Strategic Altruism
conspicuouscognition.com
Strategic Altruism
1–10 of 16 posts
Re: Strategic Altruism
#2As a leftist, I really liked the essay and the theory. I think understanding that our morality is roooted in our social relations can be empowering, because we control those.
But I hate the title of the book "It's OK to be cynical". Because in my view, the theory argues against cynicism (as present in fatalistic conservative naturalism and capitalist realism). I think the title will be misunderstood, just like "The Selfish Gene" was (IMHO this theory has potential to be a similar hit). So I don't think this is a defense of cynicism any more that selfish gene is a defense of selfishness.
Re: Strategic Altruism
#3Surprised the author didn't coin "fauxltruism".
Re: Strategic Altruism
#4You identify that in fact humans have literally evolved to be cooperative and socially helpful, but you decide this is just "machievallian" and a trick of some kind?
Perhaps it just means that humans are in fact fundamentally and essentially cooperative and kind, because in fact natural selection has pressured us to evolve to be so? (This was Kropotkin's 19th century argument [1] )
The idea that if it's the result of evolution than it's necessarily somehow not "honest" is a weird moralistic narrative that puts the cart before the horse, having already decided that if humans are a product of evolution (whihc of course we are), then that has to mean we're selfish, so any discovery of anything to the contrary just definitionally has to be dishonest.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolut...
Re: Strategic Altruism
#5[dead]
Re: Strategic Altruism
#6As a leftist, I really liked the essay and the theory. I think understanding that our morality is roooted in our social relations can be empowering, because we control those. But I hate the title of the book "It's OK to be cynical". Because in my view, the theory argues against cynicism (as present in fatalistic conservative naturalism and capitalist realism). I think the title will be misunderstood, just like "The S…
[dead]
Re: Strategic Altruism
#7> These traits are surprising from an evolutionary perspective.
Which evolutionary perspective is that? As a _group_ I would expect animals that abandon their young at birth to be outcompeted by those that rear them to weaning.
> We are apes.
Precisely. First time mothers need the help of the troop to know how to raise their children.
> Those who care about abstract ideals—justice, fairness, equality, and so on—should fare especially badly.
The rest seems like a long walk around non-cooperative game theory in different terms.
Re: Strategic Altruism
#8I didn't read this article, but I suggest you read The Social Conquest of Earth by E O Wilson. We are cooperative animals, much like ants. There's nothing Machiavellian about individual ants. It's a great book, a direct response to The Selfish Gene which I find pernicious in how often and how poorly it is quoted.
Re: Strategic Altruism
#9You identify that in fact humans have literally evolved to be cooperative and socially helpful, but you decide this is just "machievallian" and a trick of some kind? Perhaps it just means that humans are in fact fundamentally and essentially cooperative and kind, because in fact natural selection has pressured us to evolve to be so? (This was Kropotkin's 19th century argument [1] ) The idea that if it's the result of…
> You identify that in fact humans have literally evolved to be cooperative and socially helpful, but you decide this is just "machievallian" and a trick of some kind?
Psychopaths trying to reverse engineer regular human behaviour can lead to funny results like this.
Re: Strategic Altruism
#10I didn't read this article, but I suggest you read The Social Conquest of Earth by E O Wilson. We are cooperative animals, much like ants. There's nothing Machiavellian about individual ants. It's a great book, a direct response to The Selfish Gene which I find pernicious in how often and how poorly it is quoted.
Pretty odd comparison as the selfish gene is about gene level incentives, not individual level ones. there's even a chapter devoted to the chromosomal effects that lead to eusociality.
then again maybe the people you're thinking about are focused on the selfish, rather than the gene.