Hacker News Reader

Comment by fartcannon | Hacker News Reader

I cant tell if youre joking or not because I sorta do think it is all a scam. I think the stock market is a way to keep the sociopaths doing something less dangerous than continuous war and insurrection. Whether intentionally or not, I think that's it's primary value.

It basically magnifies wealth discrepancy which is what the sociopaths want. The rest of us just try not to become poor by playing their games. Whenever everyone gets too close to fair, they invent a new game, or take the ball and go home. You know? I'm only sort of kidding. :D

View on HN

> Whenever everyone gets too close to fair, they invent a new game, or take the ball and go home.

who is “they”?

Sociopaths

What an interesting world view.

I try and think about it from our tribal, small group primate origin perspective. I hope you're not mocking me, but if you are, I still do think it's interesting actually. :)

Like maybe we didn't kill the neanderthals, you know? I think we probably convinced them to kill each other. That's kind of our specialty.

I’m not mocking you. But if I had that world view, I might not get out of bed in the morning.

> if I had that world view, I might not get out of bed in the morning

It might be the inverse. Someone not wanting to get out of bed in the morning projecting that view onto the world.

It's neither! What's the problem with trying to explain human motivations like greed using our evolution? I genuinely think it's interesting.

> What's the problem with trying to explain human motivations like greed using our evolution?

Look up Social Darwinism. Broadly: most evolutionary explanations for social behaviour aren’t science. They’re parlour tricks. One can posit reasonable-sounding explanations for any behaviour, real or hypothetical, none of which is testable.

Example: I can construct individual-selection arguments for humans being evolved sociopaths and group-selection arguments for humans being collectivist sheep. There is truth in both statements. But their predictive value is totally dependent on the immeasurable mix and mechanics thereof, all of which is blissfully ignored, both in substance and evaluation, by this framing.

I think maybe you're talking about something else, or believe that I am, or I'm misunderstanding you because it feels like you're trying to tell me that my _imagination_ is a parlour trick. Ive been on the internet for a long time and this is the first time that has ever happened.

I value the time you put into explaining your position, however I dont think creative thought exercises like trying to explain why wall street is full of a-holes using evoluton is a parlour trick. Because there's no trick. It's just a thought. On a discussion forum. Where people discuss things.

> my _imagination_ is a parlour trick...there's no trick. It's just a thought

There is a trick. You're claiming artistic license as a fictional narrator. That's fine! That's a thing!

But it doesn't work when presenting explanations for the real world. One in which the stock market is a "scam" whose "primary value" is "to keep the sociopaths" busy while it "magnifies wealth discrepancy which is what the sociopaths want" all while if someone other than "they" start winning "they invent a new game, or take the ball and go home" [1].

Evolutionary explanations of sociology have a long history of being deeply flawed. At best, they're arbitrary [2]. As explanations for the present state of the world, they aren't useful. As fictional devices, sure, why not.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31469336

[2] Caveat: evolutionary thinking works when one starts with real-world observations and supposes how they evolved. Cf: the evolution of altruism in humans [a]. It fails when one supposes evolutionary pressures to predict human behavior, e.g. natural selection and social competition exist, herego we should expect our leaders to be sociopaths. Observation, not supposition, before conclusion.

[a] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25061670

I notice you left out the 'I think' from when you quoted me. That's how you were supposed to know it's not fiction, it's not a parlor trick, it's a thought. Kinda like brainstorming. Suggesting there is a 'trick' to what I'm writing implies (to me at least) that I'm attempting to deceive. I assure you I am not.

And since we're quoting each other, you opened with, "It might be the inverse. Someone not wanting to get out of bed in the morning projecting that view onto the world." I assure you I love getting out of bed. On the other hand, I kinda get the vibe the discussion you're having is a continuation of one you've had before with someone else and maybe you're projecting it on to me?

I checked out your profile and now I understand! Haha. Fun times. Thanks for the links.

Ah, I see. Well, I assure you that it invigorates and inspires me. I consider it one of my stronger assets and I highly recommend it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com