4 ms·

> housing (which is a requisite status symbol for dating or marriage I get that culture is hard to change, but it still seems easier than changing the economic

> housing (which is a requisite status symbol for dating or marriage I get that culture is hard to change, but it still seems easier than changing the economics. There are men and women out there who presumably are interested in partnering up; at some point you'd think biology will take over irrespective of which achievements have been unlocked. What's stopping them?

numpad0 2mo ago
System of education? The current form of it have nudges and blockers everywhere to stop population explosion leading us all into Soylent Green type situation.
lottin 2mo ago
Social status is a big part of what makes a person attractive especially if you're a man.
- stickfigure 2mo ago
  Sure, but - by definition - half the population is below average social status. At least here in the US, those people are still partnering up.
  - spwa4 2mo ago
    Oh, you forget - we lie about social status, including to ourselves. Women and men. And as for what determines status ... first rule of social interaction: you can't ask a woman her age and you can't ask a man his wage (in other words: humans are social animals and this information is only available through playing the social game of deception). So in practice 80% or so of the population is below "average social status". People who don't absolutely need to pair up (historically women can't earn, but require, money and men can't take care of a home/place to sleep, but have to), will refuse to pair up with someone below their signaled social status. In other words: there are TWO average social statuses. First, there is what people believe their own social status is. Second there is what people, on average, see as others social status. In a "natural" human society, it's basically impossible for anyone over 25 or so to "pair up", unless they have a partner, which is not common at all. Since social status ALSO determines the distribution of food, at that point the first real period of weakness (you get sick, you hurt your leg, you ...) is the end. You can delay this by forming cliques, but not by that much. Oh and of course, that has an analog in our society. Look how much a plumber gets paid (ie. it's pretty disappointing), despite the shortage. There are low status and high status jobs, and even where it doesn't make sense they determine pay. E.g. there are a lot of cities with a total glut of lawyers ... it makes no sense to give 7 figure wages for people when 70% of whom can't find work, but we do. By contrast there is an incredible shortage of construction workers, and still they're not paid half what a lawyer gets. Rather we'll get immigrants to do it. Why? Because a great many people would rather signal that they're above manual labor than get 7 figures a year. In other words: I will live in destitution rather than admit I'm low social status, even if low social status would pay well. Oh and don't forget credit cards: 80%+ of people worldwide consider feeling rich (and showing off) more important than, ironically, money. Note also the many complaints about the economy, which are never about having or not having money, the big complaint seen everywhere is that people who don't have money "feel poor". One might think it should be perfectly normal to not have money and feel poor. Which also is the big lesson in investment that's coming up: countries will raise inflation to any level rather than cut expenditures. That's how we got to 20% inflation in the 80s. That's how Argentina or even Zimbabwe got there. Ie: when we're getting close to that point, for the love of God, don't buy government bonds. Preventing obvious human habits from destroying us seems to me the best reason to really give developing AI your best effort. Because the whole "job destruction" argument has a hole in it you could fit a planet through: people don't want to do the destroyed jobs. What do you think is the best: AI taking jobs? Or, that we force young people into nursing, plumbing, construction, ... through more and more extreme measures and making everyone a lot poorer? That's how the system rebalances after all, make people poorer until the plumbing gets done. Those are the choices. AI it is. At least for me.
readthenotes1 2mo ago
I thought Biology drives coupling, not partnering. Porn and 4B divert coupling...
- mock-possum 2mo ago
  What’s ‘4B’?
  - pas 2mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4B_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4B_movement
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      This is civilization-level apoptosis. The civilization detects that it is broken and makes room for a properly functioning one to take over.
      - eudamoniac 2mo ago
        I'd say it's more citizen-level apoptosis. These women are the ones exiting the gene pool, not the whole civilization. But also 4B is an outsized meme especially in the west. It's like furries. We all know about them, but they are not typical people who you can draw conclusions about the civilization from.
        inigyou 2mo ago
        The women aren't the ones detecting they have something wrong with them. They are detecting there is something wrong with the next level up, and shutting down that whole thing. Like an apoptosis gene triggered by excessive misfolded proteins.
        eudamoniac 2mo ago
        But in reality they aren't "shutting down that whole thing", they are shutting down their personal lineage and not much else. The women might not be conscious of something wrong with themselves, but if they were cells in a body, their behavior would not indicate the body is sick, only that they are.
xboxnolifes 2mo ago
You think status signaling isn't part of biology? That it just happened to independently appear in every human culture and many animals that we are aware of?
- xtiansimon 2mo ago
  > “…status signaling isn't part of biology?” It’s just a short-cut. The most ostentatious courtships of bird species are found in populations without significant predators. Evolution has granted this as advantage, because they don’t need to screech and squawk and hide from predators. Take the Birds-of-paradise from New Guinea as the archetype.
  - xboxnolifes 2mo ago
    I will take the birds of paradise as the extreme, single example of signaling that it is. Of course signaling is a short cut. You cant transmit your entire lifes experiences to another people in an instant. You signal and read signals.
    - xtiansimon 2mo ago
      > "extreme, single example of signaling" It’s not the extreme outcome that’s the offered exception to your rule. It’s the absence of predators. Humans, of course, can make choices and cycle faster. Lease that expensive truck you can't afford to signal your virility? But now you have to work like a dog to keep it from being repossessed. How's your work-life? How's your marriage? Do you see? Trade-offs. Choices. Our predators are algorithms processing your debt data in the hands of your employer. It doesn't have to be that way. You can make different choices. You can take the bus.
  - Terr_ 2mo ago
    > Evolution has granted this as advantage, because they don’t need to screech and squawk and hide from predators. It could be demand rather than leisure: "I survived" doesn't work to signal fitness, so they develop something else to fill the need.
dumberquestions 2mo ago
I think we're underestimating how relatively recent these social phenomena are. Just a few decades ago, the average person had very limited exposure to people outside of their immediate town (outside of celebrities and public figures), which really grounds your standards and expectations of other people. Spend 5 minutes in any social media or dating app today and average people around you will start to look severely below average. There was also stronger cultural pressure to settle down by a certain age, which again, forces you to be more realistic with your options. The tldr is that Our Paleolithic biology has only so much capacity to adapt to today’s rapidly changing culture and environment.

numpad0 2mo ago

System of education? The current form of it have nudges and blockers everywhere to stop population explosion leading us all into Soylent Green type situation.

lottin 2mo ago

Social status is a big part of what makes a person attractive especially if you're a man.

stickfigure 2mo ago
Sure, but - by definition - half the population is below average social status. At least here in the US, those people are still partnering up.
- spwa4 2mo ago
  Oh, you forget - we lie about social status, including to ourselves. Women and men. And as for what determines status ... first rule of social interaction: you can't ask a woman her age and you can't ask a man his wage (in other words: humans are social animals and this information is only available through playing the social game of deception). So in practice 80% or so of the population is below "average social status". People who don't absolutely need to pair up (historically women can't earn, but require, money and men can't take care of a home/place to sleep, but have to), will refuse to pair up with someone below their signaled social status. In other words: there are TWO average social statuses. First, there is what people believe their own social status is. Second there is what people, on average, see as others social status. In a "natural" human society, it's basically impossible for anyone over 25 or so to "pair up", unless they have a partner, which is not common at all. Since social status ALSO determines the distribution of food, at that point the first real period of weakness (you get sick, you hurt your leg, you ...) is the end. You can delay this by forming cliques, but not by that much. Oh and of course, that has an analog in our society. Look how much a plumber gets paid (ie. it's pretty disappointing), despite the shortage. There are low status and high status jobs, and even where it doesn't make sense they determine pay. E.g. there are a lot of cities with a total glut of lawyers ... it makes no sense to give 7 figure wages for people when 70% of whom can't find work, but we do. By contrast there is an incredible shortage of construction workers, and still they're not paid half what a lawyer gets. Rather we'll get immigrants to do it. Why? Because a great many people would rather signal that they're above manual labor than get 7 figures a year. In other words: I will live in destitution rather than admit I'm low social status, even if low social status would pay well. Oh and don't forget credit cards: 80%+ of people worldwide consider feeling rich (and showing off) more important than, ironically, money. Note also the many complaints about the economy, which are never about having or not having money, the big complaint seen everywhere is that people who don't have money "feel poor". One might think it should be perfectly normal to not have money and feel poor. Which also is the big lesson in investment that's coming up: countries will raise inflation to any level rather than cut expenditures. That's how we got to 20% inflation in the 80s. That's how Argentina or even Zimbabwe got there. Ie: when we're getting close to that point, for the love of God, don't buy government bonds. Preventing obvious human habits from destroying us seems to me the best reason to really give developing AI your best effort. Because the whole "job destruction" argument has a hole in it you could fit a planet through: people don't want to do the destroyed jobs. What do you think is the best: AI taking jobs? Or, that we force young people into nursing, plumbing, construction, ... through more and more extreme measures and making everyone a lot poorer? That's how the system rebalances after all, make people poorer until the plumbing gets done. Those are the choices. AI it is. At least for me.

readthenotes1 2mo ago

I thought Biology drives coupling, not partnering. Porn and 4B divert coupling...

mock-possum 2mo ago
What’s ‘4B’?
- pas 2mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4B_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4B_movement
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    This is civilization-level apoptosis. The civilization detects that it is broken and makes room for a properly functioning one to take over.
    - eudamoniac 2mo ago
      I'd say it's more citizen-level apoptosis. These women are the ones exiting the gene pool, not the whole civilization. But also 4B is an outsized meme especially in the west. It's like furries. We all know about them, but they are not typical people who you can draw conclusions about the civilization from.
      - inigyou 2mo ago
        The women aren't the ones detecting they have something wrong with them. They are detecting there is something wrong with the next level up, and shutting down that whole thing. Like an apoptosis gene triggered by excessive misfolded proteins.
        eudamoniac 2mo ago
        But in reality they aren't "shutting down that whole thing", they are shutting down their personal lineage and not much else. The women might not be conscious of something wrong with themselves, but if they were cells in a body, their behavior would not indicate the body is sick, only that they are.

xboxnolifes 2mo ago

You think status signaling isn't part of biology? That it just happened to independently appear in every human culture and many animals that we are aware of?

xtiansimon 2mo ago
> “…status signaling isn't part of biology?” It’s just a short-cut. The most ostentatious courtships of bird species are found in populations without significant predators. Evolution has granted this as advantage, because they don’t need to screech and squawk and hide from predators. Take the Birds-of-paradise from New Guinea as the archetype.
- xboxnolifes 2mo ago
  I will take the birds of paradise as the extreme, single example of signaling that it is. Of course signaling is a short cut. You cant transmit your entire lifes experiences to another people in an instant. You signal and read signals.
  - xtiansimon 2mo ago
    > "extreme, single example of signaling" It’s not the extreme outcome that’s the offered exception to your rule. It’s the absence of predators. Humans, of course, can make choices and cycle faster. Lease that expensive truck you can't afford to signal your virility? But now you have to work like a dog to keep it from being repossessed. How's your work-life? How's your marriage? Do you see? Trade-offs. Choices. Our predators are algorithms processing your debt data in the hands of your employer. It doesn't have to be that way. You can make different choices. You can take the bus.
- Terr_ 2mo ago
  > Evolution has granted this as advantage, because they don’t need to screech and squawk and hide from predators. It could be demand rather than leisure: "I survived" doesn't work to signal fitness, so they develop something else to fill the need.

dumberquestions 2mo ago

I think we're underestimating how relatively recent these social phenomena are. Just a few decades ago, the average person had very limited exposure to people outside of their immediate town (outside of celebrities and public figures), which really grounds your standards and expectations of other people. Spend 5 minutes in any social media or dating app today and average people around you will start to look severely below average. There was also stronger cultural pressure to settle down by a certain age, which again, forces you to be more realistic with your options. The tldr is that Our Paleolithic biology has only so much capacity to adapt to today’s rapidly changing culture and environment.