You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ShardPhoenix comments on New York Times on Arguments and Evolution [link] - Less Wrong Discussion

7 Post author: Nic_Smith 14 June 2011 06:12PM

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

Comments (13)

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

Comment author: ShardPhoenix 17 June 2011 02:36:38AM *  1 point [-]

I'm not saying I feel like reasoning is for truth-seeking, I'm saying that to some significant extent it has to be - like Eugene_Nier says, even if there's a lot of noise and social posturing involved, on average it has to bottom out in truth somewhere, else why would we evolve to put effort into something worthless? If it was purely about social dominance, why talk at all instead of sticking to fighting/physical displays?

edit: Although I'm not sure how much purely social content can be built on top of a little physical truth - maybe a lot.