Jun 12, 2022·edited Jun 12, 2022Liked by The Evolved Psyche
>There, I was focused on refuting his claim that hierarchies of competence were fundamentally different from hierarchies of power
Robin Hanson at Overcoming Bias (https://www.overcomingbias.com/) has written extensively on this topic. He calls the two sides "prestige" and "dominance"
I just got biological realism in the mail today, and now you share this, what a time to be alive! I have very similar views, but one thing I'm very careful to do, and it is difficult, is keep in mind the difference between the "why" question as it pertains to examining the causal reasons for biological phenomena and "why" referring to subjective meaning and purpose. While as a naturalist I must agree that those genes most adept at power maximization have been selected over the eons, those genes don't have desires, only we do. It isn't that we're more than the sum of our parts, it just very confusing to think of the sum in terms of the parts. Things like love, trust, and integrity were selected in some of us as these trains allow us to, as you would might say, build effective coalitions of conspecifics towards resisting enslavement, rape or plunder by others. This isn't experienced as desire to maximize power, it is experienced as a desire to love and be loved. I won't argue that these are functionally the same things, but this kind of hang up is why almost no traditionally religious people will ever be able to understand these positions. I'm currently having to come to terms with this in relation to my ongoing desire to build a populist coalition that includes traditionally religious folks and atheists like myself under the banner of Americanism. Unfortunately, there is a catch-22 that makes it impossible for orthodox Christians to really trust an atheist. While almost everyone understands the moral imperatives outlined in the bible, how can anyone who believes the theory of evolution by natural selection is just more misguided Scientism be expected to understand the biological constraints that demand what is essentially culturally equivalent behavior from the slow-mating strategy neurotypical atheist?
Thank you for the consistently fascinating content, I do think it is very useful, just challenging to resist the urge to athropomorphisize genetic information as having a will of its own. I look forward to finishing Biological Realism over the weekend and then to whatever you have coming down the pipe next!
Michael: I obviously haven't done the same depth of reading into this subject as you, and I doubt if any of your other readers have either. Having said that, I will still bravely comment on the article.
"Second, quite obviously, though, the will to power, and any psychological gratification associated to it, is hardly the final or defining aspect of human experience. Certainly, other evolved dimensions of our psychology, such as empathy, care and love – the very foundational glue of our remarkable human sociality..."
So you're left with a balancing somewhat of a determinist/materialist will to power (except in psychopaths), an often-times anti-social element of human nature, with the pro-social traits, the civilizational glue, of empathy, care and love.
Without the latter, we have no civilization because we have all exploited and slaughtered one another in a naked battle over power.
So, what determines, in each human mind, how this battle plays out and why?
Am I imagining things, or are you ever-so-slightly redefining the word "power" from its common meaning?
>There, I was focused on refuting his claim that hierarchies of competence were fundamentally different from hierarchies of power
Robin Hanson at Overcoming Bias (https://www.overcomingbias.com/) has written extensively on this topic. He calls the two sides "prestige" and "dominance"
Good to have you back, Michael!
I just got biological realism in the mail today, and now you share this, what a time to be alive! I have very similar views, but one thing I'm very careful to do, and it is difficult, is keep in mind the difference between the "why" question as it pertains to examining the causal reasons for biological phenomena and "why" referring to subjective meaning and purpose. While as a naturalist I must agree that those genes most adept at power maximization have been selected over the eons, those genes don't have desires, only we do. It isn't that we're more than the sum of our parts, it just very confusing to think of the sum in terms of the parts. Things like love, trust, and integrity were selected in some of us as these trains allow us to, as you would might say, build effective coalitions of conspecifics towards resisting enslavement, rape or plunder by others. This isn't experienced as desire to maximize power, it is experienced as a desire to love and be loved. I won't argue that these are functionally the same things, but this kind of hang up is why almost no traditionally religious people will ever be able to understand these positions. I'm currently having to come to terms with this in relation to my ongoing desire to build a populist coalition that includes traditionally religious folks and atheists like myself under the banner of Americanism. Unfortunately, there is a catch-22 that makes it impossible for orthodox Christians to really trust an atheist. While almost everyone understands the moral imperatives outlined in the bible, how can anyone who believes the theory of evolution by natural selection is just more misguided Scientism be expected to understand the biological constraints that demand what is essentially culturally equivalent behavior from the slow-mating strategy neurotypical atheist?
Thank you for the consistently fascinating content, I do think it is very useful, just challenging to resist the urge to athropomorphisize genetic information as having a will of its own. I look forward to finishing Biological Realism over the weekend and then to whatever you have coming down the pipe next!
Michael: I obviously haven't done the same depth of reading into this subject as you, and I doubt if any of your other readers have either. Having said that, I will still bravely comment on the article.
"Second, quite obviously, though, the will to power, and any psychological gratification associated to it, is hardly the final or defining aspect of human experience. Certainly, other evolved dimensions of our psychology, such as empathy, care and love – the very foundational glue of our remarkable human sociality..."
So you're left with a balancing somewhat of a determinist/materialist will to power (except in psychopaths), an often-times anti-social element of human nature, with the pro-social traits, the civilizational glue, of empathy, care and love.
Without the latter, we have no civilization because we have all exploited and slaughtered one another in a naked battle over power.
So, what determines, in each human mind, how this battle plays out and why?