[extropy-chat] Rational Irrationality (2)

[Keith Henson]

At 07:27 PM 12/7/2006 -0800, Lee wrote:
>Keith writes

snip

> > Off hand there is little more irrational than blowing yourself up as a
> > suicide bomber.  I don't know how anyone could set this cost at zero.
>
>First, why didn't you demur when a number of us agreed that suicide
>bombing is not necessarily irrational.

I did, the post on rational depending on viewpoint.  I don't know if the 
post got through, the (N) on my postings is how many times I had to 
submit.  I might not always get them through the badly configured mailing 
list software.

>If your value system values your
>own life much less than it does The Cause, it is perfectly rational to
>accordingly.

You might note that 20 years ago I coined the word to describe such people 
and have written extensively on how this trait evolved.

> > At least experiments like the Ultimatum game and finding the actual brain
> > structures active when people refuse an offer they should (if rational)
> > take is starting to inform economics with a bit of evolutionary psychology.
>
>Again, I disagree.  "Declining" in the Ultimatum Game is a form of
>altruistic punishment.  I'm sure you're familiar with the concept,

Very familiar.  Also that people play the game differently (more of the way 
a economist would say is "rational") when part of their brain is disrupted 
with transcranial magnetic stimulation or if they think they are playing 
against a computer.

>but google for it if not.  Again, it may be that in my private value system,
>really sticking it to the cheap sonavabitch is worth more to me than
>money.

An economist is likely to say this behavior is not rational.  (You can also 
bet that he, being human, would play the game the same way everyone else does.)

> > The *one* thing for sure is that over evolutionary time genes are rational
> > (The implied goal for genes is to "be there" in future generations.)
>
>That's for dead sure.
>
> >  If you look under human irrationality, you find rational reasons for
> > the genes to induced such behavior, or at least there were such reasons
> > when people lived in small related hunter gatherer bands.
>
>But allele frequencies have been changing a lot in *historical* times.
>For example, today those of us with genes that succumb to the cultural
>fashion of having few children, will obviously be far fewer in the future.
>And so will those genes.

Unless there is unghodly pressure, genes just don't change that fast.  I 
have cited examples where they did change in historical times in lot of 
previous posts here, try lactose as a key word.

Take the trait behind capture bonding (Stockholm syndrome).  Why should 
that go away?

Keith