Listen. I started typing up several responses to this along the lines of this type of analysis leaning too hard into adaptationism and underestimating the power of culture but ultimately refuted my own arguments and deleted the responses. My immediate reaction to evo psych explanations for high-level human activity such as landing on the moon is that no, in fact we went to the moon because humans are curious, ambitious, and driven by the pursuit of knowledge (and recognition, sure). But of course if we sufficiently furrow our brows we can always trace those traits back to biological pressures. So all I’ll say is this: when we ask the question “how did the Himalayan mountains form?” we first talk at the level of tectonic plates and continental drift rather than at the level of atomic structures and particle physics. Likewise, when we ask questions about complex human behaviour it’s usually more appropriate to first talk of cultural pressures and political structures. Explanations which are at a closer level of analysis to the phenomenon we seek to explain usually provide more actionable insights (e.g. if we think we waste too many resources on conspicuous consumption perhaps we should examine and modify the cultural and structural systems that drive this desire, such as aggressive marketing and the promotion of superficial values), though of course lower level explanations are not false either, and can also provide an interesting viewpoint.
Which is to say, this was an interesting read and it made me think hard enough that I’m typing this several weeks after having initially read it. Looking forward to future posts:)
Great read. John seems to take a informative, unbiased stance on the nature of conspicuous consumption.
Look forward to reading more.
Beautiful piece. Took my breath away, I slowly read it as I took notes in my diary.
Thank you so much John
Listen. I started typing up several responses to this along the lines of this type of analysis leaning too hard into adaptationism and underestimating the power of culture but ultimately refuted my own arguments and deleted the responses. My immediate reaction to evo psych explanations for high-level human activity such as landing on the moon is that no, in fact we went to the moon because humans are curious, ambitious, and driven by the pursuit of knowledge (and recognition, sure). But of course if we sufficiently furrow our brows we can always trace those traits back to biological pressures. So all I’ll say is this: when we ask the question “how did the Himalayan mountains form?” we first talk at the level of tectonic plates and continental drift rather than at the level of atomic structures and particle physics. Likewise, when we ask questions about complex human behaviour it’s usually more appropriate to first talk of cultural pressures and political structures. Explanations which are at a closer level of analysis to the phenomenon we seek to explain usually provide more actionable insights (e.g. if we think we waste too many resources on conspicuous consumption perhaps we should examine and modify the cultural and structural systems that drive this desire, such as aggressive marketing and the promotion of superficial values), though of course lower level explanations are not false either, and can also provide an interesting viewpoint.
Which is to say, this was an interesting read and it made me think hard enough that I’m typing this several weeks after having initially read it. Looking forward to future posts:)
My brain got 10X wrinklier by reading this, thanks for the new perspective.
I like the way you connected these ideas in a big picture way.
Excited to see what you have to say about social institutions.
(and if i have to report you to the pope)