I am skeptical of the evolutionary explanation he poses for inactivity.
I don’t believe large numbers of people were typically thrown out of hunter gatherer bands for incompetence, surely not more than inactive people (http://books.google.com.au/books?sitesec=reviews&id=ljxS8gUlgqgC). And in how many crisis situations is doing nothing really the best option? Hiding from a predator would surely be one of only a few.
Uh, whenever getting food is expected to yield less of some necessary nutrient than is consumed by getting the food is a time when doing very little is the best option—at least if the nutrient situation will probably get better in a few months. Also, if you are male, whenever you are seen as effective sexual competition by a male or coalition of males who are in a position to kill you or permanently damage you with little risk of bodily or reputational harm to themselves is a time when doing nothing impressive is the best option—and in the EEA simply doing well at hunting, farming or making tools was probably seen as impressive by the women. Heck, I’ve gotten significant signs of interest from women just for sitting in a cafe in San Francisco and looking like I was productively engaged in writing things down on pieces of paper when the woman had no way to know what I am writing. Many writers say that industriousness is attractive to women. And, heck, in junior high school, I remember being attacked and my study supplies kicked around on the street by another male for appearing industrious.
In summary, it seems to me that one of the most profound differences between the EEA and modern life (at least modern life in the relatively well-run jurisdictions) is that in modern life, there is no reason not to spend a significant part of every day in effortful activity either physical or mental—and note that effortful mental activity consumes many times more calories than “subsistence” mental activity does (I think: I should actually research that; personal experience is my main reason for believing it) and that mental activity accounts for 25% of the calories consumed by a human being (and I’m fairly certain of that last point)
And if getting thrown out of the band were not a large source of loss of reproductive fitness in the EEA, then please explain the natural human fascination with the theme as evidenced by the mass appeal of shows like Survivor (plot: every week, contestants vote to see which contestant gets thrown off the island) or Big Brother (plot virtually identical). Emotional reactions and tastes as strong and salient as that which are widespread in the human population should be assumed to be the result of selection pressures unless and until there is a good reason to believe otherwise IMHO. Well, I think I need to say a little bit more on this point. Yes, I am aware that many people, and a large fraction of the more thoughtful people, have an aversion to shows like Survivor and Big Brother. At least in the case of Big Brother I think much of the aversion comes from the natural human tendency to hold privacy violations (even when the violated have voluntarily ceded their privacy) as moral transgressions. And I think some of it comes from the fact that thoughtful people have noticed that this fascination with who is in and who is out and who is in danger of getting thrown off the island tends to have negative effects in modern environments such as your typical white-collar workplace. But mostly I think I have over the years gotten pretty good at telling which reactions are learned and which are innate, and the revulsion of many people toward shows like Survivor strikes me as a learned antibody to an innate interest in the theme.
Possibly doing nothing is a good idea for hunter gatherers in case of starvation, but that seems worth checking in the anthropology research. If starvation were a frequent risk, lethargy would surely been prompted by insufficient food intake, which is rare for humans today. We wouldn’t just be lazy for that reason all the time; during times of abundance you ought to gather and store as much food as possible.
Apparently hunter gatherer bands were egalitarian, so it’s unlikely people would have been beaten up by (non-existent) leaders just for hunting and gathering well, especially given food was shared. Again the conditions under which people would be picked on in bands are something we can find out by looking at existing anthropology research. Nonetheless it’s hard to imagine that hunter gatherer bands which would push out members merely for contributing to the food intake of the group would be the most successful. We don’t favour do-nothings over well-meaning incompetents today as far as I can tell.
In any case, I’m not convinced we just have paleolithic brains.
The fact that we’ve got a lot more paleolithic ancestors doesn’t mean there hasn’t been selection and change since then. And we don’t know that much about how they lived.
I believe we have paleolithic adaptations (smallish group living, need for small grained variation (going barefoot on rough ground), need for movement (not exercise!), lowish carb eating, possibly a need to eat insects which is sadly neglected in the modern world), primitive farming adaptations (comfort in hierarchies, tolerance of drudgery, willingness to forgo gratification, tolerance of grains and perhaps a need for them,), and urban adaptations (comfort with strangers, strong immune systems, tolerance of noise and crowding, enjoyment of novelty, ability to handle strong drink). None of these lists are expected to be complete or entirely accurate, but it’s worth noting that to some extent, they’re pulling in different directions.
Good points. I freely admit that my comment which is the sibling of your comment contains many more inferential steps and many more places where you just have to trust my judgement than the most successful conversations on Less Wrong contain. I think that if enough people persist in explaining material that is many inferential steps away from what the majority here believe and accept or if participants just accept such material uncritically because the consequences of the material being valid is so tantalizing, then Less Wrong will become less useful as a place to teach and to learn the kinds of (nifty) things that have been sucessfully taught and learned on Less Wrong.
In other words, I suggest that participants (and voters) embrace the view that it is at the least bad manners and at most toxic to the community for a participant to persist in many long comments over many months which tend to take place too many inferential steps away from what most of us comprehend, believe and accept even if that participant is a successful wielder of the material. (ADDED: and for that reason, I will stop using certain supports from evolutionary psychology even though I have long believed and accepted them).
ADDED. when Eliezer wanted to bring readers many inferential steps, he was careful to take us one step at a time and, after each step, to observe how many comprehended (accepted) it. I humbly suggest that if your name is not “Eliezer”, then if an attempt to take us one step in some direction is not met with widespread acceptance, then you refrain from using Less Wrong to try to take us a second step in that direction.
Well said. This thread is very useful and I think I’ve already learnt a great deal that will help me be more productive. That being said; your right about people’s tendencies to make completely off the wall statements about the underpinnings of human behavior.
I submit that there are people who make it their business to understand other people so that they can manipulate them. These people are sometimes very successful, which indicates that they might know something; if you’re not riding an equally high wave of popularity and love; perhaps you are not qualified to make these assertions regarding humanity’s secret thoughts.
...if you’re not riding an equally high wave of popularity and love; perhaps you are not
qualified to make these assertions regarding humanity’s secret thoughts.
No, the estimated quality of the conclusion should be a function of the quality of the argument and the supporting evidence, not the identity of the arguer. To do otherwise is to commit the classic argument-by-authority or ad-hominem fallacies.
And from the grandparent of this post::
In other words, I suggest that participants (and voters) embrace the view that it is at
the least bad manners and at most toxic to the community for a participant to persist
in many long comments over many months which tend to take place too many
inferential steps away from what most of us comprehend, believe and accept even if
that participant is a successful wielder of the material. (ADDED: and for that reason,
I will stop using certain supports from evolutionary psychology even though I have
long believed and accepted them).
That’s rationalizing groupthink. IMO you should speak the truth as best you can, and change your estimated truth based on the arguments you read and the evidence presented, not on guesses about what your audience is willing to listen to.
How do we know how good the supporting evidence is if we have no way to assay it for ourselves? At that point, aren’t we just forced to take poster’s word for it? That’s not even as good as evaluating their performance because it’s completely results independent. A lot of the time, logical fallacies just come up as an excuse for the poster to say whatever they want without having to back it up.
Assuming that we could see how people implement their own theories, we would have a feedback loop; however, many theories inside less wrong operate inside a vacum. We used to depend on logic to evaluate theories, then we stopped and moved into the scientific method, because pure logic doesn’t work outside of a closed environment. It only works when you have a solid grasp of the intial variables.
That’s rationalizing groupthink. IMO you should speak the truth as best you can, and change your estimated truth based on the arguments you read and the evidence presented, not on guesses about what your audience is willing to listen to.
From your complaint it sounds like they’re forcing you to march in lockstep with everyone while chanting slogans; compared to being asked to back up your assertions.
I thought it was being rational and participating in a process that converges on the truth, and that looks like exactly what they’re proposing to give up. Perhaps you have a different definition?
I don’t think the paleolithic hypothesis is a total waste—it seems to have paid off on going barefoot—but I think it should be used as a source of testable hypothesis, not as a premise for making up explanations of anomalous behavior.
I used to be able to edit my LW comments. Has something changed on the site, or is there a time limit or something?
I don’t believe large numbers of people were typically thrown out of hunter gatherer bands for incompetence,
The number of people who have fears of being discovered as incompetent (e.g. “impostor syndrome”) strongly suggests a biological explanation.
In any case, my model is slightly broader than Kaj’s summary implies—this sort of fear-of-discovery applies to any acts or personal qualities that, if known, would lead to lower tribal status. You don’t have to be actually thrown out of your tribe in order for discovery of a negative quality to alter your reproductive opportunities (or your probability of surviving long enough to have some).
How is impostor syndrome different from having low self esteem?
Er, one is a fear of being discovered as incompetent, and the other is low self-esteem? ;-)
Obviously, having a low opinion of your abilities would be a prerequisite for fearing that others will come to share that opinion. So, I’m not sure I understand your question.
“Low self-esteem” is usually interpreted to mean, “having a lower opinion of self than is merited”—so if you fear discovery of your incompetence, the incompetence itself could be either actual or imagined, and only in the imaginary case would the “low self-esteem” label also apply. ;-)
I am skeptical of the evolutionary explanation he poses for inactivity.
I don’t believe large numbers of people were typically thrown out of hunter gatherer bands for incompetence, surely not more than inactive people (http://books.google.com.au/books?sitesec=reviews&id=ljxS8gUlgqgC). And in how many crisis situations is doing nothing really the best option? Hiding from a predator would surely be one of only a few.
Uh, whenever getting food is expected to yield less of some necessary nutrient than is consumed by getting the food is a time when doing very little is the best option—at least if the nutrient situation will probably get better in a few months. Also, if you are male, whenever you are seen as effective sexual competition by a male or coalition of males who are in a position to kill you or permanently damage you with little risk of bodily or reputational harm to themselves is a time when doing nothing impressive is the best option—and in the EEA simply doing well at hunting, farming or making tools was probably seen as impressive by the women. Heck, I’ve gotten significant signs of interest from women just for sitting in a cafe in San Francisco and looking like I was productively engaged in writing things down on pieces of paper when the woman had no way to know what I am writing. Many writers say that industriousness is attractive to women. And, heck, in junior high school, I remember being attacked and my study supplies kicked around on the street by another male for appearing industrious.
In summary, it seems to me that one of the most profound differences between the EEA and modern life (at least modern life in the relatively well-run jurisdictions) is that in modern life, there is no reason not to spend a significant part of every day in effortful activity either physical or mental—and note that effortful mental activity consumes many times more calories than “subsistence” mental activity does (I think: I should actually research that; personal experience is my main reason for believing it) and that mental activity accounts for 25% of the calories consumed by a human being (and I’m fairly certain of that last point)
And if getting thrown out of the band were not a large source of loss of reproductive fitness in the EEA, then please explain the natural human fascination with the theme as evidenced by the mass appeal of shows like Survivor (plot: every week, contestants vote to see which contestant gets thrown off the island) or Big Brother (plot virtually identical). Emotional reactions and tastes as strong and salient as that which are widespread in the human population should be assumed to be the result of selection pressures unless and until there is a good reason to believe otherwise IMHO. Well, I think I need to say a little bit more on this point. Yes, I am aware that many people, and a large fraction of the more thoughtful people, have an aversion to shows like Survivor and Big Brother. At least in the case of Big Brother I think much of the aversion comes from the natural human tendency to hold privacy violations (even when the violated have voluntarily ceded their privacy) as moral transgressions. And I think some of it comes from the fact that thoughtful people have noticed that this fascination with who is in and who is out and who is in danger of getting thrown off the island tends to have negative effects in modern environments such as your typical white-collar workplace. But mostly I think I have over the years gotten pretty good at telling which reactions are learned and which are innate, and the revulsion of many people toward shows like Survivor strikes me as a learned antibody to an innate interest in the theme.
Possibly doing nothing is a good idea for hunter gatherers in case of starvation, but that seems worth checking in the anthropology research. If starvation were a frequent risk, lethargy would surely been prompted by insufficient food intake, which is rare for humans today. We wouldn’t just be lazy for that reason all the time; during times of abundance you ought to gather and store as much food as possible.
Apparently hunter gatherer bands were egalitarian, so it’s unlikely people would have been beaten up by (non-existent) leaders just for hunting and gathering well, especially given food was shared. Again the conditions under which people would be picked on in bands are something we can find out by looking at existing anthropology research. Nonetheless it’s hard to imagine that hunter gatherer bands which would push out members merely for contributing to the food intake of the group would be the most successful. We don’t favour do-nothings over well-meaning incompetents today as far as I can tell.
In any case, I’m not convinced we just have paleolithic brains.
The fact that we’ve got a lot more paleolithic ancestors doesn’t mean there hasn’t been selection and change since then. And we don’t know that much about how they lived.
I believe we have paleolithic adaptations (smallish group living, need for small grained variation (going barefoot on rough ground), need for movement (not exercise!), lowish carb eating, possibly a need to eat insects which is sadly neglected in the modern world), primitive farming adaptations (comfort in hierarchies, tolerance of drudgery, willingness to forgo gratification, tolerance of grains and perhaps a need for them,), and urban adaptations (comfort with strangers, strong immune systems, tolerance of noise and crowding, enjoyment of novelty, ability to handle strong drink). None of these lists are expected to be complete or entirely accurate, but it’s worth noting that to some extent, they’re pulling in different directions.
Is people being unwilling to move away from smoke best explained in terms of paleolithic motivations, or as a result of civilized, and perhaps cultural, overlays?
Good points. I freely admit that my comment which is the sibling of your comment contains many more inferential steps and many more places where you just have to trust my judgement than the most successful conversations on Less Wrong contain. I think that if enough people persist in explaining material that is many inferential steps away from what the majority here believe and accept or if participants just accept such material uncritically because the consequences of the material being valid is so tantalizing, then Less Wrong will become less useful as a place to teach and to learn the kinds of (nifty) things that have been sucessfully taught and learned on Less Wrong.
In other words, I suggest that participants (and voters) embrace the view that it is at the least bad manners and at most toxic to the community for a participant to persist in many long comments over many months which tend to take place too many inferential steps away from what most of us comprehend, believe and accept even if that participant is a successful wielder of the material. (ADDED: and for that reason, I will stop using certain supports from evolutionary psychology even though I have long believed and accepted them).
ADDED. when Eliezer wanted to bring readers many inferential steps, he was careful to take us one step at a time and, after each step, to observe how many comprehended (accepted) it. I humbly suggest that if your name is not “Eliezer”, then if an attempt to take us one step in some direction is not met with widespread acceptance, then you refrain from using Less Wrong to try to take us a second step in that direction.
Well said. This thread is very useful and I think I’ve already learnt a great deal that will help me be more productive. That being said; your right about people’s tendencies to make completely off the wall statements about the underpinnings of human behavior.
I submit that there are people who make it their business to understand other people so that they can manipulate them. These people are sometimes very successful, which indicates that they might know something; if you’re not riding an equally high wave of popularity and love; perhaps you are not qualified to make these assertions regarding humanity’s secret thoughts.
No, the estimated quality of the conclusion should be a function of the quality of the argument and the supporting evidence, not the identity of the arguer. To do otherwise is to commit the classic argument-by-authority or ad-hominem fallacies.
And from the grandparent of this post::
That’s rationalizing groupthink. IMO you should speak the truth as best you can, and change your estimated truth based on the arguments you read and the evidence presented, not on guesses about what your audience is willing to listen to.
I hope you were being sarcastic.
How do we know how good the supporting evidence is if we have no way to assay it for ourselves? At that point, aren’t we just forced to take poster’s word for it? That’s not even as good as evaluating their performance because it’s completely results independent. A lot of the time, logical fallacies just come up as an excuse for the poster to say whatever they want without having to back it up.
Assuming that we could see how people implement their own theories, we would have a feedback loop; however, many theories inside less wrong operate inside a vacum. We used to depend on logic to evaluate theories, then we stopped and moved into the scientific method, because pure logic doesn’t work outside of a closed environment. It only works when you have a solid grasp of the intial variables.
From your complaint it sounds like they’re forcing you to march in lockstep with everyone while chanting slogans; compared to being asked to back up your assertions.
Call it what you will, they believe it has a positive correlation with group success, so I approve of them pursuing such a course of action.
How do we define group success?
I thought it was being rational and participating in a process that converges on the truth, and that looks like exactly what they’re proposing to give up. Perhaps you have a different definition?
I don’t think the paleolithic hypothesis is a total waste—it seems to have paid off on going barefoot—but I think it should be used as a source of testable hypothesis, not as a premise for making up explanations of anomalous behavior.
I used to be able to edit my LW comments. Has something changed on the site, or is there a time limit or something?
If it is the same problem that I had then you will be able to edit it after you click the permalink.
The number of people who have fears of being discovered as incompetent (e.g. “impostor syndrome”) strongly suggests a biological explanation.
In any case, my model is slightly broader than Kaj’s summary implies—this sort of fear-of-discovery applies to any acts or personal qualities that, if known, would lead to lower tribal status. You don’t have to be actually thrown out of your tribe in order for discovery of a negative quality to alter your reproductive opportunities (or your probability of surviving long enough to have some).
How is impostor syndrome different from having low self esteem?
Er, one is a fear of being discovered as incompetent, and the other is low self-esteem? ;-)
Obviously, having a low opinion of your abilities would be a prerequisite for fearing that others will come to share that opinion. So, I’m not sure I understand your question.
“Low self-esteem” is usually interpreted to mean, “having a lower opinion of self than is merited”—so if you fear discovery of your incompetence, the incompetence itself could be either actual or imagined, and only in the imaginary case would the “low self-esteem” label also apply. ;-)