2 ms·

Very good questions. Even though I haven't studied the topic rigorously, I would like to offer my impression. People are very bad at reasoning about motives of

Very good questions. Even though I haven't studied the topic rigorously, I would like to offer my impression. People are very bad at reasoning about motives of others. Faulty syllogism goes: Nobel invented dynamite. He became wealthy. Therefore, he must have been driven by desire for wealth. Same goes for Pasteur, of course. Maybe he was driven by desire for wealth, but couldn't succeed. My Bayesian senses tell me that Pasteur not being driven by greed is more likely, but I digress. Leaving individuals aside, I believe that a system that doesn't reward greed is a better system. When a system rewards greed, anti-social behavior becomes prevalent, because it's easier to eat others' pie rather than making a bigger cake. In a system that doesn't reward greed, I believe that curious people will make the cake bigger for the sake of it.

IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
You nailed it. I think -but i'm not certain!- that we have english words for those that "eat others' pie rather" vs "making a bigger cake". I think this is greed, and driven, respectively. But as you say, we are extremely bad at ascertaining motives of others. So either we get lazy and reduce others to bring them to our level, or we are naturally suspicious and do so anyway. I'd love to know more of a system that doesn't reward greed. We have laws in place to stop outright theft, but at least in countries like USA and Switzerland, laws do an extremely poor job at making certain politicians that come into politics dirt-poor, stay poor, while in office and even afterwards. That to me is exactly one aspect of the system that must change.