(Untitled)

[foxe]

today's words:

54 / 1000 words. 5% done!

That's not very many, but I have been busy thinking thoughts...

total words:

1130 / 5000 words. 23% done

Comments

[daemon_will]

It is rational, because the minimum risk lies in that which we know. It is also instinctive, as you mention above; the immediate dangers to early Man trying something new have been replaced by the less tangible but no less important modern risks of financial or scientifically harmful damage. Nevertheless, what characterises progress is our ability to overcome that rational preference in the hope of something better - and of course, sometimes the unknown risks materialise. Look at the early researchers into medical and other uses of radioactive materials, who later developed cancers. The saying 'no risk, no reward' (or even worse, 'no pain, no gain') comes from experience

[foxe]

the minimum risk lies in that which we know

I do not think this is always true!

But yes it is instinctive -- in fact I keep meaning to investigate the idea that aversion to novelty and repugnance as a reaction to rotting food, both evolutionarily favoured strategies, are associated with the evolutionary origins of morality; lends a whole new meaning to "olfactory moral reasoning"! As I always point out, however, just because something is evolutionarily favourable doesn't mean it's morally correct. Now that we have evolved to be moral agents, we can separate morality from its evolutionary origins. Case in point: it's evolutionarily favourable for men to cheat on their wives as long as they can get away with it, but we don't (usually) regard it as morally acceptable

[pezzae]

I recall learning in psych class about an experiment with monetary costs and rewards on cards which were placed in facedown decks and people could choose which deck to pick a card from, and the cost/benefit would be added to the amount they took home. People soon learnt to avoid the deck with bigger costs, though it also had bigger benefits. Interestingly, galvanic skin response (measures sweating = stress) rose when people were thinking about taking a card from the high cost deck, even before they consciously realised the pattern in the decks. (Also, people with a certain personality type or mental illness or something did not show that pattern and continued to choose from the high cost/high benefit deck).
Can't remember the name of the authors or anything useful like that though... sorry!

[foxe]

Hmm, thanks! Very interesting... that fits in with the idea of inherent risk-aversive rather than benefit-seeking tendencies. I shall have a search for it...