5 ms·

It's important for different people to have excessive faith in different beliefs. If everyone was just about the right amount of reasonable, then small errors i

It's important for different people to have excessive faith in different beliefs. If everyone was just about the right amount of reasonable, then small errors in judgement would cause them to give up on an idea that might turn out to be valuable. People believe things for emotional reasons they don't understand and the logic is just an attempt to justify it. They might still have valid emotional reasons behind it. In the case of religion, it does have value even if it's wrong.

jiggawatts 7y ago
One interesting take on this is that certain attitudes such as "authoritarian" or "egalitarian" both have value in the sense of the "selfish-gene" evolutionary theory. So for example, imagine a primitive tribe of humans facing a drought. If they spend too much time discussing options democratically, if they don't all agree, or if they waste time by changing their mind half-way to a source of water, they'll all die. But if they follow an authoritative leader -- even if makes bad arguments or none at all -- they might all make it to the mountain spring in the distance and survive. The gist of this is that in times of hardship, authoritarian, conservative, or "right-wing" styles of though/argument/politics/whatever can win the day. But in times of relatively low stress, more democractic/left-wing/progressive attitudes can help the tribe discover even more resources than they would have if they always followed the same instructions to go to the same sources. Innovation and exploration can turn the merely adequate into a bountiful plenty, resulting in more healthy babies, etc... So these attitudes and personality traits are important to have present in the gene pool to make the species as a whole robust against a wide range of challenges and threats.
- cma 7y ago
  Seems representative democracy with an executive branch already largely addresses this.

jiggawatts 7y ago

One interesting take on this is that certain attitudes such as "authoritarian" or "egalitarian" both have value in the sense of the "selfish-gene" evolutionary theory. So for example, imagine a primitive tribe of humans facing a drought. If they spend too much time discussing options democratically, if they don't all agree, or if they waste time by changing their mind half-way to a source of water, they'll all die. But if they follow an authoritative leader -- even if makes bad arguments or none at all -- they might all make it to the mountain spring in the distance and survive. The gist of this is that in times of hardship, authoritarian, conservative, or "right-wing" styles of though/argument/politics/whatever can win the day. But in times of relatively low stress, more democractic/left-wing/progressive attitudes can help the tribe discover even more resources than they would have if they always followed the same instructions to go to the same sources. Innovation and exploration can turn the merely adequate into a bountiful plenty, resulting in more healthy babies, etc... So these attitudes and personality traits are important to have present in the gene pool to make the species as a whole robust against a wide range of challenges and threats.

cma 7y ago
Seems representative democracy with an executive branch already largely addresses this.