4 ms·

Where's the evidence that most variables of life have a peak usefulness in some amount and then it falls off on both sides?

mellosouls 6y ago
Evolution I would imagine. If a variable is useless it will mostly disappear; dominate for a time if particularly beneficial. Others ("most") would then follow a statistical distribution of some type. It seems a reasonable claim for a believable rule of thumb.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Its a reasonable rule, but we are still evolving and have a vestigal tail, we have genetic diseases, we have psycopaths, etc.
  - slver 6y ago
    Maybe we need psychopaths :P ?
    - klyrs 6y ago
      I can see why people wouldn't like this comment, but maybe contemplate what it would take to rid the world of psychopaths. There is no known cure for a lack of empathy. Do the ends justify the means, and would anybody but a psychopath desire such a cleansing?
      - slver 6y ago
        People don't like it because medical terminology tends to morph in the public dictionary as a caricature of the original meaning. A psychopath doesn't mean an evil person with delusions who committed significant crimes. We have some evidence psychopaths handle large scale organizations better, because empathy has evolved for close relationships with small number of people. Doesn't mean they're cruel, rather they think differently about it. Also psychopathy is both dynamic (can change during the course of a lifetime) and a spectrum (non-binary). In general if we'll be open and non-discriminating towards our racial and so on features, we need to also allow for various thinking models, and address problems only directly when they occur.
        klyrs 6y ago
        Indeed, the word "psychopath" itself has fallen out of favor for the reasons you've listed
        slver 6y ago
        The semantic treadmill is tiring. We constantly need to invent new words for the same concepts. And the most damaging moment in this transition is when original connotations get coupled with later meanings. I.e. "psychopaths do not use empathy" gets equated with "psychopath bad and dangerous". It's a bit like the argument that if you're not religious, you're amoral, as you have no emotional reason (fear & shame of God) to be moral. Which is obviously not the case.
        ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        "psychopaths handle large scale organizations better" I would argue that this just proves how messed up are our large scale organisations
        slver 6y ago
        Only if you believe psychopathy is being "messed up" which, as I said, in strictly medical sense, is not that clear. Remember homosexuality was also classified as a mental illness until relatively recently. What if it turns out modern society need psychopaths to operate properly? I know, an odd notion given the popular meaning of "psychopath", but once again... the popular meaning is kind of arbitrary and self-defeating.
slver 6y ago
I can't think of anything where have more to infinity is always better. At some point your need is satiated and starts becoming a detriment. You're welcome to bring examples, but I've found often those examples don't consider the counter-forces as you increase the "goodness" in one direction, you increase the "badness" for another factor. Case in point team size. Bigger team, better, faster, stronger. But the combinatorial explosion of communications (everyone talks to everyone) in the team actually renders big teams inoperable. So the solution is to elect a leader/representative, and then form a team of teams only of those representatives. You solved the combinatorial explosion of communications, but you added indirection (teams talk to each other through the broken phone of their leaders). And so on and so on. You never can identify a single thing you can do forever "more" of, and get just benefits. It's like a spring. There's a balance in the middle. The more you stretch, the harder it gets. The more you push, the harder it gets. The trick is finding the middle.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  General intelligence, excellent judgment, rapport building, and attractiveness all seem like candidates where extremes don’t inevitably bring badness.
  - mycologos 6y ago
    I dunno, being an extremely attractive woman in a male-dominated field seems like it would be a huge hassle.
  - giovannibonetti 6y ago
    General intelligence - if you are too intelligent you might become arrogant and have difficulties putting yourself in other people's shoes. Attractiveness - you might focus so much in your appearance that other parts of your life get left behind. Think on the Hollywood stars that end up with a crappy life somehow. I've also seen women that are too attractive being chased by aggressive men, which becomes very inconvenient for them. Good judgement and rapport building are qualities that usually require avoiding the extremes, so I don't think it applies here.
leetcrew 6y ago
at the very least, it's a strong null hypothesis due to opportunity costs.
canucker2016 6y ago
Stress (both mental and physical). for mental stress: from https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-mindful-self-express/201612/why-some-stress-is-good-you https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-mindful-self-exp... : “People with a history of some lifetime adversity reported better mental health and well-being outcomes than not only people with a high history of adversity, but also than people with no history of adversity.” (Seery et al., 2010, p. 1025)

mellosouls 6y ago

Evolution I would imagine. If a variable is useless it will mostly disappear; dominate for a time if particularly beneficial. Others ("most") would then follow a statistical distribution of some type. It seems a reasonable claim for a believable rule of thumb.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Its a reasonable rule, but we are still evolving and have a vestigal tail, we have genetic diseases, we have psycopaths, etc.
- slver 6y ago
  Maybe we need psychopaths :P ?
  - klyrs 6y ago
    I can see why people wouldn't like this comment, but maybe contemplate what it would take to rid the world of psychopaths. There is no known cure for a lack of empathy. Do the ends justify the means, and would anybody but a psychopath desire such a cleansing?
    - slver 6y ago
      People don't like it because medical terminology tends to morph in the public dictionary as a caricature of the original meaning. A psychopath doesn't mean an evil person with delusions who committed significant crimes. We have some evidence psychopaths handle large scale organizations better, because empathy has evolved for close relationships with small number of people. Doesn't mean they're cruel, rather they think differently about it. Also psychopathy is both dynamic (can change during the course of a lifetime) and a spectrum (non-binary). In general if we'll be open and non-discriminating towards our racial and so on features, we need to also allow for various thinking models, and address problems only directly when they occur.
      - klyrs 6y ago
        Indeed, the word "psychopath" itself has fallen out of favor for the reasons you've listed
        slver 6y ago
        The semantic treadmill is tiring. We constantly need to invent new words for the same concepts. And the most damaging moment in this transition is when original connotations get coupled with later meanings. I.e. "psychopaths do not use empathy" gets equated with "psychopath bad and dangerous". It's a bit like the argument that if you're not religious, you're amoral, as you have no emotional reason (fear & shame of God) to be moral. Which is obviously not the case.
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        "psychopaths handle large scale organizations better" I would argue that this just proves how messed up are our large scale organisations
        slver 6y ago
        Only if you believe psychopathy is being "messed up" which, as I said, in strictly medical sense, is not that clear. Remember homosexuality was also classified as a mental illness until relatively recently. What if it turns out modern society need psychopaths to operate properly? I know, an odd notion given the popular meaning of "psychopath", but once again... the popular meaning is kind of arbitrary and self-defeating.

slver 6y ago

I can't think of anything where have more to infinity is always better. At some point your need is satiated and starts becoming a detriment. You're welcome to bring examples, but I've found often those examples don't consider the counter-forces as you increase the "goodness" in one direction, you increase the "badness" for another factor. Case in point team size. Bigger team, better, faster, stronger. But the combinatorial explosion of communications (everyone talks to everyone) in the team actually renders big teams inoperable. So the solution is to elect a leader/representative, and then form a team of teams only of those representatives. You solved the combinatorial explosion of communications, but you added indirection (teams talk to each other through the broken phone of their leaders). And so on and so on. You never can identify a single thing you can do forever "more" of, and get just benefits. It's like a spring. There's a balance in the middle. The more you stretch, the harder it gets. The more you push, the harder it gets. The trick is finding the middle.

sokoloff 6y ago
General intelligence, excellent judgment, rapport building, and attractiveness all seem like candidates where extremes don’t inevitably bring badness.
- mycologos 6y ago
  I dunno, being an extremely attractive woman in a male-dominated field seems like it would be a huge hassle.
- giovannibonetti 6y ago
  General intelligence - if you are too intelligent you might become arrogant and have difficulties putting yourself in other people's shoes. Attractiveness - you might focus so much in your appearance that other parts of your life get left behind. Think on the Hollywood stars that end up with a crappy life somehow. I've also seen women that are too attractive being chased by aggressive men, which becomes very inconvenient for them. Good judgement and rapport building are qualities that usually require avoiding the extremes, so I don't think it applies here.

leetcrew 6y ago

at the very least, it's a strong null hypothesis due to opportunity costs.

canucker2016 6y ago

Stress (both mental and physical). for mental stress: from https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-mindful-self-express/201612/why-some-stress-is-good-you https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-mindful-self-exp... : “People with a history of some lifetime adversity reported better mental health and well-being outcomes than not only people with a high history of adversity, but also than people with no history of adversity.” (Seery et al., 2010, p. 1025)