5 ms·

> what effect (if any) it would have super charisma

alanh 9y ago
Eh, maybe… but I am reminded of the observation that if a single tweak could significantly enhance mental abilities, evolution would have probably given it to us already. I think Eliezer Yudkowsky has a longish piece to this effect (please forgive me if I am mis-remembering).
- jacob019 9y ago
  Super charisma or other abilities in all members of a group could have negative reproductive consequences and reduce the genetic fitness of that configuration, even if it's available.
  - rocqua 9y ago
    Then you might expect a balance where everyone has a low chance of expressing such a fenotype. I believe there are ideas that color-blindness has a benefit like this. The same with sickle-cell anemia.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  Could it be argued that quite a few of those single tweaks have already occurred?
- truculation 9y ago
  Not in cases where the deficits caused by the tweak are compensated for by modern culture. For example, it could be that natural selection made learning hard for adult humans in order to preserve scant knowledge in prehistorical times. But now that we have written culture this may no longer be necessary or desirable.
  - nerfhammer 9y ago
    better example: depression and anxiety probably could have been selected by evolution to keep you out of danger, but in the modern minimally dangerous world no one would choose to have those traits if they could avoid them.
- derefr 9y ago
  I wouldn't describe charisma as a "mental ability." Rather, IMHO, there's a tradeoff between the type of thinking that helps you "win" status and power in a socially-fraught scenario (i.e. playing the Game of Thrones); vs. the type of thinking that helps you come off as being a person your audience would like to take out for a beer. Or, to go even further, people will like you more (find you more "charismatic") to the exact degree that their predictive model of your current mental processes—built up by observing you—doesn't involve you putting in that extra work to seek status and power. You get more charismatic by shutting mental processes off! (And then signalling that you've done so, by e.g. saying things that cost you status that you wouldn't say if you cared about status. Like people do when slightly drunk!)
- narrator 9y ago
  That would imply that we've stopped evolving.
  - scardine 9y ago
    Honest question, what make you think we are still evolving?
    - narrator 9y ago
      Evolution is only apparent after the fact and on long time scales.
    - Turing_Machine 9y ago
      Why would you believe otherwise?
      - scardine 9y ago
        There is no evolutionary pressure. Evolution is not an endless race to a superior form: mother nature is content with "good enough". Many modern sharks arrived 100 million years ago while modern humans are believed to be 70,000 years old. Why? Sharks were good enough. Humans are good enough now. Even weak people can survive just fine - even people with defective genes that would not survive enough to reproduce a century ago. Not only dumb people can survive but there are evidence they procreate a lot more than smart people. I'm just playing the devil's advocate.
        nugga 9y ago
        Don't mistake the term evolution for selecting only intrinsically superior or ideal traits. What if humanity evolve to being dominantly near sighted because it is no longer a killer condition?
        scardine 9y ago
        Does it even make sense to talk about "superior" or "ideal traits" in humans? People who like to talk about eugenics tend to end up wearing funny little hats and red arm bands (only half joking here). :-) I used to care about the direction mankind is taking when I was younger. Now that I have way more years behind me than ahead - I will die soon and so will everyone I know - I could not care less. It may sound bitter but it is also liberating. The last person to leave the planet please turn the lights off. Or don't. All I know is that I won't be here.
- incognito89265 9y ago
  Maybe you're thinking of this post[0] by gwern? It does list some plausible loopholes to the general rule. [0] https://www.gwern.net/Drug-heuristics https://www.gwern.net/Drug-heuristics
- Singletoned 9y ago
  > if a single tweak could significantly enhance mental abilities, evolution would have probably given it to us already Only if the tweak were beneficial to humanity as a whole would we all have it. We have developed many traits (such as selflessness) that are not in our best interest, but are in the best interest of our society. It is quite plausible that evolution has found that tweak, but has only given it to a small minority of people, much as it has only given autism to a small minority of people.

Eh, maybe… but I am reminded of the observation that if a single tweak could significantly enhance mental abilities, evolution would have probably given it to us already. I think Eliezer Yudkowsky has a longish piece to this effect (please forgive me if I am mis-remembering).

jacob019 9y ago
Super charisma or other abilities in all members of a group could have negative reproductive consequences and reduce the genetic fitness of that configuration, even if it's available.
- rocqua 9y ago
  Then you might expect a balance where everyone has a low chance of expressing such a fenotype. I believe there are ideas that color-blindness has a benefit like this. The same with sickle-cell anemia.
TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
Could it be argued that quite a few of those single tweaks have already occurred?
truculation 9y ago
Not in cases where the deficits caused by the tweak are compensated for by modern culture. For example, it could be that natural selection made learning hard for adult humans in order to preserve scant knowledge in prehistorical times. But now that we have written culture this may no longer be necessary or desirable.
- nerfhammer 9y ago
  better example: depression and anxiety probably could have been selected by evolution to keep you out of danger, but in the modern minimally dangerous world no one would choose to have those traits if they could avoid them.
derefr 9y ago
I wouldn't describe charisma as a "mental ability." Rather, IMHO, there's a tradeoff between the type of thinking that helps you "win" status and power in a socially-fraught scenario (i.e. playing the Game of Thrones); vs. the type of thinking that helps you come off as being a person your audience would like to take out for a beer. Or, to go even further, people will like you more (find you more "charismatic") to the exact degree that their predictive model of your current mental processes—built up by observing you—doesn't involve you putting in that extra work to seek status and power. You get more charismatic by shutting mental processes off! (And then signalling that you've done so, by e.g. saying things that cost you status that you wouldn't say if you cared about status. Like people do when slightly drunk!)
narrator 9y ago
That would imply that we've stopped evolving.
- scardine 9y ago
  Honest question, what make you think we are still evolving?
  - narrator 9y ago
    Evolution is only apparent after the fact and on long time scales.
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    Why would you believe otherwise?
    - scardine 9y ago
      There is no evolutionary pressure. Evolution is not an endless race to a superior form: mother nature is content with "good enough". Many modern sharks arrived 100 million years ago while modern humans are believed to be 70,000 years old. Why? Sharks were good enough. Humans are good enough now. Even weak people can survive just fine - even people with defective genes that would not survive enough to reproduce a century ago. Not only dumb people can survive but there are evidence they procreate a lot more than smart people. I'm just playing the devil's advocate.
      - nugga 9y ago
        Don't mistake the term evolution for selecting only intrinsically superior or ideal traits. What if humanity evolve to being dominantly near sighted because it is no longer a killer condition?
        scardine 9y ago
        Does it even make sense to talk about "superior" or "ideal traits" in humans? People who like to talk about eugenics tend to end up wearing funny little hats and red arm bands (only half joking here). :-) I used to care about the direction mankind is taking when I was younger. Now that I have way more years behind me than ahead - I will die soon and so will everyone I know - I could not care less. It may sound bitter but it is also liberating. The last person to leave the planet please turn the lights off. Or don't. All I know is that I won't be here.
incognito89265 9y ago
Maybe you're thinking of this post[0] by gwern? It does list some plausible loopholes to the general rule. [0] https://www.gwern.net/Drug-heuristics https://www.gwern.net/Drug-heuristics
Singletoned 9y ago
> if a single tweak could significantly enhance mental abilities, evolution would have probably given it to us already Only if the tweak were beneficial to humanity as a whole would we all have it. We have developed many traits (such as selflessness) that are not in our best interest, but are in the best interest of our society. It is quite plausible that evolution has found that tweak, but has only given it to a small minority of people, much as it has only given autism to a small minority of people.