French. Product manager at Metaculus. Partial to dark chocolate.
tenthkrige
I’m not sure the authority has to be malevolent, it could be incompetent (or something).
So: [authority / authority-wielders are my enemies / outgroup] & [collaborators side with rules / rulemakers / authority] ⇒ collaborators are my outgroup ⇒ I punish them
This seems to predict that people who distrust authority more will punish cooperators more.
The bottom half of the punishment graph does seem to be places where I would distrust authority more.
I’m surprised nobody proposed : “This person is promoting a social norm more stringent than my current behavior, I’ll whack him.”. What’s wrong with it ? Sure in this case the social norm is actually beneficial to the whacker, but we’re adaptation-executers, not fitness-maximizers.
Just a nitpick, from one non-native English speaker (to another ?), I have been told that the word “retard” is extremely offensive (in american English at least). I’d say up to you to decide if that was your intended effect.
Some sports players are pretty smart and probably some governors aren’t. What about ( Reality TV celebrities ( heads of state of UNSC countries ( Physicists / Mathematicians / Engineers ) ) ).
(1 minute of thought did not provide another group of famous & not-even-a-little-bit-selected-for-intelligence people, unless there’s a database of lottery winners, which I doubt. Curious for suggestions.)
(Famous engineers: of course Wikipedia does not disappoint.)
Which you also can’t know if you don’t test other fields. I think there are at least 3 concentric levels to distinguish : ( famous ( intelligent ( STEM ) ) ).
Pretty good. I’ve updated weakly toward “it’s okay to locally redefine accepted terms”. [Meta : I didn’t find the transitions from object level to meta level very intelligible, and I think the ‘notable’ facts deserve some example to ground the the whole thing if this is to be more than a quick idea-dump].
I have also taken the survey.
I’m colorblind. I have color cones in my eyes, but the red ones are mutated towards higher wavelengths (i.e. green). This makes red-green-brown, blue-purple and grey-pink hard to distinguish.
As a result, I pay quite a lot of attention to colors and shades in everyday life. I don’t trust my eyes and often test my perceptions against other people’s (“Hey, is that shirt green or yellow?”). To the point that I actually discern more shades than most people. I’m sometimes wrong about their names, but I see shades other people don’t notice, e.g. me: “This grey has more red than green in it.” someone else: “What are you talking about, it’s just grey.”
On these occasions, the only one who agrees with me on subtle hue differences is actually my sister, who is not colorblind, but has been painting as a hobby for 20-ish years, and is also accustomed to pay attention to hues.
Also the injunction not to trust your senses / brain has always seemed obvious to me. So was the idea of testing your beliefs against the real world / other people’s belief.
Bottom line, you can apparently train your perception by not trusting them. And color blindness taught me distrust in my wetware.
P.S. : I’ve started playing an instrument when I was 7 and was also very surprised to learn several years later that people can’t pick apart instruments when listening to a piece of music.
Tell me if this gets too personal, but do defectors evoke positive emotions? (Because they lower societal expectations?) Or negative emotions? (i.e. you have a sweet spot of cooperation and dislike deviations from it?)