Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

hg00 comments on The map of cognitive biases, errors and obstacles affecting judgment and management of global catastrophic risks - Less Wrong

3 Post author: turchin 16 July 2016 12:11PM

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

Comments (63)

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

Comment author: hg00 20 July 2016 10:23:12AM *  0 points [-]

Their reproductive success is conditional on not being dead and in evolutionary terms that condition ceased to be very important only a moment ago.

It's still pretty important, it's not like modern homicide rates and ancestral homicide rates are totally incomparable. Even if you don't get killed, gangsters are at risk of going to prison, and I hear prison is not a good place to meet girls.

But there's a lot of room between "weak, emotionally-manipulated, directionless sheep" and "violent enough to be at risk of getting killed or jailed". And it's a puzzle, to me at least, that this middle zone gets filled so rarely nowadays. Most traits are distributed on a bell curve, and one would expect to see the same for this trait, with most men having some mid level of "firefighter masculinity" that would be enough to impress women but not so much to be at serious risk of homicide or imprisonment. This doesn't seem to be the case, and I offered some possible explanations above. (Insofar as there's a two-humped distribution, my guess is that the humps are based (a) easy access to streaming pornography during childhood or (b) need to overcompensate for deep insecurities through hypermasculine show behaviors. BTW, it's incorrect to think that gangsters are secure in themselves.)

Comment author: Lumifer 20 July 2016 03:03:57PM 0 points [-]

it's a puzzle, to me at least, that this middle zone gets filled so rarely nowadays

Where do you get your sample from? Do you think that your conclusion applies to, say, rural Idaho? or to blue-collar working men?