3 ms·
You should summarize what you mean instead of linking to an academic article. It's clearer that way.
by asdfman123 5y ago
You should summarize what you mean instead of linking to an academic article. It's clearer that way.
- anigbrowl 5y agoI am disputing your claim that everyone would react in the same way to the same incentives/circumstances. I have cited this paper quite a few times because I think it offers a rigorous falsifiable claim for something I've observed informally, that being that there's a few distinctly different personality types that pursue quite different incentives, rather than everyone being pretty much the same. The key insight in the paper is summarized in figure 3; people tend to consistently be jerks, optimists, pessimists, or suckers in diminishing order of probability. It's a heavy read and not dispositive, but I've found it an extremely useful model.
- pie420 5y agoThat's incredibly meaningless, because if you put someone in someone else's shoes, that means you are giving them the same genetics and life experience that caused them to become a jerk, optimist, etc. The paper doesn't have any insight. It would have an insight if they took people's souls and gave them hundreds of lives with different genetics, socioeconomic backgrounds, parents, and friend groups, and measured the impact that each had on how likely someone was to become a jerk, optimist, etc. "Individuals have mildly consistent behaviors" is the only observation the paper makes, and it isn't particularly interesting.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- TrispusAttucks 5y agoThis seems related to Evolutionarily Stable Strategy [1]. Where certain behaviors stabilize other behavioral niches and prevent other behaviors from arising in a population until an shifting equilibrium between behaviors is reached. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strate...