= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on [SEQ RERUN] Zut Allais! - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (26)
Okay, so, how did this survive evolution?
There is variation in the population over tolerance for risk. If the preference for certainty is detrimental in achieving goals, then those with less attachment to certainty, ceteris paribus, would have better overall reproductive success than the ones with greater attachment. Accordingly, a pro-certainty bias would be selected against.
So, what's the reason it didn't get selected out of the population?
I observe that in my experience, acting confident is highly correlated with both a preference for certainty and sexual attractiveness. That might have something to do with it. Peacock tails aren't especially adaptive, either.
I suspect acting confidently functions as a costly signal that you do in fact have good information, which in tern can signal intelligence and/or contacts in high level places.