The ongoing struggle to extend in-group trust to out-group members. Or, the ongoing struggle to extend the cooperation demonstrated between consanguineous relations, to beyond those relations, such that it is possible for us to evolve a division of knowledge and labor, in which there is as little risk of misappropriation of our efforts in the market, as there is within the consanguineous family. While inside the family free riding is a form of mutual insurance, manageable by threat of deprivation and ostracization, the fact remains that one’s genetic kin prosper even at the cost of unequal distribution of gains and losses. But outside the kin, the same free riding, and unequal distribution of gains and losses, is neither of benefit to kin, nor controllable by ostracization and deprivation. There is always another group to prey upon if one is mobile enough. And it takes but a minority of predators engaging in immoral activity to render all external trust intolerable, and thereby undermine the people’s economy, polity, and competitive survival. Simple property If it was hard to create the institution of simple-private-property such that we could prosecute and suppress the crimes of violence and theft. Low trust private property If it was hard to create the institution of low-trust private property such that we could prosecute and suppress the crimes of fraud and blackmail. High trust warrantied private property It was hard to create the institution of high-trust, warrantied, private property such that we could prosecute and suppress the crimes of fraud by omission, negligence, and externalization. High Trust Political Institutions It was hard to create the formal institutions of high political trust american classical liberalism in an attempt to suppress corruption in government, all forms of free riding. “Perfect-Trust” Informal and Formal Institutions So, the why would it not be even more difficult to create formal and informal institutions such that we could prosecute and suppress the crimes of deception by obscurantism, mysticism and loading? Because cooperation across reproductive strategies is impossible without trust that operates independently of our differences in property rights.
Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science
-
TOTALLY COOL HETERO MAN-LOVE. 🙂 Totally Cool Hetero Man Love is an awesome thin
TOTALLY COOL HETERO MAN-LOVE. 🙂
Totally Cool Hetero Man Love is an awesome thing. It’s what you feel when you trust other guys. It’s the celebration of admiration, loyalty, respect, and friendship. And we don’t celebrate it by telling each other often enough. In fact, I’m one of the only guys I know who does it always and everywhere. Especially in front of others. Sports teams encourage it. The military does in its own way encourage it. But not enough of us play sports or join the military. So we just have to sort of treat it like being honest, showing good manners and respect.
And BTW: it’s contagious as hell.
Try it. You’ll see.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-11 10:44:00 UTC
-
THE TERM “BREADWINNER” MAKES NO SENSE WITHOUT THE CONCEPT OF THE NUCLEAR FAMILY.
THE TERM “BREADWINNER” MAKES NO SENSE WITHOUT THE CONCEPT OF THE NUCLEAR FAMILY.
And the term ‘family’ is just nonsense today. Families are a minority.
In a two person household both must work and pay taxes to support the state.
Why should we be forced into labor so that other people can afford not to labor? I don’t understand at all how that’s moral, ethical, honest or anything other than simple, basic, slavery.
Yet economists argue in favor of slavery all day long.
There is no ‘we’.
I agree to cooperate with you as long as you agree to cooperate with me. But as you say, we are all individuals. I’m an individual. The state is a corporation. Or, a slave master from my perspective.
The only ‘we’ I recognize are my kin. Outside of my kin, everyone else is not ‘we’ – that’s “you” or ‘them’. If you tell me that you get to appropriate my effort, and force my wife to work so that someone else doesn’t have to work I don’t really see how that’s moral and just.
In fact, I think that married, cohabiting people with a single person in the labor force should be taxed FAR LESS than single people, rent seekers and free riders. Why shouldn’t we pay mother’s stay home with kids and household?
You see where I”m going.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-11 10:18:00 UTC
-
AMERICAN FEMALE LUXURY GOODS: 1) Single Motherood 2) Independent Habitation 3) F
AMERICAN FEMALE LUXURY GOODS:
1) Single Motherood
2) Independent Habitation
3) Financial Parasitism
4) Freedom from care, affection and sex to a beta.
5) Privileged legal status
At the expense of:
1) Male savings, asset accumulation and comfortable retirement.
2) Male sale of his productivity in exchange for care and sex.
3) Male quality of life
4) High male death rates from high risk labor
5) High male suicide rates
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-11 07:33:00 UTC
-
SITE DATA AS EVIDENCE OF PROGRESSIVE FALLACIES ABOUT HUMAN NATURE. People are ca
http://hbr.org/product/everything-i-ever-needed-to-know-about-economics-i-learned-from-online-dating/an/11541E-KND-ENGDATING SITE DATA AS EVIDENCE OF PROGRESSIVE FALLACIES ABOUT HUMAN NATURE.
People are catching on.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-11 02:54:00 UTC
-
YOU SO: THE CONSEQUENCES OF ASSORTATIVE MATING Why opposites shouldn’t attract B
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/5bb67aba-8dff-11e3-bbe7-00144feab7de.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Farts_columnists_timharford%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz2smCJo3kUTOLD YOU SO: THE CONSEQUENCES OF ASSORTATIVE MATING
Why opposites shouldn’t attract
By Tim Harford
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-08 18:33:00 UTC
-
UKRAINIAN WISDOM (fun)(true) “There is nothing so useful in the home as a guilty
UKRAINIAN WISDOM
(fun)(true)
“There is nothing so useful in the home as a guilty husband.”
The degree of labor extraction a woman can obtain from a man is determined by BOTH her ability to identify and exploit opportunities for guilt, AND her ability to trade care, affection and sex. The economics of this indicates that over time, in any relationship, a woman will seek to reduce her costs and rely upon guilt as often as possible.
The only male defense then, is to **never feel guilty**. Which is what happens in most relationships. Both parties reduce their efforts until they justify reducing their efforts, and therefore they cause the loss of hope for any reward, and they remain together purely out of the problem of opportunity costs: they aren’t marketable any longer.
We can scientifically demonstrate that women have much higher expectations of men than men of women. I kind of wonder if this is some female genetic bias: that the reason they feel attracted to men is the promise extraction of labor. And males the promise of extraction of sex.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-08 05:12:00 UTC
-
UKRAINIAN LOGIC Man: “He loves her more than she loves him, I think.” Woman: “Of
UKRAINIAN LOGIC
Man: “He loves her more than she loves him, I think.”
Woman: “Of course. He is a man. He must worship his wife.”
Man: “You look beautiful tonight!”
Woman: Scowl. “Does that mean I do not always look beautiful?”
My mom did me a great favor, which was to teach me to compliment women in particular, on something small that they had DONE (rather than their bodies obviously), and that’s turned out to be a very useful habit to get into. Guys like it a lot too. So I compliment the hell out of men on whatever I can. Because almost nobody does. It’s like throwing rose petals into the air. It just makes the world a better place.
I really don’t notice men paying much rude attention to women here. I’m sure it happens but maybe not around the kind of people I associate with. Men and women just talk to each other. And there is a lot of glance-look-flirt subtlety (which is incomprehensible to me). And it’s all pretty honest and direct and free of all that. Women are incredibly forward. I had one woman grab my by the hair and forcibly kiss me. Another just told me her husband was out for the weekend and invited me over. (um..no thanks.) But most of the women just ask you to dance, or start pleasant conversations. Some are a little too demure. And I get in a little trouble because I’m extremely friendly and playful but really not interested in other than just fun.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-07 10:29:00 UTC
-
SOME AUSSIE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME THE NATIONAL FASCINATION WITH GAMBLING? This is
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/02/daily-chart-0WILL SOME AUSSIE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME THE NATIONAL FASCINATION WITH GAMBLING?
This is crazy. Must be a reason for it. Are the game odds worse? Or are aussies just really bad gamblers?
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-05 16:54:00 UTC
-
“HOMO MORALICUS” – ETHICAL AND MORAL STATUS MACHINES Did you ever notice that we
“HOMO MORALICUS” – ETHICAL AND MORAL STATUS MACHINES
Did you ever notice that we human beings don’t need formal logic, mathematics, special tools and equipment, to determine if we think that something is unethical or immoral?
Did you every notice that we don’t need logic, science, tools, equipment or sophisticated devices to perceive changes in our status relative to one another? We are masters of the must subtle change.
Unlike the social world, we need a lot of tools to be able to grasp the real world, and to reduce it’s complexity to some analogy to experience. But we don’t need any such tools to perceive vastly complex status cues and cheating or contribution to the social commons.
Man is a moral animal. We evolved to sense moral and immoral behavior as contributing to or extractive from, our ability to reproduce. And it was an evolutionary necessity that we develop these moral and social intuitions – otherwise we could not distinguish parasitic from cooperative actions. And we would not survive.
Can we sense the economy? No. We have invented the most amazing tool EVER- prices. Prices allow us to sense what we need to do to sustain ourselves by serving others.
We will willingly pay very high costs to stop others from cheating. We will willingly pay very high costs to preserve our status – even resorting to committing suicide rather than experience that loss.
We place higher priority on these things than we do on economics.
Why?
Because it’s reproductively more important that we do.
Man is a moral creature BEFORE he is an economic creature.
And anyone who states otherwise is very likely trying to cover for or justify, some criminal, immoral or unethical action.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-02 10:17:00 UTC