I would assume that monsters are over-represented in the positions of power, simply because on the way to the top there are many situations where people have to choose between hurting someone and losing an opportunity to gain more power, so the intrinsically nice are at a disadvantage.
this seems to be smuggling ‘sadistic’ for ‘not unwilling to hurt others in zero-sum games’.
it may be the case that the road to power requires hurting others instrumentally. that does not imply that those who hurt others terminally have an advantage.
“in baseball, you have to run to get on base. therefore, those who love running have an advantage.”
People who love running have a slight advantage in baseball. They enjoy running so they do more of it so they are better at it. People who love running are slightly over-represented in prominent baseball positions. For similar reasons, people who love playing baseball have an advantage in baseball and are over-represented in prominent baseball positions.
time is finite, and time spent practicing running trades off against more core competencies such as hitting, fielding, pitching, ….
someone who looks to baseball as an outlet for their running hobby will be very disappointed. people who like running will instead play soccer, track & field, basketball. for this reason, i actually expect enjoying running to be anti-correlated with attained success at baseball[1].
looking at the matter at hand, it just obviously proves too much!
in order to compete in the mlb, one must succeed where others fail.
sadistic powerseekers like to watch others fail, so they have an advantage here.
therefore, sadistic powerseekers should be overrepresented in the mlb.
to be clear, if the argument is instead of the form “sadistic powerseekers find an outlet in positions of power, so seek them out. thus we would expect them to be overrepresented there” then i completely agree: makes sense, seems born out by evidence, no notes.
for exactly the reason you describe, they will be worse at cooperating in games similar to prisoner’s dilemma. they will not be good at coordinating on the ultimatum game.
in addition, they will have a worse reputation.
it’s just not clear to me that valuing your opponent’s loss is long-term favorable across the kinds of decisions that people face as they rise to power.
Which one is motivated to spend more resources on winning this specific game?
right, but… should they? rising in politics involves a sequence of victories. burning more resources than is warranted by the zero-th order power you receive seems long term disadvantageous. i would expect players who are motivated solely by power to accumulate more of it, as they will more wisely spend their available capital.
this seems to be smuggling ‘sadistic’ for ‘not unwilling to hurt others in zero-sum games’.
it may be the case that the road to power requires hurting others instrumentally. that does not imply that those who hurt others terminally have an advantage.
“in baseball, you have to run to get on base. therefore, those who love running have an advantage.”
People who love running have a slight advantage in baseball. They enjoy running so they do more of it so they are better at it. People who love running are slightly over-represented in prominent baseball positions. For similar reasons, people who love playing baseball have an advantage in baseball and are over-represented in prominent baseball positions.
time is finite, and time spent practicing running trades off against more core competencies such as hitting, fielding, pitching, ….
someone who looks to baseball as an outlet for their running hobby will be very disappointed. people who like running will instead play soccer, track & field, basketball. for this reason, i actually expect enjoying running to be anti-correlated with attained success at baseball[1].
looking at the matter at hand, it just obviously proves too much!
in order to compete in the mlb, one must succeed where others fail.
sadistic powerseekers like to watch others fail, so they have an advantage here.
therefore, sadistic powerseekers should be overrepresented in the mlb.
to be clear, if the argument is instead of the form “sadistic powerseekers find an outlet in positions of power, so seek them out. thus we would expect them to be overrepresented there” then i completely agree: makes sense, seems born out by evidence, no notes.
in particular, at the highest levels of the sport.
They are not the same thing, but the size of the reward influences the equation.
The same zero-sum game...
...one person’s potential reward is “I win!” (1 util)
...other person’s potential reward is “I win! also, ahaha, look at those losers crying!” (2 utils)
Which one is motivated to spend more resources on winning this specific game?
for exactly the reason you describe, they will be worse at cooperating in games similar to prisoner’s dilemma. they will not be good at coordinating on the ultimatum game.
in addition, they will have a worse reputation.
it’s just not clear to me that valuing your opponent’s loss is long-term favorable across the kinds of decisions that people face as they rise to power.
right, but… should they? rising in politics involves a sequence of victories. burning more resources than is warranted by the zero-th order power you receive seems long term disadvantageous. i would expect players who are motivated solely by power to accumulate more of it, as they will more wisely spend their available capital.