In fairness, you did some raise some good points as well, and I'll address those -
The OP describes a phenomenon that everyone knows about.
Indeed. And yet, one many people can't explain. Which is why it's worth thinking about.
The OP then suggests that "stupidity" (a word left undefined) and "malice" aren't good explanations.
I defined stupidity in the post as "impl[ying] poor judgment," meaning going through a conscious faulty thought process. I could have been more explicit about this definition at the expense of pace and brevity, by making the post more heavy and harder for casual readers to digest, without adding significantly more clarity. I suppose it could have been defined explicitly, but I don't think the piece becomes stronger if I do. Rather, I think it becomes weaker for the vast majority of potential readers.
(How did "malice" ever seem like a good explanation in the first place?)
Some of this behavior certainly seems mean-spirited and malicious to people. Many examples available if you honestly can't think of any.
A single word is never a good explanation for an aspect of human psychology.
True, yes, but you must consider audience. There's a reason, unfortunately, why popular magazines are more popular than science journals. Style does matter, which always must be a consideration if you're tackling a complex theme and want your piece to be accessible to a wide variety of people.
The OP then suggests that the "egalitarian instinct" is an explanation. The OP gives little explanation for this explanation,
It has been written about extensively. Again, this wasn't a PhD thesis. In fact, it's been written about extensively here on LessWrong before, notably "Tsuyoku vs. the Egalitarian Instinct" by Eliezer. I suppose I did assume some familiarity with the material that other readers might not have, and could have cited that as relevant prerequisite reading.
no mention of other possible explanations (no acknowledgment of the existence of other possible explanations),
Again, because I was formulating a hypothesis, not writing a thesis.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply and elaborate on your thoughts, but there might be a difference in goals and expectations here. I've attempted to write a series of observations, reason through them, and come up for one explanation for a not-fully-understood phenomenon.
It's already stimulated some good discussion. I'm happy with that result and it has, thus far, done what I intended. I think a longer, weightier, more formal post would have been less effective at the intended goal of putting out observations, a hypothesis, and stimulating some discussion.
I didn't pick up that the article was "formulating a hypothesis". Did the article indicate that this is what it was doing? Perhaps I missed it.
Now that I do know, from your comment, that the article was doing that, I have to say I'm a bit surprised; I didn't expect to see that sort of article in the main section. Then again, I'm no expert on Less Wrong so maybe that sort of thing is not so uncommon.
Anyone who has decided to strike off the mainstream path has experienced this: Strong admonitions and warnings against what they were doing, and pressures not do it.
It doesn’t really matter what it is you’re trying to change. If you’re trying to become a nondrinker in a drinking culture, if you’re trying to quit eating junk food, if you’re trying to become a vegetarian or otherwise have a different diet, this will have happened to you.
If you decide to pursue a nontraditional career path (artist, entrepreneur, etc), you will have experienced this.
If you try to live a different lifestyle than the people around you – for instance, rising each day at 4:30AM and sleeping early instead of partying, you will have experienced this.
People will pressure and cajole you in many different ways to keep doing it the old way. Almost always, it will be phrased as though they’re looking after your best interest.
The specifics will vary. It could be phrased as cautious prudence – “What if your business doesn’t succeed and you don’t have a college degree? That could be really bad for you.”
It could be phrased as desiring for you to have the best way in life – “Go on, live a little, a beer won’t kill you.”
It could be encouraging you to do whatever you’ve set out to change without any specific reasoning at all.
I used to wonder why this is so common. Are people stupid? Or malicious? They must be one of those two.
If someone has a preference that has an expected value of a better life for them and they really want to live that preference, then why would someone that’s in their peer group or family want to discourage them? Is it because they have different calculations of what’s valuable, even when pursuing obvious no-brainer decisions like quitting the lowest quality junk foods? Is it because they’re malicious and want to hold you back and tear you down?
I think now – neither. Rather, I think it’s an uncritical, unexamined form of desire for equality.
The egalitarian instinct is strong in humans. Most people want others to do and act broadly similar to them. It’s almost an affront if you don’t live the normal way – do you think you’re better than them? No matter how subtle, gracious, or modest you try to be about it, it makes people feel bad if you’re breaking from the egalitarian way.
There’s plenty of research on this. High performers getting punished or shunned.
The French in the title is probably wrong (you’re welcome to correct it if you’re fluent), but I think it has a nice ring to it – Egalite Irréfléchi. Unthinking egalitarianism.
There’s a place for some egalitarianism in the world. A desire to bring others up, to open opportunities for others, to decentralize knowledge, to make resources available for people who want to use them.
But that’s a thoughtful egalitarianism, that examines how we can get everyone to be better. An unthinking egalitarianism generally promotes the status quo and punishes people who strive to do better.
But it’s not stupid or malicious. Stupidity implies poor judgment and malice implies poor motivations. Rather, the egalitarian instinct appears to be natural to most people. Pressures on you to conform (even when conforming is bad for your health and life) are not made out of stupidity or malicious intent, but rather from a natural instinctual drive towards equality that was never carefully examined.