Counter argument: we pay garbagemen more than we pay convenience store clerks because the work is harder and nastier and we have to incentivize them. Thus, we should also expect that we reward warriors with status more than we reward innovators, because market clearing price.https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/1119949952761978881 …
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP
You presume that it is harder to be a warrior than an innovator?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @robinhanson
No. I presume that: * innovators will innovate even without status boost, because (a) they're driven to it, (b) there are economic rewards, (c) a and b work together to get us "enough" innovators. * without status bump "we" get "too few" warriors.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP
The argument that we naturally have too few innovators seems to me much stronger than for too few warriors.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @robinhanson
what matters when explaining why things are as they are is not what economists think, but what the logic of evolutionary selection thinks (and thinks RETROspectively, not prospectively) Did a tribe in 10,000 BC that rewarded innovators more have its genes or memes replicated?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The evolutionary environment of 2000 AD != that of 10,000 BC. A 1% improvement in bowl carving technology had little effect, but a 1% improvement in battle outcomes did. Further, the benefits were internalized to the genotype of the victorious tribe. Bowl carving tech spreads.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.