We have to do far more very-long-term planning than in the EEA, we are protected from starvation by easy job markets and stable food sources like food shops, we have access to healthcare, both mental and physical.
Most prominently, our explicit beliefs matter more for decision theory than for signalling, whereas in the EEA the opposite was true.
We have to do far more very-long-term planning than in the EEA
As societies, perhaps. As individuals, probably not. I find it a bit odd that you mention a decreased risk of starvation at the same time as this item; needing to look forward a year or preferably several to make sure you didn’t run out of food during the winter (or the winter after that) has been a major factor in the past. Even if you lived in a warm country, it seems like there would have been more long-term dangers than there are now, when we have a variety of safety networks and a much safer society.
Most prominently, our explicit beliefs matter more for decision theory than for signalling, whereas in the EEA the opposite was true.
Existential risks excluded, I’m not sure if this is true.
Hunter-gatherers, possibly not, but we’ve had agriculture around for 10,000 years. That has been enough time for other selection effects (for instance, the persistent domestication of cattle, and the associated dairying activities, did alter the selective environments of some human populations for sufficient generations to select for genes that today confer greater adult lactose tolerance), so I’d be cautious about putting too much weight on the hunter-gatherer environment.
interesting. So in fact for those adaptations that could be implemented in just 10,000⁄20 = 500 generations are probably more skewed towards rationality.
We can probably see the difference that those 500 generations made by the differences in life outcomes between those with aboriginal Australian DNA and white European DNA.
hmmm well I was actually considering the point purely from an academic POV—it occurred to me that the aboriginals were a near-perfect example. But now that you point it out, I guess that comment could be construed as “in bad taste” or “racist” or something.
We have to do far more very-long-term planning than in the EEA, we are protected from starvation by easy job markets and stable food sources like food shops, we have access to healthcare, both mental and physical.
Most prominently, our explicit beliefs matter more for decision theory than for signalling, whereas in the EEA the opposite was true.
As societies, perhaps. As individuals, probably not. I find it a bit odd that you mention a decreased risk of starvation at the same time as this item; needing to look forward a year or preferably several to make sure you didn’t run out of food during the winter (or the winter after that) has been a major factor in the past. Even if you lived in a warm country, it seems like there would have been more long-term dangers than there are now, when we have a variety of safety networks and a much safer society.
Existential risks excluded, I’m not sure if this is true.
Example: deciding to study at school rather than slack off.
Granted.
Did hunter gatherers really look forward several winters ahead?
Hunter-gatherers, possibly not, but we’ve had agriculture around for 10,000 years. That has been enough time for other selection effects (for instance, the persistent domestication of cattle, and the associated dairying activities, did alter the selective environments of some human populations for sufficient generations to select for genes that today confer greater adult lactose tolerance), so I’d be cautious about putting too much weight on the hunter-gatherer environment.
interesting. So in fact for those adaptations that could be implemented in just 10,000⁄20 = 500 generations are probably more skewed towards rationality.
We can probably see the difference that those 500 generations made by the differences in life outcomes between those with aboriginal Australian DNA and white European DNA.
Why be needlessly inflammatory?
It provides an test for the theory?
hmmm well I was actually considering the point purely from an academic POV—it occurred to me that the aboriginals were a near-perfect example. But now that you point it out, I guess that comment could be construed as “in bad taste” or “racist” or something.
Cultural differences are hard to factor out, too.