5 ms·
Yes. People at the top have a natural affinity for power. They intuitively understand power, they feel it, and they don’t feel any shame about seeking and wield
by serverholic 4y ago
Yes. People at the top have a natural affinity for power. They intuitively understand power, they feel it, and they don’t feel any shame about seeking and wielding power.
These are the type of people we’ve chosen to reward in society and unfortunately most people have drunk the kool-aid and have been convinced that these people deserve to be rewarded. And even further, they think society can’t function unless we reward these people!
- kleer001 4y ago> we’ve chosen to reward in society It's not a conscious choice. And it's not a choice with even odds against the alternative. It's choice with more benefits than deficits. Historically (back to the very beginning of us as social animals) these are the type of people that quickly and surely make high risk and high reward decisions. And those are the types of decisions that determine life or death, feast or famine, in the wild.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoThis sounds like the evolutionary psychology equivalent of a backronym. Is there any evidence for this other than, "It makes sense if you think about it," or is it speculation?
- svnt 4y agoAll ev psych, even the most accurate stuff, runs the risk of being a backronym sooner or later because it attempts to canalize future possibility based on biological history. It tends to contain some teleology in the implicit assumption that humans today are peak human and that all evolution is biological. However, that said, it is very difficult in my experience to make correct decisions for a large organization if you prioritize personal relationships. Often, we define that behavior as corruption.
- kleer001 4y agoI like the big five, but HEXACO has that edge to ferret out corruption.
- svnt 4y agoI like to consider the “big” aspects as the top-down social/experiential/phenomenological side. I think the future of ev psych is more in the bottom-up: what the evolutionary sub modules are and how do they articulate with each other to produce aspects of awareness/behavior — the stuff the Salk Institute is doing with using ML/AI to understand cognition, for example.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kleer001 4y agoEv psych? Certainly. But as a second order effect. I was thinking game theory, from the prisoners dilemma complex as a first principal. And the whole thing as a cocktail napkin guess. I'm not a scientist nor do I have decades and millions of human monies to run proper tests. I was trying to give a little wide grounding to the "we choose" token which sounded to me like the difference between choosing pants for the day or a type of beer. It's not arbitrary, low cost, novel, or small scale.
- shitpostbot 4y ago[dead]
- HWR_14 4y agoIn the wild, is "high risk, high reward" really the decision you want to make?
- wizofaus 4y agoIf there's a dearth of low-risk options (which undoubtedly has been true at many points in our evolutionary history) then I'd say "yes".