|
|
#81
10-26-2006, 05:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Nice little article introducing neuro-economics
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I've already explained it. There are selective pressures against "righteous indignation over material disparity", and human history is rife with millenia-long examples of enormous wealth disparity. [/ QUOTE ] And my point is that, despite these selection pressures, people still act the wrong way - which suggests that there are constraints. [/ QUOTE ] I explained that. 1) People can be culturally influenced into behaving this way, particularly by 2) convincing them that material disparity is prima facie (oh noes!!1 Latin!!1) evidence of unfair treatment, which people do have an innate sense of righteous indignation over. [/ QUOTE ] But you seem to be accepting that as the obvious answer and not considering the alternative. That's the way you're presenting it. [/ QUOTE ] No, I've considered the alternative and reject it. If human beings had an innate, biologically based "righteous indignation over material disparity" then civilizations like ancient India's, with rigorous caste systems where one class lives in splendor while other classes live as poor subsistence farmers, would not exist. It would be quite easy for the millions of poor to depose and loot the very few rich, as can easily be seen when cultural reasons arise that lead to just such events (like, for example, the Enlightenment and the English, French, and American Revolutions, and the advent of Marxist socialism and the Russian Revolution). 
|
|
#82
10-26-2006, 05:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nice little article introducing neuro-economics
[ QUOTE ]
The mere fact that a tiny ruling class could live in unbelievable splendor at the expense of entire populations living in abject poverty, as has occured again and again throughout history, belies this theory. It's entirely culturally dependent. [/ QUOTE ] Notice that many people in all areas have always been people who are opossed to and enraged by the existensce of a class that lives in splendor while others live in abject poverty, regardless of what set of social and cultural norms were prevalent in that area at the time. Human males hate to be dominated, and, when it is easy to do so, they will attempt to form coalitions to avoid hierarchy. I'm simply going to assert that you are wrong about human behavior for now, and suggest that you this book , or at least read a review of it (a googled one is probably better than the amazon ones). Edit: Here's a short and good review of the "Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior
|
|
#83
10-26-2006, 05:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nice little article introducing neuro-economics
[ QUOTE ]
If human beings had an innate, biologically based "righteous indignation over material disparity" then civilizations like ancient India's, with rigorous caste systems where one class lives in splendor while other classes live as poor subsistence farmers, would not exist. It would be quite easy for the millions of poor to depose and loot the very few rich, [/ QUOTE ] THe problem with this argument is that you are presupposing that human beings act as collective actors as opposed to individuals. While it would be true that if their was no such thing as a free rider problem it would be very easy for the poor to despose the rich, given the existensce of collective action problems, a poor person cannot suddenly decide that all poor people are going to rise up and overthrow the wealthy, but only whether or not they as an individual will or will not try and overthrow the wealthy. However, they are aware of the fact that they themselves cannot single-handedly overthrow it...so look at what the results are. In situations where the free rider problem isn't very important (e.g. small hunter gather socieities where everybody knows everybody else and can use disaproval and reciprocity to avoid the free rider problem), hierarchies are overthrown.
|
|
#84
10-26-2006, 06:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nice little article introducing neuro-economics
[ QUOTE ]
While it would be true that if their was no such thing as a free rider problem it would be very easy for the poor to despose the rich, given the existensce of collective action problems, a poor person cannot suddenly decide that all poor people are going to rise up and overthrow the wealthy, but only whether or not they as an individual will or will not try and overthrow the wealthy. However, they are aware of the fact that they themselves cannot single-handedly overthrow it...so look at what the results are. [/ QUOTE ] Disproof by example: the Bolshevik and French Revolutions.
|
|
#85
10-26-2006, 06:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nice little article introducing neuro-economics
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If human beings had an innate, biologically based "righteous indignation over material disparity" then civilizations like ancient India's, with rigorous caste systems where one class lives in splendor while other classes live as poor subsistence farmers, would not exist. It would be quite easy for the millions of poor to depose and loot the very few rich, [/ QUOTE ] THe problem with this argument is that you are presupposing that human beings act as collective actors as opposed to individuals. While it would be true that if their was no such thing as a free rider problem it would be very easy for the poor to despose the rich, given the existensce of collective action problems, a poor person cannot suddenly decide that all poor people are going to rise up and overthrow the wealthy, but only whether or not they as an individual will or will not try and overthrow the wealthy. However, they are aware of the fact that they themselves cannot single-handedly overthrow it...so look at what the results are. In situations where the free rider problem isn't very important (e.g. small hunter gather socieities where everybody knows everybody else and can use disaproval and reciprocity to avoid the free rider problem), hierarchies are overthrown. [/ QUOTE ] If everyone in society were seething with an innate righteous indignation over the material disparity between their millions and the few elites, rebellion would be started no sooner than the populace had finished their evening brew.
|
|
#86
10-26-2006, 06:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nice little article introducing neuro-economics
[ QUOTE ]
If everyone in society were seething with an innate righteous indignation over the material disparity between their millions and the few elites, rebellion would be started no sooner than the populace had finished their evening brew. [/ QUOTE ] First, it's not everyone (evolution does not work in an "everyone or no-one" manner), and second, you are wrong. Just because somebody is enraged or rather upset about something does not mean they are going to do something about it, because of collective action problems. You can refuse to believe this, but it is obviously true. For example, 2/3 of the people in the U.S believe that income disparities are "too high" in the U.S (despite all the social norms that exist in favor of disparities of income and attempts by the powerful to justify income disparity), which is amongst the lowest if not the lowest % of any industrialized nation. Are 2/3 of the people doing something about this? No.
|
|
#87
10-26-2006, 06:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nice little article introducing neuro-economics
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If everyone in society were seething with an innate righteous indignation over the material disparity between their millions and the few elites, rebellion would be started no sooner than the populace had finished their evening brew. [/ QUOTE ] First, it's not everyone (evolution does not work in an "everyone or no-one" manner), and second, you are wrong. Just because somebody is enraged about something does not mean they are going to do something about it, because of collective action problems. You can refuse to believe this, but it is obviously true. For example, 2/3 of the people in the U.S believe that income disparities are "too high" in the U.S, which is amongst the lowest if not the lowest % of any industrialized nation. Are 2/3 of the people doing something about this? NO. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Disproof by example: the Bolshevik and French Revolutions. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#88
10-26-2006, 06:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nice little article introducing neuro-economics
I don't know what you are trying to "disprove" here (my view? Borodog's?)...The American revolution was also a revolution against hierarchy. The free rider problem is occasionally avoided even in larger scale societies and I'm not sure why (it's something that I suddenly plan to study...I imagine that if the idignation gets strong enough, that is, if non-instrumental reasons for acting get powerful enough, a movement will get started, where, if strong enough, more and more people will get involved in denouncing the status quo and arguing for change...-Olson's theory predicts, for example, that more people will vote in close elections (which is true)...If people have good reason to believe that a social movement will be sucessful they are probably ceterius paribus more likely to join in that movement)...but in most times and places collective action problems prevent people from getting many things that they want.
|
|
#89
10-26-2006, 06:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nice little article introducing neuro-economics
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what you are trying to "disprove" here [/ QUOTE ] Your statement that the freerider problem prevents class revolutions in large populations. [ QUOTE ] The American revolution was also a revolution against hierarchy. The free rider problem is occasionally avoided and I'm not sure why (it's something that I suddenly plan to study...I imagine that if the idignation gets strong enough, that is, if non-instrumental reasons for acting gets powerful enough, a movement will get started, where, if strong enough, more and more people will get involved)...but in most times and places collective action problems prevent people from getting many things that they want. [/ QUOTE ] You just demonstrated that a lack of activism shows that they don't want these things very much. I would muchly prefer that my boss gives me the money out of the cash register. I'm not going to actually try to rob him, though, unless I'm actually screwed and willing to deal with/don't care about the reprocussions. Same with revolutions. Excessive oppression results in revolution, as we've seen in the last two centuries. The reason the peasants aren't revolting like they did centuries ago is because they're not being oppressed enough to warrant any action...at which case we have to ask, just how bad is the problem if they don't want to do anything about it?
|
|
#90
10-26-2006, 06:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nice little article introducing neuro-economics
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If everyone in society were seething with an innate righteous indignation over the material disparity between their millions and the few elites, rebellion would be started no sooner than the populace had finished their evening brew. [/ QUOTE ] First, it's not everyone (evolution does not work in an "everyone or no-one" manner), and second, you are wrong. Just because somebody is enraged or rather upset about something does not mean they are going to do something about it, because of collective action problems. You can refuse to believe this, but it is obviously true. For example, 2/3 of the people in the U.S believe that income disparities are "too high" in the U.S (despite all the social norms that exist in favor of disparities of income and attempts by the powerful to justify income disparity), which is amongst the lowest if not the lowest % of any industrialized nation. Are 2/3 of the people doing something about this? No. [/ QUOTE ] They are doing something about it. They're voting themselves the property of others, because people like you have convinced them it's morally right.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
