Quote:
Originally Posted by -moe-
Usually, yes, probably correct. But a ruthless sociopath would also be more likely to make it to the top, it seems, given the long string of really nasty dictators in those countries, and then he's in a position to have hundreds of children. And there's not only a single "top", there are probably many opportunities to grab vast power, like local for an area, or a village.
I think ruthlessly aggressive social strategies have evolved largely because they carry an increased likelihood of "reaching the top." But they also carry (at least in most primate species) an increased likelihood of death or banishment. Very high risk, very high potential reward.
Quote:
(Reminds me; see vice.tv's documentary on Liberia for a good illustration of the type of society I'm envisioning in this case. General Butt Naked couldn't happen in any Western country...)
This is essentially what I worry Western society may descend into, given time and the right type of crisis.
Quote:
Oh well. Don't have time to look it up right now, but IIRC, the share of people with low emotional impact from watching fellow humans in pain has been found to be steady around 6% in most or all cultures where something like the Milgram experiment or the Stanford prison experiment has been run. (Might have been Pinker's "The Blank Slate" which mentions this.) So perhaps the equilibrium of human "hawks vs doves" will be around that number anyway.
I think this equilibrium is a result of the specific risk versus reward that has held during our natural history. If we apply selective pressure in favor of sociopaths, I see the equilibrium changing.