Sentences (#57)

This can never be emphasized enough:

… humans are, by nature, envious, resentful and unable to comprehend, let alone appreciate, a sophisticated economic system that has evolved in spite of, not because of, our best efforts.

Of all errors, humanism is probably the most cognitively destructive, and also socially disastrous.

June 8, 2016admin 37 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Realism

TAGGED WITH : , ,

37 Responses to this entry

  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Cutting to the chase: humans — generally, because no one is equally — are not able to appreciate that which was evolved instead of intended by humans. The Ego wants to be in Control.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    It’s possible to add that, past a certain threshold of meaning and complexity, humans are, as yet, unable to fully comprehend anything that developed through evolution. Despite humanity’s best efforts, we have no working model of the cell, nor the brain, nor any living organism, nor the economy, nor can we predict the behavior of some evolved AIs. We have, instead, a long list of failures: The Human Brain Project, OpenWorm, modern economics…

    I believe that we’ll need to force our own cognitive evolution before we can truly understand and fully appreciate these things.

    [Reply]

    Brett Stevens Reply:

    I agree about modeling. I find our current efforts primitive. Before we can improve our cognitive evolution, we must change the index of selection to value realism over easily-comprehensible models.

    [Reply]

    Henk Reply:

    There’s a puzzle here that wants to be solved. There’s an implicit value judgement. Genes bad, capital good. But why? Could be ego:

    We know from science that genes are “selfish,” and monkey brain knows that being bound to the whims of a selfish other is bad.

    We know from ego that it’s the other way around with capital. That one is ours, we’re in charge. In your face, genes!

    So yes, it boils down to ego not getting evolution.

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    “So yes, it boils down to ego not getting evolution.”

    Or maybe ego not getting that it isn’t –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaHRGC18Bb8

    (Abbott and Costello contribute to the fun at around 15.10)

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 8th, 2016 at 4:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ahote Says:

    Before Jeffrey became Cucker, he published a book on the subject.

    [Reply]

    Aristocles Invictvs Reply:

    Been perusing the Alt-Right for too long ay?

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    Well, TBH not that much, however, I find cuck meme quite fitting (and ‘echoes’ quite hilarious).

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Even admin can’t resist /pol/’s dank memes.

    /pol/ is an oracle of unspeakable truths.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 8th, 2016 at 4:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • Uriel Alexis Says:

    the extent to which humans can be anything *but* humanists remains to be seen.
    it’s at least ironic also that the most dehumanizing and alienating epoch of human existence has begun with a return of humanism. can capitalism become something *post*-humanist? cladistically, not at all. so we’re gonna have to do with sort of more inhuman humanism.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    “can capitalism become something *post*-humanist?”

    The only way I see is if it becomes properly Darwinian.

    [Reply]

    Uriel Alexis Reply:

    a humanism that sees humans as part of nature (reality) and bound by it.
    sounds pretty attainable, with the proper selection and trust building mechanisms.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Best possible version of that is still Darwin.

    Uriel Alexis Reply:

    it is Darwin, isn’t it? locating humans amongst animals?

    Posted on June 8th, 2016 at 5:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • William Newman Says:

    Envy is important, but I’m not sure it (or any kind of motivated reasoning) deserves the central place the article gives it. Zero-sum thinking in general might, but whatever it is, I don’t think it can be primarily motivated reasoning, some kind of dispassionate incomprehension must be involved. Look how long it took for anyone, even intellectuals not directly involved, to figure out stuff like marginal utility well enough to think clearly about how both parties can get something out of a voluntary trade. People were making very sophisticated calculations of very tricky stuff like the orbit of the Moon (not just idealized elliptical orbits but various approaches to 3-body-problem corrections) long before that. I don’t know why it should be any harder for people to understand microeconomic equilibrium ideas than to understand orbital dynamics, indeed it seems it should be easier, but the very long time interval between figuring out one then the other suggests that it might be significantly harder.

    Proper analysis of probability is another thing that seems to have come surprisingly late considering how much people gamble and how much mileage you can get out of even simple analysis. Looked at abstractly the math is far simpler than a lot of the things the Greeks worked out, but somehow humans just took a hell of a long time to discover it and still reasonably smart people often fail to apply it. It’s hard to see a motivated-reasoning story there, it looks like another simple concept that is just unreasonably slippery for normal humans.

    Possibly I’m just drawing significance from random historical accidents, but it really looks to me as though there are some funny anomalies in what humans get their minds around, and while motivated reasoning should always be on one’s list of usual suspects, it doesn’t seem to be a possible explanation in these cases, and these cases don’t seem too far from incomprehension of the significance and equilibrium properties of market exchange.

    Also, quite aside from envy or zero-sum thinking, there’s a human tendency to infer intent from evidence when more careful examination would show that no intent is there, and conversely to work backwards from a desired goal to formulate plans that depend on direct intent, not on emergent consequences which weren’t directly intended by someone directly supervising the action(s). That predisposition is naturally going to tend to make people skeptical of good outcomes from markets (and underappreciative of the power of practices like nullius-in-verba methodically open documented debate on technical issues) even if they have no emotional stake in the matter.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    you dont actually think trade wasnt understood to be mutually beneficial 100,000 years ago when trading an axe head for an animal pelt, you dont need smith to evolve capitalist genes in fact hes useless unless unless everyone can do the maths as fast as they can estimate the count of a group.Im sure they understood supply and demand and marginal utility as well. A better war axe is a lot more valuable before the other clan copies it.
    Its an interesting point about chance wonder if dice counting was simply never recorded seems really unlikely they could devise and enjoy games that required mastery of chance minimization yet not get it, again working out the more sophisticated maths another story.
    I dont think envy had anything to do with social instincts its another thing entirely if not antithetical. i think we have lots of contradictory traits perhaps they take longer to get rid of than adopt new ones if they are sometime still useful. Envy motivates stealing,jealousy motivates defending against envy.Socialism is calculated it may include a calculation about envy and CHANCE of physical success in defense, it would include calculation of personal need and time decay, but its primarily going to be insurance against the reverse situation.
    The reality is socialism has some advantages as well as the well known disadvantages which i hate as much as the next shitlord. I think things like insurance are how to handle the need and instinct.But things like insurance need populations with close abilities to work profitably.a society with a few aristocrats and the rest serfs is vulnerable to lots of bad scenarios

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Eliminate the underclass. This is the only decent solution.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 8th, 2016 at 6:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Grotesque Body Says:

    “I do not find dying [Venezuelan] children laughable.”

    Author is full humanist.

    [Reply]

    Brett Stevens Reply:

    My middle path is even more cynical:

    I do not find dying Venezuelan children noteworthy.

    Most of humanity is always failing because of idiocy.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Not getting this is my annoyance towward the AltRight vulgarians. Fuck normie whites, they’re just pale niggers IMO.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 8th, 2016 at 11:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Excremental Pessimism Says:

    Emphasis on the fact that it doesn’t matter whether humans are able to comprehend. Humanism is the high road to incompetence. The continual programming of humanism is, though painful to witness, of no major concern because they won’t make it out.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 9th, 2016 at 12:52 am Reply | Quote
  • Seth Largo Says:

    I’d tweak it ever so slightly. A sophisticated economic system has evolved through humans acting independently and for diverse ends for many generations, in spite of many attempts to direct or halt that evolution.

    I’m wondering whether or not the principles of catallaxy—whatever they might be—should be equated or paired with Cnut’s tides? Or is there a difference (one that matters) between forces that emerge through human freedom and forces at work regardless of humans full stop?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’d strongly identify catallaxy with Cnut’s tides. It’s simply the spontaneous order of nature (primordial multiplicity) most evidently enmeshed with comparatively lucid human purposes.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    “The key to understanding how the modern mind works,” Cosmides writes, “is to realize that its circuits were not designed to solve the day-to-day problems of a modern [humans] – they were designed to solve the day-to-day problems of our hunter-gatherer ancestors.” In other words, modern skulls house Stone Age minds.

    I keep saying the program we want may not be possible on this OS.Democracy socialism intelligent females etc may be more symptom than disease. But along with the authors guesses about stone age life other things were happening. Specialization some guys were just better knappers spearchuckers or planners so trade and private property and hierarchy also evolved.Europeans may have invented modern socialism yet still be the least interested in it personally.
    Thinking about adaptive traits anthropomorphically is silly Your DNA doesn’t give a shit what your opinion is, your faulty logic is. Its run the numbers.That said that paper clipping brain of yours has been moving faster than DNA can adopt crispr.
    Past success is a good guide of where the limits begin or end. Id start with the races closest to the ideal and think about approximating as close as possible [because Lorenz] the high point as a starting point.
    thinking one can radically redesign human behavior is legend of Icarus.No doubt that wont stop us but “conservatives” ought not be promoting that.Rather conservatives ought be figuring out what went wrong with that which inspires conservation.Personally Im inspired by europe 700 -1900 and bits of the next 100 years and classical period.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    Spontaneous Order was independently observed by the Taoists, the Late Scholastics, the Enlightenment Physiocrats, some Classical Liberals / Libertarians, and couple of other groups / people… infinitesimal group of people if we look at the history, which just makes those ideas that much more precious. Most people through history considered brute force capable of everything (price controls are considered ‘common sense’ after all).

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 9th, 2016 at 1:21 am Reply | Quote
  • fascist asshole Says:

    Humyns seem to love anything that exists in the “future”

    “We can’t go back! That’s stupid! We moved forward! Things are better now we can’t go back after all the work that (we) did! I made this happen! I was a part of making the present! I was a part of making this future! I refuse to let us ever reverse that progress!”

    In that sense, “reactionary” is little more than a word invented by leftists to horrify everyone and anyone into seeing it as a “reversal” of “their labor”

    That’s why I think instead of defining things as a reaction, NRX and all others need to redefine absolutely every aspect of their ideology as being “progress” that is – a progress into the future and the next big thing, the new thing, the work, the upcoming, not a “return” to something else

    [Reply]

    Cryptogenic Reply:

    That’s Venezuela, not NRx.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    Because conservatism is about conserving the future?

    [Reply]

    Xoth Reply:

    Adjust slightly and that’s a nice reply to the usual aggrieved progressive.

    “NRx is about conserving the future.”

    Eldrick Reply:

    Even in a pure marketing sense, this sounds like a disaster in terms of selection.

    There is a requisite catharsis achieved only by staring into the abyss.

    [Reply]

    Blogospheroid Reply:

    Sustainable is a pretty good word which still has positive connotations.

    NRx is for socio-economic sustainability.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 9th, 2016 at 4:13 am Reply | Quote
  • Dan in Euroland Says:

    The Romans were quite antithetical to Humanist ideals but they had quite an extensive market economy see Peter Temin’s work on this: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9896.html

    Of course the Roman’s did pride conflict and contest as the centerpieces of life, so perhaps Grotesque Body is on to something.

    [Reply]

    Aristocles Invictvs Reply:

    Here’s a PDF of that work: https://my.mixtape.moe/jtsqry.pdf

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 9th, 2016 at 4:16 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    if we are going to insist on essencializing reformism, then why not to inculde to the list of possible reforms, annihilation of human race, without posibility of reboot. if nothing worked well with monkey derived humans, it can be logical or even essential new starting point.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Even if nuking them all isn’t feasible, massive genetic engineering and ruthless eugenics is absolutely requisite. Overpopulation is true, but only in the sense that normies in large numbers ruin all.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 9th, 2016 at 4:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Outliers (#9) Says:

    […] academia. Echo detector. Contradictions collapse. Racism dissolution. The Algebra of Need. . Insights. Nu-slavery. Pragmatic radicalism. […]

    Posted on June 12th, 2016 at 5:03 am Reply | Quote
  • Organic versus Linear Thought Says:

    […] Civilization Disease, as it is sometimes called), Outside In looks at a recent exploration of human linear thinking in defiance of obvious […]

    Posted on June 20th, 2016 at 5:03 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment