_________________
"humans are super cooperators" -- yet it seems like we're in more social disarray than ever (or at least we have a long history of not cooperating with each other).
"Human higher brain functions ...evolved in order to process social information" perhaps this explains our psychological need for companionship.
"language evolved to allow individuals to learn about the behavioral characteristics of other[s]" this is an interesting theory, although I'm wondering what the exact learning advantage is here, if words can be used to manipulate reality. Wouldn't observation be the more logical and reliable way of assessing our peers, given that people often lie?
"there is a cognitive limit...stable relationships" this is both extremely interesting to me and also strikes me as common sense. Does this cognitive limit vary between individuals, thus explaining what causes people to be intro- or extroverted? Or is this a standard one-size-fits-all limitation for the general population?
"Dunbar's number" 147 relationships? this raises a lot of questions for me. How close are these relationships? Does it mean only intimate kinds, like those between family, friends and partners? Or is it supposed to mean a total of people we know before we start forgetting. I am thinking it means the latter. And is this number influenced by cyber relations, being we are in such a digital-centric era? Will the number increase to include our cuber relationships, or do physical relationships suffer in order to accommodate the cyber ones?
"social instincts" more evidence to support that we have a physiological need?
I'm sure we've all seen this before, but I never realized how high up from the bottom companionship was; also, it is the first abstract concept. (In this version, "safety" is not referring to just a physical safe place, but also some abstract concepts; however, that is how I was taught to understand it. So let's pretend that I'm not a little bit misinformed here.)
"punishing those who break the institution's rules..." / "altruistic punishment may be the glue that hold societies together" this is provoking some kind of thought that I can't quite articulate...for starters, breaking an institutional rule may not be bad, because if the rule is not altruistic, then the person breaking the rule is not behaving un-altruistically (I know that isn't a real word). Also, I do not think that this is particularly true. Humans are believed to be born with an internal sense of morality, that we have the inborn ability to be good and judge goodness from badness. But I think humans do not often follow it. That would seem to explain how there are always "bad people" in the world, and how the world always needs "fixing" by the "good people." I think the notion of the "super cooperators" is true in theory, but not really true in practice. Furthermore, I think there has been a very long history of people who have abused their power in inhumane ways all in the name of "altruistic punishment."
I actually love the idea that "cave paintings" lead to "hyperlinks." It's such a ridiculous thing on the surface, but they really are (very) distant cousins.
"tragedy of the commons" this is an interesting concern, and valid I think. However, I cannot stop thinking: over regulation. Also, if this is a hypothetical situation, then Hardin is assuming humans are naturally selfish to the point of stupidity and self-destruction. (It is possibly true, but not a very nice thing to assume anyway. I kind of feel personally attacked?)
Also, his 8 principals are too susceptible to human unpredictability.
"scientific research...we have...the desire...to cooperate..." more about psychological needs/tendencies related to Maslow's Hierarchy.
No comments:
Post a Comment