6 ms·

It seems to me that these traits have become a part of us over a long process of social evolution. So even though they may seem irrational when observed in such

It seems to me that these traits have become a part of us over a long process of social evolution. So even though they may seem irrational when observed in such a sterile environment, they must be the most successful behavior for human beings to have, otherwise we would not be doing them.

vlad 18y ago
Great point! Except that the study of human behavior is used to manipulate humans, such that these successful instincts are actually not optimal or do not benefit the person in many situations. That in itself is part of social evolution, which in itself is studied, which itself is part of social evolution...
- aaronblohowiak 18y ago
  For more information on this, look up Edward Bernays, "The Engineering of Consent" From Wikipedia: The Engineering of Consent" is an essay by Edward Bernays first published in 1947.[citation needed] He defines "engineering consent" as the art of manipulation of people; specifically, American citizen, who are described as "fundamentally irrational people... who could not be trusted." It maintained that entire populations, which were undisciplined or lacking in intellectual or definite moral principles, were vulnerable to unconscious influence so as make them want things that they do not need. This was achieved by linking those products and ideas to their unconscious desires. Ernest Dichter, who is widely considered to be the "father of motivational research," referred to this as "the secret-self of the American consumer."
walterk 18y ago
Human environments have changed significantly faster than the genetics that determine our behavior. We're still predisposed to value immediate over delayed gratification, even though modern societies highly reward those who can delay it.
gjm11 18y ago
No; what follows is that they must have been (not be) successful behaviour (not the most successful behaviour) for human beings to have. Evolution selects for things that work, not for things that are best, not least because possible adaptations that never actually turn up don't get the chance to be selected for. It's almost certainly true that the heuristics built into our brains work better in practice than you'd think from a here's-how-we're-irrational description. But they still cost us sometimes, and it's good to be aware of them and look out for them in cases where we need the best answers we can get rather than the best we can get in ten seconds.

vlad 18y ago

Great point! Except that the study of human behavior is used to manipulate humans, such that these successful instincts are actually not optimal or do not benefit the person in many situations. That in itself is part of social evolution, which in itself is studied, which itself is part of social evolution...

aaronblohowiak 18y ago
For more information on this, look up Edward Bernays, "The Engineering of Consent" From Wikipedia: The Engineering of Consent" is an essay by Edward Bernays first published in 1947.[citation needed] He defines "engineering consent" as the art of manipulation of people; specifically, American citizen, who are described as "fundamentally irrational people... who could not be trusted." It maintained that entire populations, which were undisciplined or lacking in intellectual or definite moral principles, were vulnerable to unconscious influence so as make them want things that they do not need. This was achieved by linking those products and ideas to their unconscious desires. Ernest Dichter, who is widely considered to be the "father of motivational research," referred to this as "the secret-self of the American consumer."

walterk 18y ago

Human environments have changed significantly faster than the genetics that determine our behavior. We're still predisposed to value immediate over delayed gratification, even though modern societies highly reward those who can delay it.

gjm11 18y ago

No; what follows is that they must have been (not be) successful behaviour (not the most successful behaviour) for human beings to have. Evolution selects for things that work, not for things that are best, not least because possible adaptations that never actually turn up don't get the chance to be selected for. It's almost certainly true that the heuristics built into our brains work better in practice than you'd think from a here's-how-we're-irrational description. But they still cost us sometimes, and it's good to be aware of them and look out for them in cases where we need the best answers we can get rather than the best we can get in ten seconds.