Is this the common view? I always saw "fittest" as that which is more fit for a niche regardless of what power trait was implemented. I mentioned this elsewhere in this [1] comment, being surprised that someone assumed "fit" was defined in a more malicious manner but I guess this day and age, the definition seems to be more biased towards competitive manners rather than socially inclusive.
I had a friend once who saw a real-life situation as Prisoners Dilemma and his take-away was that cooperation was unlikely. My opinion was that prisoners dilemma shows us that two parties who communicate and cooperate in such a situation would quickly develop an unassailable advantage.
There is a real failure in how individualism is promoted. We should promote the freedom of the individual because the optimum strategy is to cooperate; which means a free individual poses little threat to the collective but massive upside if they think of a better way of behaving.
This is also why authoritarianism is a bad idea - if the natural equlibrium position is cooperation, and cooperation massively outperforms the alternatives and then the situation is forced away from equilibrium, what exactly is going to happen? Nothing good.
Just look at modern human society. There is no way that cooperation isn't the superior strategy. There are nearly no arenas where an individual can effectively compete with a team without people agreeing to artificial rules.
Gangs are a product of this. Religion, racisms, culturisms, and nationalisms, too.
Same with having large families.
There are some arenas, but the strategy of the groups is to attack those that might be competitive. Money is the greatest indicator of success, and money yields connections and the ability to act. Wealthy individuals surround themselves with family, friends and employees to ensure their status.
And social pressures, such as poverty show that organized crime pays better, in that locale.
7 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 28.3 ms ] thread[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20615981
There is a real failure in how individualism is promoted. We should promote the freedom of the individual because the optimum strategy is to cooperate; which means a free individual poses little threat to the collective but massive upside if they think of a better way of behaving.
This is also why authoritarianism is a bad idea - if the natural equlibrium position is cooperation, and cooperation massively outperforms the alternatives and then the situation is forced away from equilibrium, what exactly is going to happen? Nothing good.
Just look at modern human society. There is no way that cooperation isn't the superior strategy. There are nearly no arenas where an individual can effectively compete with a team without people agreeing to artificial rules.
Same with having large families.
There are some arenas, but the strategy of the groups is to attack those that might be competitive. Money is the greatest indicator of success, and money yields connections and the ability to act. Wealthy individuals surround themselves with family, friends and employees to ensure their status.
And social pressures, such as poverty show that organized crime pays better, in that locale.