whpearson comments on Existential Risk and Public Relations - Less Wrong

36 Post author: multifoliaterose 15 August 2010 07:16AM

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

Comments (613)

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

Comment author: SilasBarta 16 August 2010 10:20:41PM *  4 points [-]

Hm, I didn't get that out of timtyler's post (just voted up). He didn't seem to be saying, "Each and every person interested in this topic is doing it to signal status", but rather, "Hey, our minds aren't wired up to care about this stuff unless maybe it signals" -- which doesn't seem all that objectionable.

Comment author: whpearson 16 August 2010 10:39:32PM 3 points [-]

DNDV (did not down vote). Sure signalling has a lot to do with it, the type of signalling he suggests doesn't ring true with what I have see of most peoples behaviour. We do not seem to be great proselytisers most of the time.

The ancient circuits that x-risk triggers in me are those of feeling important, of being a player in the tribes future with the benefits that that entails. Of course I won't get the women if I eventually help save humanity, but my circuits that trigger on "important issues" don't seem to know that. In short by trying to deal with important issues I am trying to signal a raised status.

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 16 August 2010 10:55:35PM 0 points [-]

Ok, so people don't like the implication of either the evo-psych argument, or the signaling argument. They both seem plausible, if speculative.