= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
matabele comments on [SEQ RERUN] The Comedy of Behaviorism - 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 (15)
Wait, what?
On what basis do you infer that this is the only possible reason?
On the basis that if one makes definite assertions, responses are more likely :-)
My question: Why is it an evolutionary advantage to betray our lies with behavioural clues? Until challenged with an alternative reason that makes any sense, my assertion remains the only possible reason.
I notice that when mammals hide from predators, or stealthily approach prey, they frequently betray their location and presence. For example, they frequently vibrate the air, radiate heat, and exude various chemicals, which some animals can sense.
To ask why it's an evolutionary advantage to betray our location with such cues is to ask a question so wrong that the attempt to answer it will systematically lead me away from understanding what's going on.
Now, it may be that lying is not analogous; that there really is a selected-for predisposition to be caught out in our lies, as you imply with your question. And if so, asking where that selection pressure comes from is a useful question.
But that's a significant "if."
These signals appear to be unavoidable. When we lie, however, many of our behavioural signals appear to be avoidable: for example.
There is no dispute that we betray our own lies; but why do we betray our lies?
Those who are unable to lie (e.g., because of involuntary behavioral cues) can credibly signal when they are telling the truth (through a lack of those involuntary cues); those who are good liars have no such credible signal. Related.