back

by stagas·6y ago·view on hn ↗
"Think for yourself" is humanity's adaptation of forager ants[0]. Sure, many will be lost, but we need those people that hunt for novelty because it eventually benefits everyone else. You could even think of historical figures that advanced society as the forager ants of our culture. I'm not sure what the benefit would be if everyone chose to be one, though.

The hive mind is an interesting phenomenon, it seems that there isn't a right or wrong way to do things. Anything we do is a behavior which ripples its effects way beyond our understanding. One thing seems certain though; if a behavior is there, it's been selected by evolution. So, there has to have some advantage at some level even if it isn't obvious at all.

Regarding Chesterton's Fence, it's something I've been noticing myself as my understanding grows. Though I didn't know the term, I do see it more and more around me. I have the feeling that one example of this behavior can be spotted in today's strict Muslim society, where women are covered head to toe. As westerners, we see it as a very absurd thing to do for the sake of a religion. But do we really understand the whole story? Seeing how we ourselves quickly rushed to cover our faces to avoid catching a contagious disease, I'm speculating that something similar might have been the initiative for such a cultural artifact. Which are the most vulnerable and most valuable people in a society? Women, obviously, we have to protect them. Perhaps in similar disease outbreaks in the Middle East, people figured out that by reducing contact with your environment actually reduces the possibility for illness and death.

It perhaps then, eventually creeped its way into religion, because you had to make sure people would follow the advice even if they didn't understand it, and that was the institution people listened to at those times and was more likely to be passed on to next generations. Survival supersedes freedom, so, there you have it.

[0]: https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/stanford-b...

2 comments
I recently watched a lecture series on Machine Learning and the speaker talked about how one of the deeper principles is balancing exploration and exploitation. Spend all your time doing one or the other and you'll never get anywhere, but the optimal balance depends on the problem and the environment (no free lunch etc.)

Forager ants, Galileos and people who just boil their cassava are the explorers I guess, and probably humanity needs a proportion of them because every now and then one of them will find a herb with amazing medicinal properties or something. That may be an evolutionary advantage even if 90% of explorers die eating something poisonous before they've found anything useful.

Maybe startups are today's explorers? Being very generous to VC-backed startups, possibly 90% of them fail, but on average they're still a good investment - just ask Paul Graham.

I'm less sure about the full veil as an example because there's a lot of debate about what exactly the Prophet's instruction for women to cover their head meant; it's certainly interpreted differently across different Islamic cultures (a hijab is not an abaya is not a burqa etc.); and covering of the face as opposed to the hair is definitely not universal in Islam (the headscarf/hijab leaves the face free for example).

The Greeks in Socrates's time also shrouded and secluded women in high-status families, for similar reasons as Muslim extremists do today. There was no religious smokescreen in thar case.

But many women in burqas consider it liberating not to be obliged to wear makeup and track fashion. Invisibility can be a power, in context. Maybe everyone should have a burqa on hand, for those times. You can conceal a lot in there that no one suspects.

> "Maybe everyone should have a burqa on hand..."

Or, we can just stop 'selling' women?

Well, that too, but that is a different topic.
> "...there has to have some advantage at some level even if it isn't obvious at all."

I don't think 'natural selection' makes a bidirectional claim in this way. Not every gene expression is an advantageous mutation. In other words, a lot hinges on your interpretation of 'advantage'. Darwin's observations of advantage explained difference, whereas a mutation which leads to similar traits in organisms would not have an advantage per se--it's just mutation, replication, selection. repeat.

This is not my field of study. Maybe someone else can correct me or say this better...