5 ms·

Humans are driven to endlessly acquire.

32 points by peter123 17y ago

colins_pride 17y ago
After reading this review three times in the last half hour, between several different small mundane tasks that were best completed with distractions, I found myself coming away with three distinct impressions. The first time, I latched on to the anti consumer consumption element. This is the core of the book being reviewed, and I saw my values in it. I live in a small apartment, and could have more space if I wanted, but my sense is that I would then have more stuff. And while I want technology to serve as extension of me, I know I don't need more stuff. On the second read, I latched on to the evolutionary angle. I thought about how much I like Jared Diamond writings, and how cool it would be to have a better understanding of the evolutionary mechanics underlying consumerist tendencies. I thought of Mad Men, and the historical arc of marketing and consumption. On the third read, I saw it not as a book about consumption, marketing or evolution. Instead: narcissim and self-marketing. I'm on the fence about whether or not to order the book.
- sdurkin 17y ago
  I agree that the motives of the author are self-serving. In the ideas themselves, I saw a less-than-creative Darwinistic rehashing of Hobbes. From The Leviathan, Chp. VIII. - "From this equality of ability ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavour to destroy or subdue one another. And from hence it comes to pass that where an invader hath no more to fear than another man's single power, if one plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united to dispossess and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labour, but also of his life or liberty. And the invader again is in the like danger of another. And from this diffidence of one another, there is no way for any man to secure himself so reasonable as anticipation; that is, by force, or wiles, to master the persons of all men he can so long till he see no other power great enough to endanger him: and this is no more than his own conservation requireth, and is generally allowed. Also, because there be some that, taking pleasure in contemplating their own power in the acts of conquest, which they pursue farther than their security requires, if others, that otherwise would be glad to be at ease within modest bounds, should not by invasion increase their power, they would not be able, long time, by standing only on their defence, to subsist. And by consequence, such augmentation of dominion over men being necessary to a man's conservation, it ought to be allowed him. Again, men have no pleasure (but on the contrary a great deal of grief) in keeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all. For every man looketh that his companion should value him at the same rate he sets upon himself, and upon all signs of contempt or undervaluing naturally endeavours, as far as he dares (which amongst them that have no common power to keep them in quiet is far enough to make them destroy each other), to extort a greater value from his contemners, by damage; and from others, by the example. So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory. The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence, to make themselves masters of other men's persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name."
eoyola 17y ago
"And, like its prequel, Spent’s almost monomaniacal focus on sexual selection to the exclusion of other evolutionary processes is its greatest weakness." I almost always intuit this when reading layman's books on evolutionary psychology. As if the work tries to reduce too much stuff down to sexual selection. Perhaps it's something it shares with the social sciences in general. I mean, whatever it is that really draws me in but ends up disappointing me with a hint of a dirty feeling.
ilkhd2 17y ago
From the description I got an Impression that this can be good introduction into buddhism for western people. One dissapointment that in tis essay the author, as I can see , misuse word "schizophrenic" , assuming that it means dissociative personality disorder, which is wrong. Schizophrenia is a psychotic disorder, it is about hllucinations, paranoia and delusions, not multiple personality.
- pohl 17y ago
  While you are correct regarding the current clinical interpretation of "schizophrenic", the root of the word is the greek "skhizein", which literally means "to split". When the word was introduced into psychology, then, it meant "to split the mind". The word seeped into common usage because of its etymology. It was probably helped along by the common conflation with multiple personality disorder, but that doesn't make it wrong to use the word in this manner. If anything, the discipline of psychology is at fault for abusing the word, isn't it?
  - 10ren 17y ago
    The great thing about precise definitions of English words is there are so many to choose from.
- sdurkin 17y ago
  My understanding of schizophrenia is that the psychosis you describe arises from unresolved competition for dominance between the hemispheres of the brain. This competition results in a schism of sorts, hence the Greek root "split". However, as always, IANAPsychiatrist/Doctor/Lawyer/OtherAuthorityFigure.

32 points by peter123 17y ago

After reading this review three times in the last half hour, between several different small mundane tasks that were best completed with distractions, I found myself coming away with three distinct impressions. The first time, I latched on to the anti consumer consumption element. This is the core of the book being reviewed, and I saw my values in it. I live in a small apartment, and could have more space if I wanted, but my sense is that I would then have more stuff. And while I want technology to serve as extension of me, I know I don't need more stuff. On the second read, I latched on to the evolutionary angle. I thought about how much I like Jared Diamond writings, and how cool it would be to have a better understanding of the evolutionary mechanics underlying consumerist tendencies. I thought of Mad Men, and the historical arc of marketing and consumption. On the third read, I saw it not as a book about consumption, marketing or evolution. Instead: narcissim and self-marketing. I'm on the fence about whether or not to order the book.

sdurkin 17y ago
I agree that the motives of the author are self-serving. In the ideas themselves, I saw a less-than-creative Darwinistic rehashing of Hobbes. From The Leviathan, Chp. VIII. - "From this equality of ability ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavour to destroy or subdue one another. And from hence it comes to pass that where an invader hath no more to fear than another man's single power, if one plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united to dispossess and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labour, but also of his life or liberty. And the invader again is in the like danger of another. And from this diffidence of one another, there is no way for any man to secure himself so reasonable as anticipation; that is, by force, or wiles, to master the persons of all men he can so long till he see no other power great enough to endanger him: and this is no more than his own conservation requireth, and is generally allowed. Also, because there be some that, taking pleasure in contemplating their own power in the acts of conquest, which they pursue farther than their security requires, if others, that otherwise would be glad to be at ease within modest bounds, should not by invasion increase their power, they would not be able, long time, by standing only on their defence, to subsist. And by consequence, such augmentation of dominion over men being necessary to a man's conservation, it ought to be allowed him. Again, men have no pleasure (but on the contrary a great deal of grief) in keeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all. For every man looketh that his companion should value him at the same rate he sets upon himself, and upon all signs of contempt or undervaluing naturally endeavours, as far as he dares (which amongst them that have no common power to keep them in quiet is far enough to make them destroy each other), to extort a greater value from his contemners, by damage; and from others, by the example. So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory. The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence, to make themselves masters of other men's persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name."

eoyola 17y ago

"And, like its prequel, Spent’s almost monomaniacal focus on sexual selection to the exclusion of other evolutionary processes is its greatest weakness." I almost always intuit this when reading layman's books on evolutionary psychology. As if the work tries to reduce too much stuff down to sexual selection. Perhaps it's something it shares with the social sciences in general. I mean, whatever it is that really draws me in but ends up disappointing me with a hint of a dirty feeling.

ilkhd2 17y ago

From the description I got an Impression that this can be good introduction into buddhism for western people. One dissapointment that in tis essay the author, as I can see , misuse word "schizophrenic" , assuming that it means dissociative personality disorder, which is wrong. Schizophrenia is a psychotic disorder, it is about hllucinations, paranoia and delusions, not multiple personality.

pohl 17y ago
While you are correct regarding the current clinical interpretation of "schizophrenic", the root of the word is the greek "skhizein", which literally means "to split". When the word was introduced into psychology, then, it meant "to split the mind". The word seeped into common usage because of its etymology. It was probably helped along by the common conflation with multiple personality disorder, but that doesn't make it wrong to use the word in this manner. If anything, the discipline of psychology is at fault for abusing the word, isn't it?
- 10ren 17y ago
  The great thing about precise definitions of English words is there are so many to choose from.
sdurkin 17y ago
My understanding of schizophrenia is that the psychosis you describe arises from unresolved competition for dominance between the hemispheres of the brain. This competition results in a schism of sorts, hence the Greek root "split". However, as always, IANAPsychiatrist/Doctor/Lawyer/OtherAuthorityFigure.