Oh please. There are at least as many "hunter-gather lives" as there are tribes, and probably more, and it's very likely the author knows about none of them. This is rubbish of the highest order.
It seems the author is extrapolating game-theoretic choice beyond what they've experienced to examine it's generality
Agreed the phrasing is more than unfortunate, though to try and pull good from it; the author's game-theory probably does apply; and the rule of seeking the best for society at the disadvantage of self is probably the missing key here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29416606 (The break down of distributed society)
You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ ... But I tell you, love your enemies
Or, unhelpfully, the Code of Hammurabi: If a man proceeded by force and deflowered the virgin slave-woman of another man, that man must pay five shekels of silver.
If a man knocked out the eye of another man, he shall weigh out half a mina of silver.
If a man knocked out a tooth of another man, he shall pay two shekels of silver.
My question would be: does game theory ever enable the golden rule?
I guess we all do this to a certain extent given that there's so much content to parse through and anything that will allow us to quickly dismiss something lets us use that energy for something else
I'm sorry, but yes. This shows the author wasn't thinking and is intellectually lazy and incurious -- like if he was laying out bigoted theories in the first paragraph, and making whole deductions out of it.
This is actually bigoted, by the way: to declare that there is just one way to live the life of a hunter-gatherer, and that it's "simple".
The claim:
>> The golden rule of hunter-gather life is pretty simple
...post-processing, is perceived as:
> There are at least as many "hunter-gather lives" as there are tribes, and probably more, and it's very likely the author knows about none of them.
...dropping "the golden rule of".
Ironically, this is followed up with:
> This shows the author wasn't thinking and is intellectually lazy and incurious -- like if he was [laying out bigoted theories in the first paragraph], and making whole deductions out of it.
I wrote more about a theory I have about this phenomenon in a recent thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29430192
> If you happen to be blessed with muscle, don’t throw it around. If you happen to be a great hunter or a dazzling beauty, don’t flaunt it over others. Be one of the good guys, in other words.
This is completely gratuitous and unsubstantiated. It's ridiculous. And then there is more of the same.
So you interpret and perceive (and then assert as True). But then, aren't we all "playing with words", at all times, to some degree?
For example, I could say that you are "engaging in persuasive rhetoric" when you say that.
>> If you happen to be blessed with muscle, don’t throw it around. If you happen to be a great hunter or a dazzling beauty, don’t flaunt it over others. Be one of the good guys, in other words.
> This is completely gratuitous and unsubstantiated. It's ridiculous. And then there is more of the same.
gratuitous: uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted
Don't throw your muscle around, don't flaunt exceptional characteristics over others, be a good guy - in the building and maintenance of a successful community, these things are "uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted"?
unsubstantiated: not supported or proven by evidence
Here you have a better case, but when it comes to the "not supported by" part, I suspect these are not entirely new ideas in the fields of anthropology and social evolution (I speculate).
Out of curiosity, did you read my other comment? I put a fair amount of work into it, and I believe it has some relevance. Perhaps you could critique it!