In fairness, you did some raise some good points as well, and I’ll address those -
The OP describes a phenomenon that everyone knows about.
Indeed. And yet, one many people can’t explain. Which is why it’s worth thinking about.
The OP then suggests that “stupidity” (a word left undefined) and “malice” aren’t good explanations.
I defined stupidity in the post as “impl[ying] poor judgment,” meaning going through a conscious faulty thought process. I could have been more explicit about this definition at the expense of pace and brevity, by making the post more heavy and harder for casual readers to digest, without adding significantly more clarity. I suppose it could have been defined explicitly, but I don’t think the piece becomes stronger if I do. Rather, I think it becomes weaker for the vast majority of potential readers.
(How did “malice” ever seem like a good explanation in the first place?)
Some of this behavior certainly seems mean-spirited and malicious to people. Many examples available if you honestly can’t think of any.
A single word is never a good explanation for an aspect of human psychology.
True, yes, but you must consider audience. There’s a reason, unfortunately, why popular magazines are more popular than science journals. Style does matter, which always must be a consideration if you’re tackling a complex theme and want your piece to be accessible to a wide variety of people.
The OP then suggests that the “egalitarian instinct” is an explanation. The OP gives little explanation for this explanation,
It has been written about extensively. Again, this wasn’t a PhD thesis. In fact, it’s been written about extensively here on LessWrong before, notably “Tsuyoku vs. the Egalitarian Instinct” by Eliezer. I suppose I did assume some familiarity with the material that other readers might not have, and could have cited that as relevant prerequisite reading.
no mention of other possible explanations (no acknowledgment of the existence of other possible explanations),
Again, because I was formulating a hypothesis, not writing a thesis.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply and elaborate on your thoughts, but there might be a difference in goals and expectations here. I’ve attempted to write a series of observations, reason through them, and come up for one explanation for a not-fully-understood phenomenon.
It’s already stimulated some good discussion. I’m happy with that result and it has, thus far, done what I intended. I think a longer, weightier, more formal post would have been less effective at the intended goal of putting out observations, a hypothesis, and stimulating some discussion.
I didn’t pick up that the article was “formulating a hypothesis”. Did the article indicate that this is what it was doing? Perhaps I missed it.
Now that I do know, from your comment, that the article was doing that, I have to say I’m a bit surprised; I didn’t expect to see that sort of article in the main section. Then again, I’m no expert on Less Wrong so maybe that sort of thing is not so uncommon.
Read and understood, we probably agree about most everything here and discussing it further is probably suboptimal.
I’ll make a few clarifications that I don’t think you’d argue with too much:
It has been written about extensively. Again, this wasn’t a PhD thesis. In fact, it’s been written about extensively here on LessWrong before, notably “Tsuyoku vs. the Egalitarian Instinct” by Eliezer. I suppose I did assume some familiarity with the material that other readers might not have, and could have cited that as relevant prerequisite reading.
I had read the post and recognized the concept, but a link to it would have primed me more for looking at similarities/differences between the phenomena you and he discuss. Consider adding one?
Some of this behavior certainly seems mean-spirited and malicious to people. Many examples available if you honestly can’t think of any.
I can think of many examples, but I can also think of many examples that don’t seem malicious, in fact most don’t, and since you’re proposing an explanation of the class of behaviors, it seemed absurd to think that anyone would think that malice was an explanation. But upon reflection this was severe typical mind fallacy on my part.
In fairness, you did some raise some good points as well, and I’ll address those -
Indeed. And yet, one many people can’t explain. Which is why it’s worth thinking about.
I defined stupidity in the post as “impl[ying] poor judgment,” meaning going through a conscious faulty thought process. I could have been more explicit about this definition at the expense of pace and brevity, by making the post more heavy and harder for casual readers to digest, without adding significantly more clarity. I suppose it could have been defined explicitly, but I don’t think the piece becomes stronger if I do. Rather, I think it becomes weaker for the vast majority of potential readers.
Some of this behavior certainly seems mean-spirited and malicious to people. Many examples available if you honestly can’t think of any.
True, yes, but you must consider audience. There’s a reason, unfortunately, why popular magazines are more popular than science journals. Style does matter, which always must be a consideration if you’re tackling a complex theme and want your piece to be accessible to a wide variety of people.
It has been written about extensively. Again, this wasn’t a PhD thesis. In fact, it’s been written about extensively here on LessWrong before, notably “Tsuyoku vs. the Egalitarian Instinct” by Eliezer. I suppose I did assume some familiarity with the material that other readers might not have, and could have cited that as relevant prerequisite reading.
Again, because I was formulating a hypothesis, not writing a thesis.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply and elaborate on your thoughts, but there might be a difference in goals and expectations here. I’ve attempted to write a series of observations, reason through them, and come up for one explanation for a not-fully-understood phenomenon.
It’s already stimulated some good discussion. I’m happy with that result and it has, thus far, done what I intended. I think a longer, weightier, more formal post would have been less effective at the intended goal of putting out observations, a hypothesis, and stimulating some discussion.
I didn’t pick up that the article was “formulating a hypothesis”. Did the article indicate that this is what it was doing? Perhaps I missed it.
Now that I do know, from your comment, that the article was doing that, I have to say I’m a bit surprised; I didn’t expect to see that sort of article in the main section. Then again, I’m no expert on Less Wrong so maybe that sort of thing is not so uncommon.
Read and understood, we probably agree about most everything here and discussing it further is probably suboptimal.
I’ll make a few clarifications that I don’t think you’d argue with too much:
I had read the post and recognized the concept, but a link to it would have primed me more for looking at similarities/differences between the phenomena you and he discuss. Consider adding one?
I can think of many examples, but I can also think of many examples that don’t seem malicious, in fact most don’t, and since you’re proposing an explanation of the class of behaviors, it seemed absurd to think that anyone would think that malice was an explanation. But upon reflection this was severe typical mind fallacy on my part.