[ExI] Clark abstract

Lee Corbin lcorbin at rawbw.com
Thu Jan 10 16:04:51 UTC 2008


Keith writes

> Behavior is due to psychological mechanisms.  That's true from 
> complicated behavior such as capture-bonding right down to reflex 
> withdrawal from something hot.

That is absolutely the case.

> If there is a widespread psychological mechanism in some species then 
> that mechanism came to exist through evolution.

Also true.

> Typically these mechanisms (such as cheater detection) are
> localized in the brain. Vision and hearing are obviously localized
> as are centers for speech, motor control and several dozen others.

Excellent examples.

> The behavior related to "political correctness" with respect to 
> different cultures is a widespread behavior in western culture.  (In 
> this case I think we have to leave out Japan which I normally count 
> in the western culture block.)  Therefore there must be an evolved 
> underlying psychological mechanism involved.

Naturally. Didn't you like my explanation of what it was?
Here it is once more:

     May I suggest that reluctance to discuss race and
     gender differences in the West is powered by
     altruism, the sort that makes one reluctant to 
     discuss the possible shortcomings of friends and
     associates?

In other words, it is people's feelings of altruism (towards the poor,
the sick, the backward, the disenfranchised, etc.) which is the
evolutionary mechanism responsible. I won't go over the evolutionary
explanations of altruism here---one may see any number of books
and articles, from "Origin of Virtues" on down to "The Mating Mind".

> People hold PC views much more emotionally than they hold ways 
> to knit.

My explanation fits that.

> When strong emotions are involved it's telling you *something.*
> 
> As a guess it's tapping the same psychological mechanisms as other 
> political matters.

I'd put it the other way:  many political matters rely on instinctual
feelings of altruism. Whenever any socialist wants more government
control of anything, for example, all he or she need do is exhibit
sufficiently gut-wrenching visual material (which, of course, shortcuts
rationality). Children suffering is one of the most common recourses.

Of course, this is *not* to say that we should ignore suffering---far
from it. But our conclusions should be based on a careful weighing
of costs and benefits, even statistics. It's better, for example, for a
very few children to starve to death than for millions to be destitute
and have no propects.  But to grok that last sentence, one needs to
really understand what "million" means, and most people, sadly,
don't have that ability in such a context.

Lee




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list