AlexU comments on Why Support the Underdog? - Less Wrong

35 Post author: Yvain 05 April 2009 12:01AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (86)

Comments (86)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: AlexU 05 April 2009 12:54:45AM *  3 points [-]

In a confrontation between two parties, it's more likely that the stronger one will pose the greater threat to you. By supporting the underdog and hoping for a fluke victory, you're increasing your own survival odds. It seems we're probably evolved to seek parity -- where we then have the best chance of dominating -- instead of seeking dominant leaders and siding with them, which is a far more complex and less certain process.

Am I missing something? Also, it would be interesting to see whether females and males have the same reactions toward the overdog.

Comment author: steven0461 05 April 2009 12:58:28AM 2 points [-]

The problem with things like "seeking parity" is that your actions play only a small part in determining the outcome of the conflict, whereas your actions play a much larger part in determining consequences to your post-conflict status.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 05 April 2009 05:57:44AM 6 points [-]

Not if others also side with the underdog, and punish those who side with the overdog - perhaps by viewing them as "craven" or "toadying" and treating them accordingly. People seem to have an odd respect for supervillains, but do we respect the henchmen?

Comment author: nescius 05 April 2009 10:09:56PM 0 points [-]

I also wonder about possible sex differences. Some information is available:

The Appeal Of The Underdog:

There was no significant effect, t(69) = 1.30, p = .19, though caution is warranted because of imbalanced samples. In fact, across all four studies reported in this article, there were no sex differences on the main dependent variables (all ps > .19).

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit