whpearson comments on Typical Mind and Politics - Less Wrong

46 Post author: Yvain 12 June 2009 12:28PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (128)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: whpearson 13 June 2009 10:53:00AM 1 point [-]

Thieves are livable with. People who steal your livelihood and women less so. Think pick pockets vs tribal warfare. Even burglary is minor compared to that.

Comment author: komponisto 14 June 2009 02:15:09AM *  0 points [-]

Thieves are livable with. People who steal your livelihood and women less so.

This doesn't happen in cities?

(When I wrote "thieves etc", the "etc" was specifically intended to avoid limiting the scope of reference to pickpockets, and instead to indicate the general problem of "other humans wanting what you have".)

Think pick pockets vs tribal warfare

Ever heard of gang violence?

But let's leave the specific examples of bad things aside, and focus on the general claim you have made. You have said that human threats are more of a problem where there are fewer humans than where there are more humans. Surely you have to concede that that is implausible, or at least counterintuitive, on its face.

Comment author: jimrandomh 14 June 2009 02:22:35AM 1 point [-]

You have said that human threats are more of a problem where there are fewer humans than where there are are more humans. Surely you have to concede that that is implausible, or at least counterintuitive, on its face.

Cities mean a higher density of criminals and targets, in equal proportion, so all else equal the probability of being targeted should remain about the same; but it also means authorities and witnesses are closer. In a city, you can scream for help and expect people to come; in a rural setting, you can't.

Comment author: komponisto 14 June 2009 02:56:46AM 1 point [-]

Cities mean a higher density of criminals and targets, in equal proportion, so all else equal the probability of being targeted should remain about the same;

The more people you come across, the more likely you are to run into someone bad; and this doesn't even take into account what can happen when people -- thus in particular bad people -- get together in groups.

It's possible that the nice-ifying effects of large populations on human behavior could cancel out the bad effects. But it's not obvious that they do -- and it's certainly not obvious that the former exceed the latter. The default presumption would be that people who live in ancestral-type environments face a variety of threats, both human and natural; and that as people move into larger population centers, the threats they face become less natural and more human.