4 ms·

>People aren't so stupid that they'd do something that completely against their best interests. The world is actually full of such examples. There's quite a bi

>People aren't so stupid that they'd do something that completely against their best interests. The world is actually full of such examples. There's quite a bit of work done in psychology and sociology as to why this happens. Often, the move from, for example substinence farming to other jobs is a kind of throffer - and so it was, historically documented, in the 16th and 17th centuries in England, too with the move from rural cottage industry to wide-scale factory production.

Aunche 7y ago
> in the 16th and 17th centuries in England, too with the move from rural cottage industry to wide-scale factory production. The industrial revolution started in the late 18th century. Keep in mind that the population was booming then, so there wasn't enough space on the cottage to support the same standard of living. I feel like the concept of a idyllic peasant is the modern iteration of the "noble savage." For complex decisions, you indeed run into the paradox of choice and other strange psychological phenomena. However, choice between sacrificing time in order to accumulate capital is an easy one, as this has been done billions of times. You need extraordinary evidence to prove otherwise.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  While the move to factories was only being completed by the end of the 18th century, the process had started much earlier, in laying the groundwork for the creation of industry, from the enclosures to the transformation of the peasantry to farmers who rent their land (rather than tithes to their lord). The market for land leases, necessary for the creation of the English capitalist class, flourished in the 16th and 17th centuries. >However, choice between sacrificing time in order to accumulate capital is an easy one, as this has been done billions of times. It's curious why so much land had to be expropriated forcefully if it were such an obvious choice to the modern-day noble savages - and even moreso when one considers modern union activity and intense revolts against the increasing duration and intensity of the working day in America, and to no lesser extent other countries which did not have the privilege of being so readily acquainted with capital. These are no edge cases either. The largest debate in the literature being the question of why the majority does not rise up against the unfair conditions implemented by a minority. Whether you subscribe to the false consciousness solution or the capability solution, both allow you to say that the "rational choice" of not rising up (or accumulating capital) is simply an element of playing the game. The only difference between the theories turns on the point of whether the players know it's a game or not.

Aunche 7y ago

> in the 16th and 17th centuries in England, too with the move from rural cottage industry to wide-scale factory production. The industrial revolution started in the late 18th century. Keep in mind that the population was booming then, so there wasn't enough space on the cottage to support the same standard of living. I feel like the concept of a idyllic peasant is the modern iteration of the "noble savage." For complex decisions, you indeed run into the paradox of choice and other strange psychological phenomena. However, choice between sacrificing time in order to accumulate capital is an easy one, as this has been done billions of times. You need extraordinary evidence to prove otherwise.

claudiawerner 7y ago
While the move to factories was only being completed by the end of the 18th century, the process had started much earlier, in laying the groundwork for the creation of industry, from the enclosures to the transformation of the peasantry to farmers who rent their land (rather than tithes to their lord). The market for land leases, necessary for the creation of the English capitalist class, flourished in the 16th and 17th centuries. >However, choice between sacrificing time in order to accumulate capital is an easy one, as this has been done billions of times. It's curious why so much land had to be expropriated forcefully if it were such an obvious choice to the modern-day noble savages - and even moreso when one considers modern union activity and intense revolts against the increasing duration and intensity of the working day in America, and to no lesser extent other countries which did not have the privilege of being so readily acquainted with capital. These are no edge cases either. The largest debate in the literature being the question of why the majority does not rise up against the unfair conditions implemented by a minority. Whether you subscribe to the false consciousness solution or the capability solution, both allow you to say that the "rational choice" of not rising up (or accumulating capital) is simply an element of playing the game. The only difference between the theories turns on the point of whether the players know it's a game or not.