3 ms·

>People usually go for status but like to believe (and most often do so successfully) that they do things for a noble course. This was never a discussion about

>People usually go for status but like to believe (and most often do so successfully) that they do things for a noble course. This was never a discussion about people and their actions in general, but a stratified examination of the differences in thought patterns between 3 groups: those of average intelligence, those of moderate intelligence, and those of high intelligence. You are ignoring the context and framework of the article, and making sweeping generalizations where you project your experiences and manner of thinking to not just those similar to you, but to "people" in general. edit: If you're not talking specifically about the "most intelligent" subset it's a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

ckuehne 16y ago
>You are ignoring the context and framework of the article, and making sweeping generalizations where you project your experiences and manner of thinking to not just those similar to you, but to "people" in general. I am neither ignoring the context of the article nor am I making "sweeping generalizations" or "projections". And I would prefer if you don't make these assumptions about me. All I am saying is that signaling does not have to be conscious or self-aware in the sense of "Oh, I have to say this and that to rise to the top of the hipster hierarchy". It might just be the hipster enjoys dressing contrary to the mainstream just as the contrarian enjoys arguing contrary to the mainstream opinion. Hence my analogy: I enjoy sex. It's a heuristic shaped by my genes that would usually serve the purpose of reproduction. People enjoy signaling in the form of buying nice cars of putting on make-up: it's heuristic shaped by our genes that on average (not every signal leads to a better outcome) increases the chance of reproduction. It is not the you actively think "Okay: if I buy a car it might increase my social standing and ultimately increase the chance of girls liking me more.". You just enjoy the stuff. Just as you "just enjoy sex" or the bower bird has an innate desire to build colorful homes. EDIT for clarity.
- metamemetics 16y ago
  I never affirmed or attacked or recognized your "everything can be simplified to genetic fitness" hypothesis, no clarification needed. If you insist on pursuing this strawman and broadening the debate to new, unrelated philosophical heights, so be it. I will say now that it is childish argument. You give no explanation for why a "gene" should be considered the base unit of evolution rather than an "idea". Especially when natural selection stopped applying to suburban humans with access to healthcare a long time ago. By all indicators, human evolution is now occurring through technology, not genes. Technology and debate over how to use it is the most likely cause of humans diverging into multiple species, not genetics. Genetic biological reproduction seems to be your God. It is the planner and predeterminer, and can be said to have causative power over all actions. The gene is arbitrary. The gene is ambiguous. The gene is defined by man. Genes and genetic reproduction is but one method for the continued existence of things through time. Humans have defeated the gene. We don't need to die and reproduce several times to store and communicate survival information to our descendent's. We have invented language and can write it in a book. You are stuck in genetic determinism, denying any idea of free will. Not to say free will is a suitable answer either. Both are a naive treatment of the subject of causality.
  - ckuehne 16y ago
    I did not argue that "everything can be simplified to genetic fitness". So please, for the second time, stop putting words into my mouth. It is my understanding, that your argument is: 1) Article assumes people discuss ideas to signal social standing. But: 2) People discuss ideas because the enjoy it, 3) and not because they want to signal social standing. Therefore the article is faulty. All I am saying is: 1) and 2) may both be right. The contradiction between 2) and 3) does not arise if people are not aware of the underlying motivations for their behavior. See also rdtsc's comment.
    - metamemetics 16y ago
      >I did not argue that Hey, that's MY point :) Still, in the end of your FIRST line you stated: the ultimate cause for the enjoyment is increase in genetic fitness. >my understanding, that your argument is: 1) ... 2) ... 3) ... All wrong. At no point was a talking about the set "people". I was disagreeing with the traits specific to the "top of the pyramid" proposed by the article within the domain of intellectual debate. Which is a small subset of the set "people" in a very small subset of the domain of possible actions people can perform. I'll have to make sure to rigorously pair any hypothesis with its counter-hypothesis when I risk posting on HN in the future.
jacabado 16y ago
Come on guys let's go back to discussion, which from my interpretation was if the "underlying motivation for argument, debate, or discussion is to signal social standing". I guess ckuehne opinion is that it unconciously is and I love his example. How could we discuss that? I would love to know examples of places and people that behave the way metamemetics tells us. I can't match any subset of people, or even any subset of intelligent subset of pople that match that behavior.
- metamemetics 16y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_bias What about the great thinkers of humanity whose writing only became popular post-humously? What about all of the thinkers whose beliefs got them executed? What if their writings were so unpopular as to lead to their persecution. Surely, they were just consciously or unconsciously holding those beliefs to signal social standing! What if they had a conscious and explicit reason for why they held their beliefs? What if said explicit reason wasn't to increase their social standing? Does their explicitly stated reason for why they hold those beliefs become invalid because, hey, the REAL reason behind that must be an evolutionary function of genetic reproduction? At what point do we allow others to be conscious of their own actions? Isn't it extremely presumptuous to project unconscious social basis as the fundamental derivative of all their beliefs? Does going down this path lead to interesting discussion or zealously quash it? My argument was NOT that on average, the population of people do NOT follow ckuehne's and the article's assumption of motive. That is trivial and not very interesting, we can even assume that is true if you wish. My argument was on the top of the pyramid, it is less likely to hold for the greatest thinkers and philosophers.

ckuehne 16y ago

>You are ignoring the context and framework of the article, and making sweeping generalizations where you project your experiences and manner of thinking to not just those similar to you, but to "people" in general. I am neither ignoring the context of the article nor am I making "sweeping generalizations" or "projections". And I would prefer if you don't make these assumptions about me. All I am saying is that signaling does not have to be conscious or self-aware in the sense of "Oh, I have to say this and that to rise to the top of the hipster hierarchy". It might just be the hipster enjoys dressing contrary to the mainstream just as the contrarian enjoys arguing contrary to the mainstream opinion. Hence my analogy: I enjoy sex. It's a heuristic shaped by my genes that would usually serve the purpose of reproduction. People enjoy signaling in the form of buying nice cars of putting on make-up: it's heuristic shaped by our genes that on average (not every signal leads to a better outcome) increases the chance of reproduction. It is not the you actively think "Okay: if I buy a car it might increase my social standing and ultimately increase the chance of girls liking me more.". You just enjoy the stuff. Just as you "just enjoy sex" or the bower bird has an innate desire to build colorful homes. EDIT for clarity.

metamemetics 16y ago
I never affirmed or attacked or recognized your "everything can be simplified to genetic fitness" hypothesis, no clarification needed. If you insist on pursuing this strawman and broadening the debate to new, unrelated philosophical heights, so be it. I will say now that it is childish argument. You give no explanation for why a "gene" should be considered the base unit of evolution rather than an "idea". Especially when natural selection stopped applying to suburban humans with access to healthcare a long time ago. By all indicators, human evolution is now occurring through technology, not genes. Technology and debate over how to use it is the most likely cause of humans diverging into multiple species, not genetics. Genetic biological reproduction seems to be your God. It is the planner and predeterminer, and can be said to have causative power over all actions. The gene is arbitrary. The gene is ambiguous. The gene is defined by man. Genes and genetic reproduction is but one method for the continued existence of things through time. Humans have defeated the gene. We don't need to die and reproduce several times to store and communicate survival information to our descendent's. We have invented language and can write it in a book. You are stuck in genetic determinism, denying any idea of free will. Not to say free will is a suitable answer either. Both are a naive treatment of the subject of causality.
- ckuehne 16y ago
  I did not argue that "everything can be simplified to genetic fitness". So please, for the second time, stop putting words into my mouth. It is my understanding, that your argument is: 1) Article assumes people discuss ideas to signal social standing. But: 2) People discuss ideas because the enjoy it, 3) and not because they want to signal social standing. Therefore the article is faulty. All I am saying is: 1) and 2) may both be right. The contradiction between 2) and 3) does not arise if people are not aware of the underlying motivations for their behavior. See also rdtsc's comment.
  - metamemetics 16y ago
    >I did not argue that Hey, that's MY point :) Still, in the end of your FIRST line you stated: the ultimate cause for the enjoyment is increase in genetic fitness. >my understanding, that your argument is: 1) ... 2) ... 3) ... All wrong. At no point was a talking about the set "people". I was disagreeing with the traits specific to the "top of the pyramid" proposed by the article within the domain of intellectual debate. Which is a small subset of the set "people" in a very small subset of the domain of possible actions people can perform. I'll have to make sure to rigorously pair any hypothesis with its counter-hypothesis when I risk posting on HN in the future.

jacabado 16y ago

Come on guys let's go back to discussion, which from my interpretation was if the "underlying motivation for argument, debate, or discussion is to signal social standing". I guess ckuehne opinion is that it unconciously is and I love his example. How could we discuss that? I would love to know examples of places and people that behave the way metamemetics tells us. I can't match any subset of people, or even any subset of intelligent subset of pople that match that behavior.

metamemetics 16y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_bias What about the great thinkers of humanity whose writing only became popular post-humously? What about all of the thinkers whose beliefs got them executed? What if their writings were so unpopular as to lead to their persecution. Surely, they were just consciously or unconsciously holding those beliefs to signal social standing! What if they had a conscious and explicit reason for why they held their beliefs? What if said explicit reason wasn't to increase their social standing? Does their explicitly stated reason for why they hold those beliefs become invalid because, hey, the REAL reason behind that must be an evolutionary function of genetic reproduction? At what point do we allow others to be conscious of their own actions? Isn't it extremely presumptuous to project unconscious social basis as the fundamental derivative of all their beliefs? Does going down this path lead to interesting discussion or zealously quash it? My argument was NOT that on average, the population of people do NOT follow ckuehne's and the article's assumption of motive. That is trivial and not very interesting, we can even assume that is true if you wish. My argument was on the top of the pyramid, it is less likely to hold for the greatest thinkers and philosophers.