6 Comments

Yes, dark is far predicts that owls are more creative, and larks are better at detail work, which they seem to be.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Near-far isn't the only effect of darkness - it also makes one feel less monitored by others.

Expand full comment

I take it you're referencing this study?

http://www.psychologytoday....

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment