Why Not Compromise?
Why is it that rather than celebrate the values of conflict resolution, tolerance and deal-making, which make our advanced societies function so effectively, our favourite stories continue to be about zero-sum conflicts that are impossible to resolve peaceably? … I suspect the answer lies in what we subconsciously want our taste in fiction to say about us. Celebrating the Na’vi allows us to signal how much we value loyalty and justice. Denigrating Melbourne Airport allows us to show our suspicion of greedy and powerful people. In real life, when defending our stated values requires that we make serious sacrifices whether or not we are likely to win, we sensibly value the opportunity to compromise. But when a fictional character will do all the fighting for you, why compromise on anything?
I think he might be roughly right. But why wouldn’t finding good deals and balancing compromises well be ideals we would want to celebrate? When there are no costs to yourself, why aren’t you itching to go all out and celebrate the most extravagant tales of successful trading and extreme sagas of mutually beneficial political compromise? I think because there is no point in demonstrating that you will compromise. … It’s often good to look like you won’t easily compromise, so that other people will try to win you over with better deals. … If you somehow convince me that you’re the kind of person who would die fighting for their magic tree, I’ll probably try to come up with a pretty appealing deal for you before I even bring up my interest in checking out the deposits under any trees you have.
Yes, it might be good for your group to seem reluctant to compromise, but how is good for you to support such a group reluctance? That seems to be more about signaling group loyalty. The people in your group who most want compromise are those also tied to other groups with which your group has conflicts. By opposing compromise, you signal you have weaker conflicting ties. This loyalty signaling theory better explains why we often oppose compromise that is clearly in our group interest.
Perhaps I did misread your comment. If so, then I apologize.
It is not useful to biologists to communicate with Creationists because Creationists are not driven by a desire to find data or explanations that correspond with reality. Scientific progress requires intellectual honesty among scientists.
What ever suggestions Creationists make, those suggestions are only made to to try and find a path that will confirm Creationism. Listening to what Creationists say is a waste of a scientist's time because Creationists don't have the intellectual honesty to question their basic assumption that Genesis and the rest of the Bible is literally correct.
Not listening to Creationists is not about group loyalty, it is about the prior probability that a Creationist will come up with a useful or correct idea. That prior probability is essentially zero.
Creationists not listening to scientists is about group loyalty on the part of the Creationists. Group loyalty and tribal loyalty is about allocation of social status in the local group. That social status is zero-sum and to not reciprocate tribal loyalty is to lose status in that local group.
Scientific progress is not zero-sum. Non-scientists attempt to compel scientists to compete with each other over zero-sum status, with priority, prizes and other trappings of status. Some scientists try to trick non-scientists into thinking they have higher scientific status than is warranted. This is a sort of tribal loyalty which many university press departments try to fluff up. This is unfortunate because it adds noise to the actual understanding of the importance of new ideas.
Compromise doesn't play a role in scientific advancement. Scientific advancement relies on finding out what corresponds most closely with reality, not on reaching a compromise that multiple competitors can agree with. It is unfortunate that things like funding are based on status and to a large part on agreeableness. That has the effect of slowing progress in science, not increasing it.
He seems more anti-religious than scientific. A priest of Science perhaps?
But back on point, I'd say it's reasonable to expect that anyone who 'offers ammo' to the more extreme religious groups would face some censure from the Biology community at large. That does play to the loyalty theory.