lot on the standard you use, too. RobinZ is probably correct if you look at the upper quartile but less so for the 99th percentile.
As an aside, I would say that jimrandomh’s point relies upon describing a substantial population—more like the set of those above the upper quartile than those above the 99th percentile.
Why?
Because society is not particularly well optimized, the implication of goodness in the modifier “well” is deceptive—a well-socialized person is quite likely to be tribalistic and repressed, for example.
They are? I would expect a well-socialized person to be secure and comfortable and friendly.
Sounds like your definition of “well-socialized” is closer to “well-adjusted” than RobinZ’s.
As I understand them, skill in navigating social situations, epistemic rationality and psychological well-being are all separate features. They do seem to correlate, but the causal influences are not obvious.
ETA: Depends a lot on the standard you use, too. RobinZ is probably correct if you look at the upper quartile but less so for the 99th percentile.
As an aside, I would say that jimrandomh’s point relies upon describing a substantial population—more like the set of those above the upper quartile than those above the 99th percentile.
I don’t know nearly enough to defend my original stance. Consider me confused.