We economists are known for being “imperial” in trying to apply economics to almost everything. And that’s a goal I can get behind, in the sense of trying to find an integrated view of the social world, where all social phenomena have a place and some candidate explanations within a common framework. Of course many parts of this integrated view may start first in fields outside economics.
Robin's coalition politics explanation for sync makes sense.
In high school football it's common when both teams are lined up pre-game on their opposite sidelines and the coin toss is happening for one of the team's to rhythmically slap their pads and chant like some Bantu war party. It fires up that team for sure and can be somewhat intimidating especially since it's the naturally scary inner city schools that tend to do it.
Ainslie's book "Breakdown of Will" explains that people seek sync because triggers for emotional rewards habituate less if the rewards are somewhat random, and social (empathy) rewards under others' control are inherently less predictable than finding pleasure by yourself.
Interestingly, Ainslie finds coalition politics again within the mind, as negotiations between the different competing interests of present and various future selves. So the signaling purpose of synching arises independently a second time.
Listening to sad music is more about getting acknowledgement (it's a substitute for sitting in a group that complains about the things you like to complain about) than about deepening the pain. I will grant you that in extreme circumstances humans do have a tendency to "want to feel alive", a.k.a. rather feeling pain than not feeling anything at all (depressed people cutting themselves, or people fearing annihilation more than hell), but of course feeling pleasure is preferred over feeling pain.
"most people don't spend their lives searching for more pain?"
I dunno, when people are sad, they listen to sad music and get even sadder. Also funerals are like sadness rituals.It feels better in the end, somehow, if we amplify our negative emotions at the time we're having them.
I haven't read Collins, but I suspect that reaction to rituals might be key to the introvert/extravert personality dimension.
Collins recognizes that rituals can be draining as well as energizing. It surely isn't the case that introverts never get energy from interactions, but it does seem that introverts have different standards for interactions: they demand greater intensity. (What most drains introverts is small talk, which is an energizing ritual for extraverts.)
Rituals, according to Collins, can be draining or energizing. It may be that extraverts are drained by what's for them excessive intensity. This would fit with Eysenck's old theory of introversion/extraversion: introverts need a higher arousal level.
Another Collins oversimplification may be wrt personality type. I have seen it asserted (maybe even as a defining characterisic) that extroverts tend to be energized by social occasions, while introverts tend to be drained by them.
"Or you might consider that the pattern doesn’t correspond to any particular thing people fundamentally want, but is instead a common instrumental way to get a wide range of other things."
This is true for coalition politics as well: coalitions can also be seen as means to ends. I do agree that forming coalitions, if you want to define them wide enough to include romantic relationships and family units, is probably the most important reason for wanting to sync.
P.S. why doesn't Collins separate "positive" from "negative" emotions when he calls humans "emotional energy seekers", most people don't spend their lives searching for more pain?
Of course many parts of this integrated view may start first in fields outside economics.
What makes you think economics will provide the fundaments of an integrated social science? Isn't human nature really the fundamental question, and isn't psychology the main discipline addressing it? Doesn't man being a rationalizing rather than a rational animal provide further evidence for basing social science on psychology?
[Much sociology theorizing represents an outright effort to find the organizing principle. Unfortunately, these ends are rarely attained by direct assault.]
1) Randall Collins also considers fear of anti-synch in his book, Violence: he called it confrontational tension/fear (ct/f). He argues that humans are bad at violence because ct/f peaks during violent encounters and a lot of situational and social variables need to be conducive for people to overcome the ct/f barrier and commit violence. He argues that ct/f isn't just fear of bodily harm; instead it's simply fear of anti-synch. This is sufficient for him, because he takes synch to be fundamental.
2) In a certain sense synch can be evolutionarily or rationally motivated, but it could still be a "fundamental" drive --- like hunger or lust. Collins himself isn't interested in that problem.
Robin's coalition politics explanation for sync makes sense.
In high school football it's common when both teams are lined up pre-game on their opposite sidelines and the coin toss is happening for one of the team's to rhythmically slap their pads and chant like some Bantu war party. It fires up that team for sure and can be somewhat intimidating especially since it's the naturally scary inner city schools that tend to do it.
Ainslie's book "Breakdown of Will" explains that people seek sync because triggers for emotional rewards habituate less if the rewards are somewhat random, and social (empathy) rewards under others' control are inherently less predictable than finding pleasure by yourself.
Interestingly, Ainslie finds coalition politics again within the mind, as negotiations between the different competing interests of present and various future selves. So the signaling purpose of synching arises independently a second time.
Synchronicity gives rise to influence.
Listening to sad music is more about getting acknowledgement (it's a substitute for sitting in a group that complains about the things you like to complain about) than about deepening the pain. I will grant you that in extreme circumstances humans do have a tendency to "want to feel alive", a.k.a. rather feeling pain than not feeling anything at all (depressed people cutting themselves, or people fearing annihilation more than hell), but of course feeling pleasure is preferred over feeling pain.
"most people don't spend their lives searching for more pain?"
I dunno, when people are sad, they listen to sad music and get even sadder. Also funerals are like sadness rituals.It feels better in the end, somehow, if we amplify our negative emotions at the time we're having them.
I haven't read Collins, but I suspect that reaction to rituals might be key to the introvert/extravert personality dimension.
Collins recognizes that rituals can be draining as well as energizing. It surely isn't the case that introverts never get energy from interactions, but it does seem that introverts have different standards for interactions: they demand greater intensity. (What most drains introverts is small talk, which is an energizing ritual for extraverts.)
Rituals, according to Collins, can be draining or energizing. It may be that extraverts are drained by what's for them excessive intensity. This would fit with Eysenck's old theory of introversion/extraversion: introverts need a higher arousal level.
Another Collins oversimplification may be wrt personality type. I have seen it asserted (maybe even as a defining characterisic) that extroverts tend to be energized by social occasions, while introverts tend to be drained by them.
"Or you might consider that the pattern doesn’t correspond to any particular thing people fundamentally want, but is instead a common instrumental way to get a wide range of other things."
This is true for coalition politics as well: coalitions can also be seen as means to ends. I do agree that forming coalitions, if you want to define them wide enough to include romantic relationships and family units, is probably the most important reason for wanting to sync.
P.S. why doesn't Collins separate "positive" from "negative" emotions when he calls humans "emotional energy seekers", most people don't spend their lives searching for more pain?
I didn't mean to claim economics would be focal.
Of course many parts of this integrated view may start first in fields outside economics.
What makes you think economics will provide the fundaments of an integrated social science? Isn't human nature really the fundamental question, and isn't psychology the main discipline addressing it? Doesn't man being a rationalizing rather than a rational animal provide further evidence for basing social science on psychology?
[Much sociology theorizing represents an outright effort to find the organizing principle. Unfortunately, these ends are rarely attained by direct assault.]
1) Randall Collins also considers fear of anti-synch in his book, Violence: he called it confrontational tension/fear (ct/f). He argues that humans are bad at violence because ct/f peaks during violent encounters and a lot of situational and social variables need to be conducive for people to overcome the ct/f barrier and commit violence. He argues that ct/f isn't just fear of bodily harm; instead it's simply fear of anti-synch. This is sufficient for him, because he takes synch to be fundamental.
2) In a certain sense synch can be evolutionarily or rationally motivated, but it could still be a "fundamental" drive --- like hunger or lust. Collins himself isn't interested in that problem.