You exist now, with some health, wealth, and connections, and you therefore have some influence. You might use this influence for immediate personal gain, or you might try to influence a wider universe, including a distant future. And to the extent that you influence a wider universe, your actions will tend to favor some types and groups over others, and will often be seen as so favoring. So, who should you favor?
Feels maybe im stupid, but i feel like this logic leads to being against economic freedom and equal rights in front of the law?
I certainly get the impression that heavily conservative peopleand the far right use this logic heavily: a relative of mine would likely read this and say “yes, and thats why we must deport X group”
Intriguing post, Robin. You've brought to light a fundamental tension between the desire to be a benevolent, impartial force for good and the evolutionary pressures that can penalize such impartiality. I appreciate the nuance you've captured in this analysis, and it certainly gives me food for thought.
You make good points, but the question then becomes, which groups should a rational person favor? Should they favor whatever groups they happen to find themselves in? Not necessarily - some of those groups might be opposed to some of the values of the rational person. Or some of those groups might evolve their aims over time to become opposed to some of the values of the rational person. Consider Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy:
"In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals that the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely."
This suggests that if you dedicate yourself to an org that at present seems aligned with your values, over time it will evolve into something that is not aligned with anything but its own power. And what reason do you have to devote your life to promoting a future group that will be aligned with nothing but its own power? Not your power, either - the future group's power, after you're dead and after it is no longer aligned with its present values.
Therefore, a rational person should devote themselves to a group that somehow is immune or at least resistant to Pournelle's Iron Law. What kind of group would that be?
Logically, I have a hard time disagreeing, but morally this feels like "Might is Right" will win out in the end, unless some strategic, Machiavellian influence is exerted in the direction of the 'weaker' side of a battle. So if what you really believe to be important is diversity of thought, then picking the losing side might be the best bet.
When survival of all is at stake, people unify to face the danger. When all factions share a common fate, factionalism and infighting risk losing the larger war.
FWIW, Machiavelli came to the same conclusion as you have here, for different reasons. "A prince is also much respected but he is either a true friend or a downright enemy. In other words, when he declares himself without any reservation in favour of one party against the other. This will always be more favourable than remaining neutral. ... It will always be more advantageous for you to declare yourself and to wage a vigorous war. If you do not declare yourself, you will invariably fall prey to the winner, which will be to the pleasure and satisfaction of the loser, and you will have nothing nor anyone to protect or to shelter you." (his point being that even if you lose, the loser will shelter you as a loyal ally, but if you stay neutral all sides will consider you untrustworthy).
Summary: helping ingroup and outgroup equally may lead to less net help reaching ingroup than helping only ingroup.
Is other news, giving all your money to charity may leave you broke.
Isn't this just another one of those negative-sum equilibria that take conscious work to *avoid* (let alone we forget they exist). More interesting IMO how the descendants in the evolved system might have a very different pov on what constitutes the co-evolved network. Had women's suffrage not been adopted a century ago, I might have held roughly double the political power. Yet I don't feel like my male ancestors hung me out to dry. Do you feel different?
I’m not sure something needs to support its associated evolutionary systems to survive. It just needs to not destroy them. Eg a virus can survive long-term only if it doesn’t kill its hosts too efficiently.
The “help everyone equally” strategy is a particular brand of virtue signaling, which seems to have strong evolutionary support. In particular, it has the advantage of resonating with our sense of fairness, like equality before the law. Also, it counts as an ideology, which fits into your framework - it can survive long-term, is more likely to thrive if we devote resources to it.
While neutrality might seem like the moral high ground, it often results in limited influence. Your insights into how group dynamics and loyalty play a significant role in cementing one's influence are both fascinating and counterintuitive. Realising as much challenges us to re-evaluate our beliefs and forces us to confront the idea that, in a world marked by polarization, fence-sitting may not be the best strategy for leaving a legacy.
An analogy here might be financial investing. With investing often a mixed strategy is preferred because there are certain kinds of risks that can be hedged by spreading your money around. However, in truth it depends on the particular game one is playing. If the game is winner-take-all, then the optimal strategy is to go all-in on some high-risk/high-return bet. The people we recognize as the most influential in history tend to be biased toward this latter strategy; they are not especially "balanced" individuals.
I am most definitely a consequentialist, if that is what you mean. Principles and deontological stances aren't realistic if you live on a real planet, with real people, and with the simple acknowledgement that the future is going to happen. This is actually hard to say in public because we have to pretend otherwise. For example: there is absolutely a hypothetical person you could imagine that should be blocked from becoming president even if this requires stuff that is against principles you normally or typically *think* you hold dear.
Feels maybe im stupid, but i feel like this logic leads to being against economic freedom and equal rights in front of the law?
I certainly get the impression that heavily conservative peopleand the far right use this logic heavily: a relative of mine would likely read this and say “yes, and thats why we must deport X group”
Intriguing post, Robin. You've brought to light a fundamental tension between the desire to be a benevolent, impartial force for good and the evolutionary pressures that can penalize such impartiality. I appreciate the nuance you've captured in this analysis, and it certainly gives me food for thought.
You make good points, but the question then becomes, which groups should a rational person favor? Should they favor whatever groups they happen to find themselves in? Not necessarily - some of those groups might be opposed to some of the values of the rational person. Or some of those groups might evolve their aims over time to become opposed to some of the values of the rational person. Consider Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy:
"In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals that the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely."
This suggests that if you dedicate yourself to an org that at present seems aligned with your values, over time it will evolve into something that is not aligned with anything but its own power. And what reason do you have to devote your life to promoting a future group that will be aligned with nothing but its own power? Not your power, either - the future group's power, after you're dead and after it is no longer aligned with its present values.
Therefore, a rational person should devote themselves to a group that somehow is immune or at least resistant to Pournelle's Iron Law. What kind of group would that be?
Logically, I have a hard time disagreeing, but morally this feels like "Might is Right" will win out in the end, unless some strategic, Machiavellian influence is exerted in the direction of the 'weaker' side of a battle. So if what you really believe to be important is diversity of thought, then picking the losing side might be the best bet.
Baptists should be looking for bootleggers.
Thanks, I needed to read this. I feel stuck between a lot of different communities and I'm not sure where I am going to fit.
For long-term influence vs. other groups, yes.
When survival of all is at stake, people unify to face the danger. When all factions share a common fate, factionalism and infighting risk losing the larger war.
FWIW, Machiavelli came to the same conclusion as you have here, for different reasons. "A prince is also much respected but he is either a true friend or a downright enemy. In other words, when he declares himself without any reservation in favour of one party against the other. This will always be more favourable than remaining neutral. ... It will always be more advantageous for you to declare yourself and to wage a vigorous war. If you do not declare yourself, you will invariably fall prey to the winner, which will be to the pleasure and satisfaction of the loser, and you will have nothing nor anyone to protect or to shelter you." (his point being that even if you lose, the loser will shelter you as a loyal ally, but if you stay neutral all sides will consider you untrustworthy).
Summary: helping ingroup and outgroup equally may lead to less net help reaching ingroup than helping only ingroup.
Is other news, giving all your money to charity may leave you broke.
Isn't this just another one of those negative-sum equilibria that take conscious work to *avoid* (let alone we forget they exist). More interesting IMO how the descendants in the evolved system might have a very different pov on what constitutes the co-evolved network. Had women's suffrage not been adopted a century ago, I might have held roughly double the political power. Yet I don't feel like my male ancestors hung me out to dry. Do you feel different?
I’m not sure something needs to support its associated evolutionary systems to survive. It just needs to not destroy them. Eg a virus can survive long-term only if it doesn’t kill its hosts too efficiently.
The “help everyone equally” strategy is a particular brand of virtue signaling, which seems to have strong evolutionary support. In particular, it has the advantage of resonating with our sense of fairness, like equality before the law. Also, it counts as an ideology, which fits into your framework - it can survive long-term, is more likely to thrive if we devote resources to it.
Seems right to the extent that your allies also desire long term universal influence.
While neutrality might seem like the moral high ground, it often results in limited influence. Your insights into how group dynamics and loyalty play a significant role in cementing one's influence are both fascinating and counterintuitive. Realising as much challenges us to re-evaluate our beliefs and forces us to confront the idea that, in a world marked by polarization, fence-sitting may not be the best strategy for leaving a legacy.
How would you say this interacts with some earlier advice on avoiding picking a side in a competition?
https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/policy_tugowarhtml
This is brilliant, but alas 150 years too late.
An analogy here might be financial investing. With investing often a mixed strategy is preferred because there are certain kinds of risks that can be hedged by spreading your money around. However, in truth it depends on the particular game one is playing. If the game is winner-take-all, then the optimal strategy is to go all-in on some high-risk/high-return bet. The people we recognize as the most influential in history tend to be biased toward this latter strategy; they are not especially "balanced" individuals.
if someone could tell me which side I'm on that would be great, thanks.
I am most definitely a consequentialist, if that is what you mean. Principles and deontological stances aren't realistic if you live on a real planet, with real people, and with the simple acknowledgement that the future is going to happen. This is actually hard to say in public because we have to pretend otherwise. For example: there is absolutely a hypothetical person you could imagine that should be blocked from becoming president even if this requires stuff that is against principles you normally or typically *think* you hold dear.