Against Admirable Activities, Again
When my kids were young and played a new game, the pattern was clear: If they won, they liked that game and wanted to play it again. If they lost, they didn't like that game. Tyler Cowen once told me how this generalizes; the essential question of ideology is: who should be admired? We tend to think it would be good for the world if policies and culture tilted a bit to more admire the activities that tend to make us look good.
Such disagreements, however, shouldn't distract us from the fact that societies often agree quite a bit on what kinds of activities they admire. For example, Frank and Miller's instinctive fear that the love of stuff obtained from distant soulless others corrupts one's soul is ancient. Greek historian Herodotus ~430BC:
The Egyptians are divided into seven distinct classes—these are, the priests, the warriors, the cowherds, the swineherds, the tradesmen, the interpreters, and the boatmen. … Whether the Greeks borrowed from the Egyptians their notions about trade, like so many others, I cannot say for certain. I have remarked that the Thracians, the Scyths, the Persians, the Lydians, and almost all other barbarians, hold the citizens who practice trades, and their children, in less repute than the rest, while they esteem as noble those who keep aloof from handicrafts, and especially honour such as are given wholly to war. These ideas prevail throughout the whole of Greece, particularly among the Lacedaemonians. Corinth is the place where mechanics are least despised.
I'm not exactly sure why traders have been so consistently disliked, though I suspect it has something to do with loyalty signaling. But I am pretty sure that while societies consistently prefer to encourage more of the activities they admire, such choices often make them on net worse off. I said two years ago:
Admirable activities help us to develop and show our admirable qualities. But since admiration is in part relative, my looking more admirable comes in part at the expense of others looking less admirable. So there is in part an arms race quality to admirable activities, which suggests we do too much of them from a global point of view.
Unfortunately, our minds were not built from a global point of view. We are instead built to admire admirable activities, in addition to admiring the people who do them. We admire drawing, singing, sporting, writing, joking, helping, and so on, and we support policies that encourage these activities. We like our families, churches, clubs, companies, cities, and nations to subsidize such activities. Parents push their kids toward more admirable activities, such as music over video games. And nations subsidize science, sport, and arts that will impress other nations.
This support urge can make evolutionary sense. A group that coordinates to help its most noticed members look more admirable may be more admired as a group, to the benefit of all group members. But at a global level we all suffer from admiring admirable activities, much like trees suffer by working to grow tall enough to see the sun past other trees.
Yes trade and traders are often not admired, and so societies often discourage trade. But if we economists know anything it is that overall societies tend to hurt, not help, themselves by discouraging trade.
Robin, is there some reason we can't both love some art, and love some artists? I see no reason it can't be both. Much of the art I like I value because seeing or hearing it elicits emotions. If I'm in a groove, there's no need for more convoluted explanation than liking being in a groove. Similarly, if I'm considering the value after the experience, I'll place most of the value on the groove. If I'm hearing a performance where a musician adds more to the work, I'll see additional value the musician.
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?
When my kids were young and played a new game, the pattern was clear: If they won, they liked that game and wanted to play it again.
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.