I’ll start with genes but then go wildly off-topic, or rather, I’ll start off-topic and then get to what I really want to say. An updated version of the paper on natural selection in the US is here. It’s now coauthored with Tobias Edwards, a PhD student at the University of Minnesota (hire him). I’ve written about the paper
Gah, my eyes go wide when I see these inchoate fears that I nurse explained through such diverse examples, then pulled together into a simple graph. Thanks for helping me bring these thoughts into forms that can interact with the rest of my thinking.
In your mind, what are the realistic hopes for creating new cultures? (Feel free to reference your book; I have a copy.)
I am extremely uncertain about that. I am skeptical about projects like this one https://www.amazon.com/Pragmatists-Guide-Crafting-Religion-Demographic/dp/B0BSJ5SXK2, although the Collinses seem like very interesting people... my sense is that it is hard to create subcultures deliberately. They arise organically from people with a mission. (Thought experiment: suppose the Seventh Day Adventists, rather than actually believing that God would return on the 7th day, had thought "you know, we need to create a new religion and we really need something that will gin people up and create a sense of urgency...")
As a person who's been part of the subculture-creation game before, hard agree! Though I think my skepticism for what they're doing is measured by my thrill of actually seeing some smart people — by which I mean "people who have sifted through the insights from social science, and who have noticed the skulls" — take on this challenge publicly.
(Even in those moments when I'm borderline-incredulous at something Malcolm says, I find myself nodding in respect for the fact that the two of them have taken as their hairy, audacious goal "move humanity to the next stage of civilization".)
Thought provoking and insightful, as ever. Recently read a history of the Jesuits, and there's a constant struggle in the Order between the mystical/ecstatic and obedience/regulation - freedom vs structure. There are things that can only be experienced by discarding rationality and conscientiousness, and that idea is deeply embedded in the New Testament. It feels like a reaction against it explains the strength of the revulsion some atheists feel regarding Christianity. But in the context of the Jesuits, the two opposed impulses seem intertwined. I suppose, with reference to your essay, you might say that sometimes freedom doesn't just mean ease and shallowness (mystics don't live lives of thoughtless luxury), and that it has its own strength that order can't replicate - but that those responsible for the structures that lead people to a fierce desire to discard structure always fear the disintegrative power of that impulse.
Interesting write-up! When people lament the "decline of western civ" or that society is evolving into an idocracy (whether in recent times or going back centuries) it's often based mostly on vibesm. You make a much more nuanced argument. I wonder though, how sure can be that the competence payoffs have declined enough to matter? So much any given individuals fortunes - or lack thereof - are a matter of good or bad luck, even with good genes.
I recall an older espisode of Sam Harris' Making Sense Podcast where he interviews an author of a book about the positive aspects of honor culture.(https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/126-defense-honor) Seems like this is the sort of thing you're talking about here? Everything has tradeoffs. We rightfuly recognize the many ways modern culture, society is superior to older/primitive practices like honor culture. But even honor has its positive virtues like courage and solidarity, which in turn also has positive externalities.
Well, luck will always matter. But 200 years ago bad luck - or incompetence - would mean an early death. We are now much better at protecting the unfortunate.
Strikes me as wonderfully sociable form of culture. My child is nearly six, has no extracurricular, ideally will choose something that could be enjoyed long term.
(Sorry for the weird question, gotta justify my time reading posts somehow)
Gah, my eyes go wide when I see these inchoate fears that I nurse explained through such diverse examples, then pulled together into a simple graph. Thanks for helping me bring these thoughts into forms that can interact with the rest of my thinking.
In your mind, what are the realistic hopes for creating new cultures? (Feel free to reference your book; I have a copy.)
I am extremely uncertain about that. I am skeptical about projects like this one https://www.amazon.com/Pragmatists-Guide-Crafting-Religion-Demographic/dp/B0BSJ5SXK2, although the Collinses seem like very interesting people... my sense is that it is hard to create subcultures deliberately. They arise organically from people with a mission. (Thought experiment: suppose the Seventh Day Adventists, rather than actually believing that God would return on the 7th day, had thought "you know, we need to create a new religion and we really need something that will gin people up and create a sense of urgency...")
As a person who's been part of the subculture-creation game before, hard agree! Though I think my skepticism for what they're doing is measured by my thrill of actually seeing some smart people — by which I mean "people who have sifted through the insights from social science, and who have noticed the skulls" — take on this challenge publicly.
(Even in those moments when I'm borderline-incredulous at something Malcolm says, I find myself nodding in respect for the fact that the two of them have taken as their hairy, audacious goal "move humanity to the next stage of civilization".)
Thought provoking and insightful, as ever. Recently read a history of the Jesuits, and there's a constant struggle in the Order between the mystical/ecstatic and obedience/regulation - freedom vs structure. There are things that can only be experienced by discarding rationality and conscientiousness, and that idea is deeply embedded in the New Testament. It feels like a reaction against it explains the strength of the revulsion some atheists feel regarding Christianity. But in the context of the Jesuits, the two opposed impulses seem intertwined. I suppose, with reference to your essay, you might say that sometimes freedom doesn't just mean ease and shallowness (mystics don't live lives of thoughtless luxury), and that it has its own strength that order can't replicate - but that those responsible for the structures that lead people to a fierce desire to discard structure always fear the disintegrative power of that impulse.
Interesting write-up! When people lament the "decline of western civ" or that society is evolving into an idocracy (whether in recent times or going back centuries) it's often based mostly on vibesm. You make a much more nuanced argument. I wonder though, how sure can be that the competence payoffs have declined enough to matter? So much any given individuals fortunes - or lack thereof - are a matter of good or bad luck, even with good genes.
I recall an older espisode of Sam Harris' Making Sense Podcast where he interviews an author of a book about the positive aspects of honor culture.(https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/126-defense-honor) Seems like this is the sort of thing you're talking about here? Everything has tradeoffs. We rightfuly recognize the many ways modern culture, society is superior to older/primitive practices like honor culture. But even honor has its positive virtues like courage and solidarity, which in turn also has positive externalities.
Well, luck will always matter. But 200 years ago bad luck - or incompetence - would mean an early death. We are now much better at protecting the unfortunate.
What age did you start singing?
Why?
Strikes me as wonderfully sociable form of culture. My child is nearly six, has no extracurricular, ideally will choose something that could be enjoyed long term.
(Sorry for the weird question, gotta justify my time reading posts somehow)
Take them to sing! Never too early.