Jamie: Interesting thoughts about the purpose and intent of human communication. I agree that much of such behavior has to do with “advertising.” However, it doesn’t seem to me that explains all. Perhaps, human communication is about both the exchange of information (data, information, knowledge, wisdom, etc) and advertising. The trick, for me, is to accurately discern which is being promoted. Sometimes, I seem to do that in retrospect - but not always! Thanks for sharing you thoughts and experiences. Best regards, Waldemar Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD (Perseveret et Percipiunt) 503.631.8044 Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein) > On Feb 17, 2020, at 6:22 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Hi Jamie, > Thanks for sharing this. I am not sure I understand what your thoughts are regarding how either the Red Queen or the Social Leap offers a narrative that is not consistent with the Justification Hypothesis/Justification Systems Theory. Can you say more of your thinking here? > > Also, to most clearly see the (basic) theory of self-esteem provided by the Unified Framework, you would want to familiarize yourself with the Influence Matrix. Here is a slide show on it. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.gregghenriques.com_influence-2Dmatrix.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YO751k1YGOsDeNMczpKe1AoO-Ert0_ySPNlHex2AKoU&s=SJsJpWP_TGyWwblrbbDNO12bNL2QTwqHy3_r7FsEMfY&e=> Happy to offer more resources if you would like. Also, I should note that to fully understand JUST in terms of how it frames our everyday interaction, it needs to be paired and contextualized with BIT and the Matrix. Here is a brief blog on how to use investment, influence and justification <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201901_3-2Dways-2Dexplain-2Dhuman-2Dbehavior&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YO751k1YGOsDeNMczpKe1AoO-Ert0_ySPNlHex2AKoU&s=OsuRaZKlwOlcJzVuZznIjuG3CPMJ6Q4bh652rTaULIE&e=> as a basic frame for every day interaction. > > Best, > Gregg > > From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Jamie D > Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 1:40 AM > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Subject: The Red Queen and The Justification Hypothesis > > Hey all, > > I just finished reading The Red Queen, which seems to be an important recent book on the evolution of human sexuality. Another book with similarly candid conclusions is The Social Leap. > > Near the end of the Red Queen, the author describes some experiments that support the idea that human intelligence evolved largely because of the endless treadmill of competition with other humans - that we are all natural Psychologists, and whether we like it or not, status is important to one's health and wellbeing. > > "It's not how good at chess you are overall, but how much better you are than your competitors that matters" > > The author also mentioned a theory for the 'invention' of the subconscious - that in order to better deceive others (and I'll add, simply to cooperate), we must become good at deceiving ourselves in useful ways. > > The reason I add that we might need to deceive ourselves to cooperate is that certain existential truths set us against each other, and most of us would rather deny them than acknowledge them. But I'm more inclined to think we should be publicly conscious of our incentives and responsible for them rather than tuck them away. The schism between the realities of our individual incentives and the widespread cultural ontology seems to me to be main difference between the "real world" and the matrix. (You know, all this blue, red, black pill stuff) > > The author also mentions roughly that "Human communication is less for the honest exchange of information [and truth seeking] than for advertising value and status." It seems the latter comes first, in order of priority to the individual, and the former is a consequence of competitive cooperation. > > This last part is a big deal for me personally, because it explains a lot of my frustrations. While I'm seeking people with whom to learn, explore, create and grow, I've constantly felt most people I come across to see the conversation I'm trying to have as status-aggrandizing, and to retaliate by misrepresenting or belittling the topic in order to stay above some "zone of humility". > > I could certainly be wrong, but it also seems to create a problem for the justification hypothesis. > > Personally, I absolutely love the idea that the refinement of rationality and science is the recent pinnacle and trajectory of cultural evolution. And pressures of competence in real-world challenges would seem to keep this trajectory going if our future is to explore the hidden realms of truth and technological-creative possibility. But great swaths of humanity are busy maintaining lies (usually implicit lies, it seems to me) to themselves and each other in the struggle to appear (and be treated) like they matter... and to belong, for its allegiance to the group that we are most willing to sacrifice truth. (this connects to the recent post about the American life being unhealthy. I agree with the thesis, but I don't think the author diagnosed the root problem nor a solution. I might write a post on that.) > > We all need to matter to important people around us, which means we need some measure of what does and doesn't matter - scarcity of some kind, to keep the hedonic treadmill going. Perhaps there must always be losers for others to experience liberation, and being perfectly reasonable isn't enough. Jordan Peterson's idea that "True Speech" is what empowers people doesn't jive with my experience. Rather, appearing happy and self-satisfied in a contagious way, while being just competent enough at whatever your actual job is - that seems more like it.... Unless you make a breakthrough that humbles everyone in your presence. > > I'll stop there to keep this reasonably short. > > - Jamie > > P.S. An existential bummer isn't something I went looking for, nor have any desire to propagate in itself, but is simply where my intellectual journey has thus far landed. To be honest I rather often feel unsafe even being conscious of such findings, because I might inadvertently trigger a reaction that could utterly destroy my social value. It's happened before. There are some milieu's where if even someone thinks you know or believe some fact that's inconvenient for dominant norms, you could get in serious trouble. > > P.S.S. Self esteem seems connected to behavioral investment theory, in that high self esteem activates behavior (or liberates one from chronic behavioral inhibition). And I suspect that self esteem is literally governed by the dominant norms that govern what memes are allowed to spread. There is an evolving 'moral filter', part of the moral arc, that protects previously justified memes (based on utility I presume). An unfortunate effect is that certain truths have to be packaged extremely precisely as to avoid alienating other memes/people. Therefore, many people throughout history could have been perfectly reasonable and right about whatever they care about, but didn't evolve enough politically to 'make it through the filter' to have their memes contribute to the cultural memesphere, and their person recognized as someone who matters. > > P.S.S. I'm having a chuckle at wondering if my signals of low status might make Gregg uncomfortable. Is that a source of connection or alienation? > > > > -- > -Jamie > ############################ > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>############################ > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1> ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1