And that’s terrible! Do we have a name for that bullgum, or shall we just call it an instance of the Tragedy of Commons?
I haven’t seen this dynamic discussed in the cog sci literature, but colloquially it sounds like an instance of tall poppy syndrome. Tragedy of the commons doesn’t sound right—there isn’t a shared resource being exploited, and coming to individual understandings doesn’t further incentivize those not bound by them.
I thought TPS was for people who were already equals, not for acquiring new resources.
More importantly, how does one work around that? What is it that makes people not mind the success of others? What is it that makes them supportive of said success?
What is it that makes people not mind the success of others? What is it that makes them supportive of said success?
I think I am like this, but I am not sure why. Introspection has its limits, but here is my guess about the contributing factors:
1) I feel good about myself. I love myself, unconditionally. No matter how much success other people achieve, I will always be my precious me. You can’t make me feel bad about myself by being better than me, because that’s completely unrelated. At worst, you can make me curse my akrasia more (which in far mode I would consider a good thing, so thank you for that). -- Funny thing is that this trait is often perceived negatively by other people; it probably violates the social pecking order. (Who am I to feel good about myself, when our superiors and leaders often don’t?)
2) I focus on cooperation. If you have a skill I don’t have, I want you to develop that skill as much as possible, because then we could do more impressive projects together. It’s as if I am outsourcing the skill to you. And if you have the skill I have too, I want you to develope that skill as much as possible, to that I can learn from you. Both cases assume that you are my friend, of course. But if you are not my friend, I can usually simply ignore you. Actually, there are so many existing skills and subskills that whatever you focus on, I am most likely not doing exactly the same thing, so in some sense we are not competitors.
3) I see the big picture. Something like that Eliezer’s drawing where you have the village idiot next to Einstein, and there is a lot of space above them. From that perspective, all our local advantages and disadvantages seem trivial. We are a bunch of stupid monkeys and most likely we are all going to die, aren’t we? Competing with other people is like running at the special olympics. Even if you win, you’re still retarded.
4) I usually ignore other people, so I often simply don’t notice their success. -- It’s not the only factor, because I also feel supportive when I notice. But perhaps reducing the total amount of perceived success is helpful; maybe more perceptive people are overwhelmed by what they see. (I mean, if you know 99 people as successful as you, and if you perceive their every success, then 99% of the success you see is not yours. Perhaps that makes people sad.)
EDIT: Assuming this model is correct (which is doubtful), the important question is whether this can be taught. Seems to me that people usually go for (1) for their children and fail to achieve that; which in my opinion does not mean the goal is impossible, just that they are doing it wrong, probably because they don’t have the skill themselves. Part (3) seems easy to teach, part (2) should be possible with longer training and experience. Part (4) probably requires to be born as an aspie; and if it can be taught, it would be rather controversial.
I haven’t seen this dynamic discussed in the cog sci literature, but colloquially it sounds like an instance of tall poppy syndrome. Tragedy of the commons doesn’t sound right—there isn’t a shared resource being exploited, and coming to individual understandings doesn’t further incentivize those not bound by them.
I thought TPS was for people who were already equals, not for acquiring new resources.
More importantly, how does one work around that? What is it that makes people not mind the success of others? What is it that makes them supportive of said success?
I think I am like this, but I am not sure why. Introspection has its limits, but here is my guess about the contributing factors:
1) I feel good about myself. I love myself, unconditionally. No matter how much success other people achieve, I will always be my precious me. You can’t make me feel bad about myself by being better than me, because that’s completely unrelated. At worst, you can make me curse my akrasia more (which in far mode I would consider a good thing, so thank you for that). -- Funny thing is that this trait is often perceived negatively by other people; it probably violates the social pecking order. (Who am I to feel good about myself, when our superiors and leaders often don’t?)
2) I focus on cooperation. If you have a skill I don’t have, I want you to develop that skill as much as possible, because then we could do more impressive projects together. It’s as if I am outsourcing the skill to you. And if you have the skill I have too, I want you to develope that skill as much as possible, to that I can learn from you. Both cases assume that you are my friend, of course. But if you are not my friend, I can usually simply ignore you. Actually, there are so many existing skills and subskills that whatever you focus on, I am most likely not doing exactly the same thing, so in some sense we are not competitors.
3) I see the big picture. Something like that Eliezer’s drawing where you have the village idiot next to Einstein, and there is a lot of space above them. From that perspective, all our local advantages and disadvantages seem trivial. We are a bunch of stupid monkeys and most likely we are all going to die, aren’t we? Competing with other people is like running at the special olympics. Even if you win, you’re still retarded.
4) I usually ignore other people, so I often simply don’t notice their success. -- It’s not the only factor, because I also feel supportive when I notice. But perhaps reducing the total amount of perceived success is helpful; maybe more perceptive people are overwhelmed by what they see. (I mean, if you know 99 people as successful as you, and if you perceive their every success, then 99% of the success you see is not yours. Perhaps that makes people sad.)
EDIT: Assuming this model is correct (which is doubtful), the important question is whether this can be taught. Seems to me that people usually go for (1) for their children and fail to achieve that; which in my opinion does not mean the goal is impossible, just that they are doing it wrong, probably because they don’t have the skill themselves. Part (3) seems easy to teach, part (2) should be possible with longer training and experience. Part (4) probably requires to be born as an aspie; and if it can be taught, it would be rather controversial.