You've remarked before that chimpanzees come closer to Homo economicus than humans do ... but are you sure that's true? Homo economicus respects the conventions of property; it's part of the definition. Do chimps do the same? If one chimp makes it clear that something is his, do other chimps acknowledge the claim and leave it alone, even when the claimant isn't there to defend it? It seems to me that that would require exactly the sort of long-term cooperation humans exhibit and chimpanzees generally don't.
Game theory is based on Homo economicus. Chimpanzees follow game theory more than we do. The point is we have evolved mechanisms to get around game theory constraints.
If you put the normative elements into your definition, you are begging the question somewhat. If you simply presume normative behaviour, you have missed the point. Moreover, you will be much less inclined to examine the basic mechanisms why which humans get around game theory constraints.
Very well done! I've struggled to write things about economic incentives and property rights and human nature. The truths seem so blindingly obvious to me, and I have difficulty restating them in a way that seems compelling or that offers any hint of originality.
As a child I greatly resisted the idea of having to share my favorite toys, while embracing the idea that other had to share with me. Had I truly invested in this attitude, my success as a progressive intellectual might have been assured. Now I´m just another failure.
I enjoyed reading this, though I consider property as a multifaceted consequence of human adaptations. The development of the concept of property was what allowed the prosperity above everyone owning a loincloth, and likely sharing spears. But it is of secondary interest to me.
What repeatedly annoys me, though, is the utter misunderstanding of the concept of group selection. Yes, there was an archaic misunderstanding of group selection as selection of groups that are lasting. Similarly, there was a misconception of species having a common interest in conquering ecological niches - which was proven to be the furthest from what happens in reality: the highest evolutionary competitors are the members of the same species, selection against whom is gauged.
So, group selection is not selection of permanent groups, but competition among groups primarily for in-group cohesion and even sacrifice. This started from the common ancestors with chimps - which is almost perfect homo economicus with notable band cohesion - to even more so for us humans. In both cases, in warfare the defeated group was most often slaughtered - at least the men - which was half of the population - plenty of death of 'unfit', slightly more selfish, cowards, for selection to take place. And churning so for a million years. Going back to Darwin, this was the source of group cohesion and non-kin altruism - and building up language-based ostracism and cohesion like shared beliefs. This was the evolutionary basis for - always - genomes of individuals gradually changing in this direction. Granted, this mostly stopped after socially evolving from hunter-gatherer bands of ~100 - with development of agrarian societies. Some, like David Sloan Wilson, were trying to recover the concept by calling it multi-level selection and joining the culture in it, which is quite good if convoluted scheme.
I would say, George Price's eventual suicide some while after discovering a simple differential equation of selection for altruism was a bit too much; the core cause of his psychosis was more likely untreated thyroid problem.
Steven Pinker's screed about group selection a dozen years ago is quite simplistic, and honestly, misconstrued. Not unlike Pinker's statement about the same time to the effect that there is already a better kind of humans - called women - and now we are enjoying the benefits of society feminization. Haven't heard Pinker retracting that statement either.
Well, we use language to do Mathematics. But it is a very particular form of language that has both rigour and generality.
When I say Mathematics is the science of structure, that is structure in general, not any particular structure. Hence it is possible to create non-Euclidean geometry.
Which mathematics to apply to actual structures in the world is a fraught question. An interaction between discovering what those structures are and which mathematics best applies to them. Get it right, and one raises the rigour of our understanding. Get it wrong, and it can generate a pretence of rigour without the substance of it. Hence the problem of mathiness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathiness
That mathematics does not have empirical content is the point of it being the science of structure in general: indeed, of all possible structures that are, well, structured.
We're agree on the concepts. On terminology, a "science" of structure might be mechanical engineering, or crystallography. The "study of ideas behind math" could fall under metaphysics, or logic.
But you may call it whatever you like. Interesting discussion; thanks!
You've remarked before that chimpanzees come closer to Homo economicus than humans do ... but are you sure that's true? Homo economicus respects the conventions of property; it's part of the definition. Do chimps do the same? If one chimp makes it clear that something is his, do other chimps acknowledge the claim and leave it alone, even when the claimant isn't there to defend it? It seems to me that that would require exactly the sort of long-term cooperation humans exhibit and chimpanzees generally don't.
Game theory is based on Homo economicus. Chimpanzees follow game theory more than we do. The point is we have evolved mechanisms to get around game theory constraints.
If you put the normative elements into your definition, you are begging the question somewhat. If you simply presume normative behaviour, you have missed the point. Moreover, you will be much less inclined to examine the basic mechanisms why which humans get around game theory constraints.
Marvellous analysis, great insights. Thanks.
I read this morning this article by Mathew Crawford on the UnHerd site:
https://unherd.com/2025/12/the-death-of-hollywood/
What caught my attention was this sentence in the last paragraph:
"It is hard to see how the deadening effect of managerialism might be overcome, as our class structure is built on it."
The phrase "our class structure" jolted me awake. Can we get so averse to Marxism, that we don´t see it CLEARLY, for ourselves, the CLASS structure?
Very well done! I've struggled to write things about economic incentives and property rights and human nature. The truths seem so blindingly obvious to me, and I have difficulty restating them in a way that seems compelling or that offers any hint of originality.
As a child I greatly resisted the idea of having to share my favorite toys, while embracing the idea that other had to share with me. Had I truly invested in this attitude, my success as a progressive intellectual might have been assured. Now I´m just another failure.
A masterful work.
I enjoyed reading this, though I consider property as a multifaceted consequence of human adaptations. The development of the concept of property was what allowed the prosperity above everyone owning a loincloth, and likely sharing spears. But it is of secondary interest to me.
What repeatedly annoys me, though, is the utter misunderstanding of the concept of group selection. Yes, there was an archaic misunderstanding of group selection as selection of groups that are lasting. Similarly, there was a misconception of species having a common interest in conquering ecological niches - which was proven to be the furthest from what happens in reality: the highest evolutionary competitors are the members of the same species, selection against whom is gauged.
So, group selection is not selection of permanent groups, but competition among groups primarily for in-group cohesion and even sacrifice. This started from the common ancestors with chimps - which is almost perfect homo economicus with notable band cohesion - to even more so for us humans. In both cases, in warfare the defeated group was most often slaughtered - at least the men - which was half of the population - plenty of death of 'unfit', slightly more selfish, cowards, for selection to take place. And churning so for a million years. Going back to Darwin, this was the source of group cohesion and non-kin altruism - and building up language-based ostracism and cohesion like shared beliefs. This was the evolutionary basis for - always - genomes of individuals gradually changing in this direction. Granted, this mostly stopped after socially evolving from hunter-gatherer bands of ~100 - with development of agrarian societies. Some, like David Sloan Wilson, were trying to recover the concept by calling it multi-level selection and joining the culture in it, which is quite good if convoluted scheme.
I would say, George Price's eventual suicide some while after discovering a simple differential equation of selection for altruism was a bit too much; the core cause of his psychosis was more likely untreated thyroid problem.
Steven Pinker's screed about group selection a dozen years ago is quite simplistic, and honestly, misconstrued. Not unlike Pinker's statement about the same time to the effect that there is already a better kind of humans - called women - and now we are enjoying the benefits of society feminization. Haven't heard Pinker retracting that statement either.
Jurist Blackstone of England.
I contend
Blackstone in one word;
Property.
It therefore follows that the only question ever is what or who is property, and Whom is owner?
If you answer that you have the truth regardless of law. Law mere words.
Property endures.
Property is real.
Mathematics is a language. A form of speech. A vessel for thoughts, just like English or COBOL.
It's up to Science to populate that language with observations, to give it content and therefore meaning.
In astronomy, Ptolemy wasn't wrong. He accounted for the data he had quite well. He just chose an inconvenient frame of reference.
Copernicus astutely moved the origin, a vast improvement. Of course he didn't know it was all circling the Milky Way center, counterclockwise.
The Copernican model, with calculations by Newton, got Man to the Moon and back. Not bad for flat space.
Then came Einstein, who said "Not quite Nicholaus. Mercury is a bit off." Because matter tells space to bend.
We can discuss Riemann's quibble with Euclid another time.
Well, we use language to do Mathematics. But it is a very particular form of language that has both rigour and generality.
When I say Mathematics is the science of structure, that is structure in general, not any particular structure. Hence it is possible to create non-Euclidean geometry.
Which mathematics to apply to actual structures in the world is a fraught question. An interaction between discovering what those structures are and which mathematics best applies to them. Get it right, and one raises the rigour of our understanding. Get it wrong, and it can generate a pretence of rigour without the substance of it. Hence the problem of mathiness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathiness
Mathematics does not have empirical content.
It is a tool to make sense of the empirical content science provides.
Change the premises and math finds new uses.
Yes, math has rigor and generality. So does Cobol. And in the rare hands of a gifted attorney, English may aspire to such heights.
That is why we call a document of several thousand words a “brief.”
As for mathiness: lawyers know when to press the Facts or the Law. Or in desperation, to pound the table.
That mathematics does not have empirical content is the point of it being the science of structure in general: indeed, of all possible structures that are, well, structured.
We're agree on the concepts. On terminology, a "science" of structure might be mechanical engineering, or crystallography. The "study of ideas behind math" could fall under metaphysics, or logic.
But you may call it whatever you like. Interesting discussion; thanks!