In the dark, visual perception becomes less focused and detailed, leading to more abstract representations. … In three experiments, darkness triggered a more global perceptual and conceptual processing style than did brightness, regardless of whether the darkness was physically manipulated or primed. Additionally, two Implicit Association Tests (IATs) showed that darkness is more strongly associated with high-level construal than with low-level construal. … Eight IATs confirmed the implicit link between darkness and four dimensions [space, time, hypothetically, social] of psychological distance. …
Robin, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the place of "anonymity" in both your near/far and forager/farmer dichotomies.
I'd argue anonymity is far...in the sense that it often accompanies abstracting your counterparties as an amorphous "other." Do we treat people as individuals because they treat us as an individual?
Mass anonymity is a very novel experience evolutionarily...and I would argue that this novelty is why people are so instinctively uncomfortable with arms-length transactions (Pinker has written some on this). I'd say it fits neither within the forager nor the farmer paradigms, and is nonetheless a powerful force that should be factored into your predictions for the far future. Potentially powerful enough to swamp the forager/farmer distinction over the very long-run.
How does this relate to the Lark-Owl division in the human population?
Owls supposedly are less productive, but more creative (I can't for the life of me remember the source, but I'm gonna use as a working premise). If abstract pattern-generation is far, and concrete discrete practical work is near, then we might see the Lark-Owl productivity-creativity gap partially as a side-effect of light differences.
Professor,I thought you always said people were more self-interested in near mode, more altruistic in far mode. If dark is far, shouldn't they be less inclined to cheating in a dictator game?
Dark Is Far
Yes, dark is far predicts that owls are more creative, and larks are better at detail work, which they seem to be.
Robin, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the place of "anonymity" in both your near/far and forager/farmer dichotomies.
I'd argue anonymity is far...in the sense that it often accompanies abstracting your counterparties as an amorphous "other." Do we treat people as individuals because they treat us as an individual?
Mass anonymity is a very novel experience evolutionarily...and I would argue that this novelty is why people are so instinctively uncomfortable with arms-length transactions (Pinker has written some on this). I'd say it fits neither within the forager nor the farmer paradigms, and is nonetheless a powerful force that should be factored into your predictions for the far future. Potentially powerful enough to swamp the forager/farmer distinction over the very long-run.
How does this relate to the Lark-Owl division in the human population?
Owls supposedly are less productive, but more creative (I can't for the life of me remember the source, but I'm gonna use as a working premise). If abstract pattern-generation is far, and concrete discrete practical work is near, then we might see the Lark-Owl productivity-creativity gap partially as a side-effect of light differences.
Near-far isn't the only effect of darkness - it also makes one feel less monitored by others.
I take it you're referencing this study?
http://www.psychologytoday....
Professor,I thought you always said people were more self-interested in near mode, more altruistic in far mode. If dark is far, shouldn't they be less inclined to cheating in a dictator game?