Suppose there is natural variation in abstract thinking skills and also in the need for social comforts. People who spend a lot of time providing for their social needs don’t have enough time or interest left to develop their thinking skills. Thus, the people with strong thinking skills we see tend to be those with fewer social needs.
But what is the incentive to develop abstract thinking? The way the argument is constructed is:
humans need esteem, esteem is not provided by society, seeking esteem develops heuristic thinking.
Okay, that makes sense, but then
humans need comfort, comfort is provided by society, seeking comfort develops abstract thinking.
is broken.
If it a case of social skills inhibiting abstract thinking, I missed the arguments. And then the part about comfort-seeking developing abstract thinking is irrelevant.
All you need is to suppose some humans can develop abstract thinking (AT) and some can’t. It doesn’t matter what the mechnanism is, or even if there is one or if it’s purely random. And suppose there is variation in how much people invest in social skills (SS) - again, it doesn’t matter what the source of the variation is.
Then the theory predicts that people who invest in SS a lot, don’t have time left for anything else, and in particular for AT. And so there is a selection effect such that the people who we see investing in AT, have smaller investments in SS than average.
Thank you for expanding your first comment. I think I got it. Vassar isn’t saying that seeking physiological comfort trains AT, only that training AT doesn’t train SS and vice versa.
The point as I understand it: we need love and esteem on supermarket shelves.
One thing is unclear in the argument: how do the useful innovators acquire abstract thinking skills?
Suppose there is natural variation in abstract thinking skills and also in the need for social comforts. People who spend a lot of time providing for their social needs don’t have enough time or interest left to develop their thinking skills. Thus, the people with strong thinking skills we see tend to be those with fewer social needs.
But what is the incentive to develop abstract thinking? The way the argument is constructed is:
humans need esteem, esteem is not provided by society, seeking esteem develops heuristic thinking.
Okay, that makes sense, but then
humans need comfort, comfort is provided by society, seeking comfort develops abstract thinking.
is broken.
If it a case of social skills inhibiting abstract thinking, I missed the arguments. And then the part about comfort-seeking developing abstract thinking is irrelevant.
It doesn’t matter what the incentive is.
All you need is to suppose some humans can develop abstract thinking (AT) and some can’t. It doesn’t matter what the mechnanism is, or even if there is one or if it’s purely random. And suppose there is variation in how much people invest in social skills (SS) - again, it doesn’t matter what the source of the variation is.
Then the theory predicts that people who invest in SS a lot, don’t have time left for anything else, and in particular for AT. And so there is a selection effect such that the people who we see investing in AT, have smaller investments in SS than average.
Thank you for expanding your first comment. I think I got it. Vassar isn’t saying that seeking physiological comfort trains AT, only that training AT doesn’t train SS and vice versa.