Isn’t there plenty of support for an alternative argument: that we value most those activities which elicit an emotional response? That we are using them to prime, stimulate, and experience emotions?

Another consideration: could admiring trading reduce our trading effectiveness? Wouldn’t the thinking associated with admiration make us more likely to trust the trader, and be taken advantage of? Disliking the middlemen can be taken too far, but it’s also beneficial if our distaste leads us to strive to eliminate them, or make them as lean as possible.

Vichy, I don’t know of any evidence that supports primitive hunter-gatherers being any happier, less stressed, or more free for leisure. Do you know of any?

Plenty of evidence of violence, from Cro-Magnon on, has been found as marks on bones, lodged flint points, etc. I’d be willing to make the claim that just general trends of reduced violence over time are enough to suggest that happiness has increased overall. Likely, stress too. Gathering meals is long, hard work. If you’ve ever picked wild berries, such as huckleberries, consider how much time that takes and how much you get. Now consider that you’re picking them at a time of food abundance. There’s good reason we specialized gathering and hunting until they became agriculture.

Phil, interesting point. I think that meshes well with my explanation, but what’s your take?

Reminds me of how teacher evaluations tend to be evaluations of student’s own performance. Teacher evaluations are anonymous, but you can see how the instructor’s average score rises and falls with the class average. If I could peer into the data, I suspect there would be a nontrivial correlation between individual student grades and their teacher evaluations.

Most societies control access to all desirable occupations. High-status jobs are available only to people from high-status families. Only those of high birth and/or wealth could be knights, much as today, only those who have gone to Harvard can get the high-paying jobs on Wall Street. Craftsman positions were often controlled by guilds, by inheritance, or by master craftsmen. Trading has for a thousand years been the best occupation available to social outcasts. (Banking is only available to well-off social outcasts.)

So it may be that people who were looked down on became traders, rather than the other way around.

Societies which discourage trade and commerce are not necessarily hurting themselves, IE impeding the actual sense of well-being of their members. What they are hurting, though, is their competitiveness and sustainability. Because if you make 35 cents a day, the guy who can pay you $10 an hour is going to be able to reshape the cultural environment with some efficacy.

…tend to hurt…
But what are the metrics?

Didn’t the discussion in Capitas Vs. Per Capita show that the metrics are unclear?

Or: economies (whatever that means) tend to hurt themselves (whatever that means) when they discourage trade (whatever that means).

The above is akin to saying that if economists know anything it is they know their model.

Does that mean your evaluation/advice is merely targeted at people who don’t actually value art, singing, sport, etc.? That is: “Don’t admire artists if you don’t value the production of art!” Good advice, as far as it goes, but I assumed you were going for something a little less obvious…?

is this that hard? cannot any adult design learning opportunities?

or should life be fully reactive? as in, oh, cr*p, did Christmas come again?