8 ms·
He starts with postulating status and seduction as irrational, but at least status signals are clearly not irrational by any measure, since other people take th
by xixi77 10y ago
He starts with postulating status and seduction as irrational, but at least status signals are clearly not irrational by any measure, since other people take them into account. Similarly, seduction (looks like he defines it as choosing products based on criteria not directly related to primary functionality) can be called irrational only under a very narrow view of rationality, one that, for example, completely ignores aesthetics.
I am generally reluctant to call common human behaviors like that as irrational, as it postulates that the writer's mental model is superior to the one derived from millenia of evolution -- perhaps in some cases it can be argued that the environments in response to which they evolved no longer apply, but I really don't see that here.
- chillacy 10y ago> the environments in response to which they evolved no longer apply People care greatly what strangers think of them, even if those strangers have no impact on their life. Public speaking tends to be a struggle for me, but it's a struggle even if it's in front of people who don't matter. Recently on one of my travels I thought I would go practice since I figured there would be such a small chance of running into any of these people again, and failure wouldn't matter. But that didn't make it feel any easier.. my amygdala doesn't know that distinction. That's definitely irrational. I understand the sound evolutionary basis, but modern reality means I can fly away to another city with another 10k strangers, why should it matter if I embarrass myself?