[We hypothesized that] reminders of (a great deal of) money facilitate global, abstract mental construals … [while] reminders of expenditure or a little money should trigger more concrete mental representations. … Participants were primed with money or money-unrelated concepts. Money primes caused a preference for abstract over concrete action identifications (experiment 1), instigated the formation of broader categories (experiment 2), and facilitated the identification of global (vs. local) aspects of visual patterns (experiment 3). This effect extended to consumer judgments: money primes caused a focus on central (vs. peripheral) aspects of products (experiment 4) and increased the influence of quality of parent brands in evaluations of brand extensions. Priming with a little money (experiment 3) or expenditures (experiment 5) did not trigger abstract construals, indicating that the association between money and resources drives the effect. (
I did a search on OB for Dreamtime, and it netted an interesting group of posts. But I don't see what leads Robin to conclude that our late-industrial civilization is far-mode oriented. Robin seems to base the idea that we're deluded in a distinctively far sort of way from what he takes to be our excessive optimism about the distant future. Even if this is due to far mode (to me it seems based on near-mode extrapolation), it doesn't prove that we are generally dominated by an outsized far mode, inasmuch as nobody really much cares about the distant future. [Added.] Robin emphasizes our propensity for vicarious experience, but this is an increasingly near-mode form of experience,[reality TV is the ultimate] perhaps contrasted with more far-mode reading a century or two ago.
On the merits of the various forecasts: hypothetically granting Robin's technological projections, whether we'll be reduced to Malthusian misery seems to depend entirely on the prospects for economic centralism, i.e., world socialism.
He desires a libertarian world and considers opposition to things like slavery and efforts in favor of making the world a better place for everyone (not just the happy few) to be naive, because truly an advanced civilization with all the wonders of nanotech and genetic enhancements at its fingertips should choose to make 95% of its population live lives far more miserable than that of the unluckiest cave man.
I don't think Hanson expects libertarianism, nor would pre-Dreamtime history be considered libertarian. The farming era also had strong norms which they likely would have considered more "moral" than ours (though Hanson argues people should not be so upset by their descendants having very different moralities).
The "rationality" of our "rationalists" is near-mode. This would be clear were it understood that near-mode depends particularly on the brain's left hemisphere (and far-mode, in a particular way, on the right hemisphere. (See my previous comment to this posting.)
When our "rationalists" speculate about the far future, they apply near-mode methods to far-mode problems--mainly the near-mode methodology of extrapolation. Compare, for example, the kind of far-mode reasoning that led Karl Marx to predict communism and the near-mode thinking that leads Robin to posit future ultra-capitalism. (In my terms, Marx is a Utopianist who relies on far-mode thinking (uses his right hemisphere at critical junctures) whereas Robin relies on near-mode thinking (purely left hemispheric-- see my Ideology Types series -- http://tinyurl.com/88d329b )
(ADDED.) Here's the fundamental argument for an affinity between the right hemisphere and far-mode and the left hemisphere and near-mode. Throughout all the numerous species showing cerebral lateralization, the right hemisphere is specialized for perceiving distant predators and the left hemisphere for manipulating nearby objects. These features bear a direct relation to a theory of psychological distance (And, as I wrote elsewhere in this thread, it is supported by the single direct experiment on the subject. I think academic psychologists avoid making the connection, perhaps, because the popularizers have made lateralization theories low status. That's one way to explain why nobody has previously made the obvious connections between construal-level theory and lateralization theory.)
Will the 'dreamtime' come to a halt? - either disruptively or not so and for whatever reason. Will there then be a shift (sudden or gradual) to mass near mode thinking? It seems that the rise of 'rationality' will likely shift 'world thinking' away from the 'dream-time'. Rationality implies that world thinking will strike a balance between near and far consistent with optimal social and other outcomes we care about. If the correlation between the deluded dream-time and the widening of moral circles is structural I suppose we'll never come to love our machines after all...
But aren't they richer because scientists and engineers were given more freedom than elsewhere back in the day, which enabled Western armies to use more advanced weaponry and take control of a disproportionate share of the world's natural resources?
Then what about this claim: http://www.overcomingbias.c... -- youth and old-age are far compared to middle-age.
We’ve long known that power tends to induce far mode.
I think the key report is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (It's hard to imagine Robin thinking of 7 years as a "long time.") But this report links far-mode to right hemispheric activation, whereas I think Robin links the left hemisphere (as a first approximation) to far-mode--based on the well-supported finding that left-hemisphere activation is associated with positive mood and on the "covert" nature of right-hemisphere function.
I think Robin's view of construal levels is distorted by this misalignment, which also keeps Robin from being able to predict what will be near or far and having to rely on ad hoc results.[Added later] Consider the OP, where Robin links the greater use of far mode in contemporary society to a supposedly increasingly idealistic world view.
As Arch1 pointed out, this assumes that the enrichening of society has the same effect as of individuals, a likely fallacy of composition in that far-mode is elicited by high status, making the positional aspect paramount. But more fundamentally, the whole premise that contemporary humans live more in far-mode than our predecessors would immediately contradict a lot of evidence that we've become increasingly left-hemispheric. (Also, remember, in the big 2006 study where brain activation was actually measured, high-status and far-mode correlated with right hemispheric activation.)
In my account of near-far (where I don't yet take account explicitly of the connection to brain lateralization) the lateralization effects can be derived by substituting right-hemisphere for pre-attentive processes (or Kahneman's System 1) and left-hemisphere for focally attentive processes (System 2). [See "The complex relationship between Systems 1 and 2 and construal level" — http://tinyurl.com/9exlxlk ]
This may go some distance (if not completely) to explain the fact that left is happy but near isn't. Both near and far processes depend on the left hemisphere, which in the far cases "delegates" to the right. Purely automatic rh prosseses aren't the sort of thoughts that can be termed either near or far.
The other reason for the alignment Robin (perhaps only tacitly) endorses, that the right is covert, is based, I think on mere metaphor. The right is covert in the sense that it's the silent hemisphere and plays a background role in other respects, not that it engages in activities that must be concealed from others. I can see that the homo hypocritus theory inclines Robin to equate these two forms of "covertness": the hemispheres are separate (in part) for purposes of concealment from others through concealment from self); but then, the actual alignments between mode and hemisphere impugn homo hypocritus.
How about this hypothesis then : occidental countries have been havens for freedom and open-mindedness not because of democracy -as is usually claimed-, but rather because our countries were richer. Now I wonder what effects this longer than usual recession might have on our lofty values. Does it seems to anyone like freedom of expression and the like have taken a hit recently? Like how the Internet is more and more policed and censored by several governments (including European and American ones) around the world?
"and helps us see why our era’s thinking is an especially deluded “dreamtime.” "
Wow, someone seems pretty upset their ruthless, amoral, dystopian libertarian (pretty sure there are several pleonasms there) vision hasn't become reality yet. If only we did away with crap like compassion and justice, some of us could amass so much more stuff, just for the sake of having more stuff.
But yes, having your immediate essential needs satisfied allows one to have time to open their mind to the finer things in life, things like philosophy, science and taking care of others.
Robin, I question whether this "wealth promps -> far thinking" result applies to the whole world just because the whole world is getting richer.
Perception of one's own wealth is largely based on how one is doing relative to the Joneses (OK, perhaps relative to one's generational-and-national peers) rather than on an absolute wealth assessment, or an assessment relative to e.g. all H. Sapiens who ever walked the earth.
I did a search on OB for Dreamtime, and it netted an interesting group of posts. But I don't see what leads Robin to conclude that our late-industrial civilization is far-mode oriented. Robin seems to base the idea that we're deluded in a distinctively far sort of way from what he takes to be our excessive optimism about the distant future. Even if this is due to far mode (to me it seems based on near-mode extrapolation), it doesn't prove that we are generally dominated by an outsized far mode, inasmuch as nobody really much cares about the distant future. [Added.] Robin emphasizes our propensity for vicarious experience, but this is an increasingly near-mode form of experience,[reality TV is the ultimate] perhaps contrasted with more far-mode reading a century or two ago.
On the merits of the various forecasts: hypothetically granting Robin's technological projections, whether we'll be reduced to Malthusian misery seems to depend entirely on the prospects for economic centralism, i.e., world socialism.
He desires a libertarian world and considers opposition to things like slavery and efforts in favor of making the world a better place for everyone (not just the happy few) to be naive, because truly an advanced civilization with all the wonders of nanotech and genetic enhancements at its fingertips should choose to make 95% of its population live lives far more miserable than that of the unluckiest cave man.
Also, this is related to Michael Vassar's most recent Edge essay.
http://www.overcomingbias.c...
I don't think Hanson expects libertarianism, nor would pre-Dreamtime history be considered libertarian. The farming era also had strong norms which they likely would have considered more "moral" than ours (though Hanson argues people should not be so upset by their descendants having very different moralities).
This may be a good candidate explanation of the status-makes-you-stupid effect (see "High Status and Stupidity: Why?" on Less Wrong).
The "rationality" of our "rationalists" is near-mode. This would be clear were it understood that near-mode depends particularly on the brain's left hemisphere (and far-mode, in a particular way, on the right hemisphere. (See my previous comment to this posting.)
When our "rationalists" speculate about the far future, they apply near-mode methods to far-mode problems--mainly the near-mode methodology of extrapolation. Compare, for example, the kind of far-mode reasoning that led Karl Marx to predict communism and the near-mode thinking that leads Robin to posit future ultra-capitalism. (In my terms, Marx is a Utopianist who relies on far-mode thinking (uses his right hemisphere at critical junctures) whereas Robin relies on near-mode thinking (purely left hemispheric-- see my Ideology Types series -- http://tinyurl.com/88d329b )
(ADDED.) Here's the fundamental argument for an affinity between the right hemisphere and far-mode and the left hemisphere and near-mode. Throughout all the numerous species showing cerebral lateralization, the right hemisphere is specialized for perceiving distant predators and the left hemisphere for manipulating nearby objects. These features bear a direct relation to a theory of psychological distance (And, as I wrote elsewhere in this thread, it is supported by the single direct experiment on the subject. I think academic psychologists avoid making the connection, perhaps, because the popularizers have made lateralization theories low status. That's one way to explain why nobody has previously made the obvious connections between construal-level theory and lateralization theory.)
"our era's thinking"
Will the 'dreamtime' come to a halt? - either disruptively or not so and for whatever reason. Will there then be a shift (sudden or gradual) to mass near mode thinking? It seems that the rise of 'rationality' will likely shift 'world thinking' away from the 'dream-time'. Rationality implies that world thinking will strike a balance between near and far consistent with optimal social and other outcomes we care about. If the correlation between the deluded dream-time and the widening of moral circles is structural I suppose we'll never come to love our machines after all...
But aren't they richer because scientists and engineers were given more freedom than elsewhere back in the day, which enabled Western armies to use more advanced weaponry and take control of a disproportionate share of the world's natural resources?
Then what about this claim: http://www.overcomingbias.c... -- youth and old-age are far compared to middle-age.
We’ve long known that power tends to induce far mode.
I think the key report is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (It's hard to imagine Robin thinking of 7 years as a "long time.") But this report links far-mode to right hemispheric activation, whereas I think Robin links the left hemisphere (as a first approximation) to far-mode--based on the well-supported finding that left-hemisphere activation is associated with positive mood and on the "covert" nature of right-hemisphere function.
I think Robin's view of construal levels is distorted by this misalignment, which also keeps Robin from being able to predict what will be near or far and having to rely on ad hoc results.[Added later] Consider the OP, where Robin links the greater use of far mode in contemporary society to a supposedly increasingly idealistic world view.
As Arch1 pointed out, this assumes that the enrichening of society has the same effect as of individuals, a likely fallacy of composition in that far-mode is elicited by high status, making the positional aspect paramount. But more fundamentally, the whole premise that contemporary humans live more in far-mode than our predecessors would immediately contradict a lot of evidence that we've become increasingly left-hemispheric. (Also, remember, in the big 2006 study where brain activation was actually measured, high-status and far-mode correlated with right hemispheric activation.)
In my account of near-far (where I don't yet take account explicitly of the connection to brain lateralization) the lateralization effects can be derived by substituting right-hemisphere for pre-attentive processes (or Kahneman's System 1) and left-hemisphere for focally attentive processes (System 2). [See "The complex relationship between Systems 1 and 2 and construal level" — http://tinyurl.com/9exlxlk ]
This may go some distance (if not completely) to explain the fact that left is happy but near isn't. Both near and far processes depend on the left hemisphere, which in the far cases "delegates" to the right. Purely automatic rh prosseses aren't the sort of thoughts that can be termed either near or far.
The other reason for the alignment Robin (perhaps only tacitly) endorses, that the right is covert, is based, I think on mere metaphor. The right is covert in the sense that it's the silent hemisphere and plays a background role in other respects, not that it engages in activities that must be concealed from others. I can see that the homo hypocritus theory inclines Robin to equate these two forms of "covertness": the hemispheres are separate (in part) for purposes of concealment from others through concealment from self); but then, the actual alignments between mode and hemisphere impugn homo hypocritus.
How about this hypothesis then : occidental countries have been havens for freedom and open-mindedness not because of democracy -as is usually claimed-, but rather because our countries were richer. Now I wonder what effects this longer than usual recession might have on our lofty values. Does it seems to anyone like freedom of expression and the like have taken a hit recently? Like how the Internet is more and more policed and censored by several governments (including European and American ones) around the world?
I don't recall any results suggesting that old people tend to think in a more far mode.
Oops. I meant to say "not just wealth and power..."
Not just wealth and money, in my humble opinion. I'd add age to your list.
"and helps us see why our era’s thinking is an especially deluded “dreamtime.” "
Wow, someone seems pretty upset their ruthless, amoral, dystopian libertarian (pretty sure there are several pleonasms there) vision hasn't become reality yet. If only we did away with crap like compassion and justice, some of us could amass so much more stuff, just for the sake of having more stuff.
But yes, having your immediate essential needs satisfied allows one to have time to open their mind to the finer things in life, things like philosophy, science and taking care of others.
Robin, I question whether this "wealth promps -> far thinking" result applies to the whole world just because the whole world is getting richer.
Perception of one's own wealth is largely based on how one is doing relative to the Joneses (OK, perhaps relative to one's generational-and-national peers) rather than on an absolute wealth assessment, or an assessment relative to e.g. all H. Sapiens who ever walked the earth.