A Matrix of Epithets
Arnold Kling blogs about a recent video discussion between Robin Hanson and Will Wilkinson. I commented on one of the points Arnold picked out of the debate and then realized that I could construct a matrix of epithets based on my analysis. As it involves evolutionary psychology, I thought some of you might enjoy it. WARNING: EXPLICIT LANGUAGE. Arnold poses this question:"1. Hanson says that people have a propensity to disagree, just to be contrary. Do you agree? How do we explain conformity?"
To which I comment:"... In all seriousness, I think people have two different tendencies, which individuals are "blessed" with in different amounts (presumably on a Gaussian distribution).
Tendency one: in interactions framed as "one-to-one", they tend to be contrary. Tendency two: in interactions framed as "group", they tend to conform.
My "just so" explanation using evolutionary psychology (and therefore probably suspect a priori): one-on-one interactions are opportunities to signal reproductive fitness over the opponent while group interactions are opportunities to signal cooperativeness with common goals. Personally, I seem to be blessed with a couple extra standard deviations of contrariness and at least one standard deviation less of conformity."
So this leaves us with a four cell matrix of high and low on contrariness and conformity. (Yes, I am too lazy to do the graphic.). As I noted above, I'm high contrariness and low conformity. This makes me an "asshole"--always arguing the smallest point and never just going along. My counterpart at low contrariness and high conformity would probably be termed a "wimp"--never speaking up for himself and always trying to please the group. While it may seem impossible to be high contrariness and high conformity, I beg to differ. These are "douchebags"--dressed in the latest fashion and spouting the popular ideologies, but showing off by arguing the minor points of those ideologies. Then this makes low contrariness and low conformity people "loners", as in Unabomber loners--always distancing themselves from the group and never disagreeing to your face, but plotting their revenge in secret. The primary antagonists are assholes and douchebags. Assholes think douchebags are hypocrites and douchebags think assholes are thugs. If you see two guys arguing at a party, one of them is probably an asshole and the other one is probably a douchebag. You'll often see several douchbags try to gang up on an asshole, but assholes have an inherent advantage because they don't have to pay lip service to an ideology. Both assholes and douchebags can attract a posse of wimps, though the douchebags usually have a larger posse. So which are you? Asshole, wimp, douchebag, or loner? Or if you prefer the late, great George Carlin's taxonomy, asshole, jackoff,, scumbag? For a different take on being a member of the doucheoisie, see here.Related posts:
-
rafefurst
