What does “cynicism” mean? According to google, it means: “An inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest.” Hm. So does that make me a cynical person? Are you reading a cynical blog? Sure seems like it. I’ve argued that debates about the “meaning of life” are
I feel like there's a kind of equivocation about what we "really" value.
For example, when someone is learning to play an instrument, it's possible to describe this as satisfying the evolutionary goal of signaling competence, cultural awareness, etc. to potential allies and mates. BUT it's also possible to describe this by saying the person *values creating music*. The two descriptions aren't incompatible. Valuing the creation of music is the means by which the person is signaling their competence, etc.
It's like arguing people don't "really" want to have sex. They only "really" want to pass on their genes to another generation. Well no... People *do* want to have sex, and this satisfies their genes' goals of replicating into another generation.
This piece reinforces an intuition that rational insight is more 'beautiful' in some way than sentiment. But evolution seems to have selected for low self-knowledge, given how hard it is to develop - and how few of us ever try.
I just watched the David Pinsof episode of the Modern Wisdom podcast. He's much younger and better looking than I had imagined. I had always pictured him being about 50 years old... normally it takes many years of crushed hopes and dreams to become this cynical.
It's quite psychologically liberating to see things this way. I used to think this was a fascinating but gloomy argument, but I'm changing my mind. Thanks for a great piece!
I would like some clarification about the "gene of nepotism" and such. Are you referring to literal genes and evolution or is it rather memes than genes as in: nepotistic cultures and societies outperform non-nepotistic cultures and societies?
I think this distinction needs to be made, as in hedonistic societies like Roman Empire before adopting Christianity or WEIRD countries today, status is decoupled from reproduction opportunities and number of offspring, hence the evolution of status related genes stops (Rob Henderson called optimizing for status in such environment an 'evolutionary misfiring'). However, regardless of reproduction, high status people in such societies still have the power to promote memes and drive the cultural norms.
Great article. I would also add, as per Trivers, motives of selfish genes below the selfish individual - but that is selfish nitpicking for status on an otherwise 10/10 article.
Self interest can be complicated. Suppose I think I can solve a problem that makes my life easier some how. In the process of solving this problem, maybe I realize that is has greater value to me if I give the answer away. What is the evolutionary selection there? It may free up my time and reduce the risk for my offspring. Will the ability to solve the problem and the ability to see that the value of spreading the idea propagate? It seems unlikely. I don't know if this example is strong enough to make my case, but think of the skills to make fire from friction. Or, do you think the firemakers kept things to themselves for aeons?
Yet another brilliant David Pinsof Substack post. The Starbucks analogy is a good one, and I think it’s a healthy way to look at people in general. No one has a problem with Starbucks trying to make money for two reasons: first, providing products and services to people is a good thing. Second, of course they’re trying to make money… it’s a business! When looking at those around us, we should respect the fact that their motives - sex, status, in-group and family altruism - are normal and inevitable human motives just like earning profits for a business.
I enjoyed reading this article and I agree with most of it, but I have some thoughts and questions. I’d be curious to hear what you think – if you’re interested in reading and replying.
I think I’m quite cynical myself, yet reading this article made me realize that maybe I’m a bit less cynical than I had thought. I still believe that some people may truly want to make the world a better place – even if part of their motivation is still selfish or self-serving. After all, if I succeed in making the world a better place for everyone, *I* will also get to live in a better world. Plus, I’d experience more meaning, feel better about myself in the process, etc.
But isn’t there room for an honest desire to make the world better (mostly) for the sake of it? Just like we do small acts of kindness for strangers we’ll never see again. If evolution would only select for selfishness and small moral circles (that include our family or in-group), why do we still feel good when we help others indiscriminately – including strangers or people who cannot reciprocate? Why wasn’t this selected against so that we’d only feel good when we help those who are family or part of our group?
Since you mentioned knowledge and beauty, why do you think we seek and take pleasure in them? And why do we experience something that feels like pure joy when we see a beautiful painting or finally understand something about human nature, for example? Does it all come down to increasing or signaling status?
"The distinction is crucial, because if people "really" wanted music as an end in itself, then the status they gained from it would have no effect on their behavior: they'd keep on making music regardless of how much status they got from it."
>So the test of whether people 'really' want X is: would they do X in the absence of acquiring status by doing X?
> People donate to charity anonymously
>Pinsof: BUT they MUST be seeking status secretly even if they donate anonimously! It's "buried" signaling, you see!
It appears your "theory" is unfalsifiable.
In short, David, it seems you are ... bullshitting.
"Any altruism that wasn't laser-focused toward our families or our allies [...] would be mercilessly selected against by evolution."
What about a flexible and adaptable concept of family, ally, or tribe? We see it all the time. Fans of a particular professional sports team consider other fans of the same team from 2,000 miles away similar to close family or friends in psychological studies. People who share an amorphous identity like "queer" or "Jew" consider others of the same identity to be close allies, and are willing to be altruistic.
If our biological sense of family-hood is that flexible, maybe it's pretty easy to trick it to include all of humanity?
I think that there is no evidence to eliminate the possibility that some people simply view "their group" in much larger terms, and this type tends to mate with similarly minded individuals. And by larger I mean, really really large. Most people don't do this, but some people do. Their in-group includes, in theory, millions of people: they truly feel this, it's not just something they say. Not all people, but millions (the dispossessed; their co-nationals; the members of their religion, etc.)...
Once again, you make another hypocritically moralistic article while claiming to believe in Darwinism. If morality and values are bullshit then so is the very idea of moral progress, because there wouldn't exist any objective moral standard to progress towards at all.
"Just think of the most villainous groups in history—the most zealous Nazis, Maoists, inquisitors, and holy warriors. None of these groups saw themselves as apes vying for dominance."
A lot of those guys really did openly see themselves exactly as that. Most people who join violent ideological groups are not wide eye Idealists at all, some of them aren't even believers of their ideologies. Most are actually very blunt about their self-interests and don't even bother making a justification.
"None of them reflected on their ugly, unconscious motives."
You are assuming that self-interests and selfishness is universally seen as evil when it isn't.
"What should terrify us most is not the lone cynic, but the mob, the movement, the higher purpose—the feeling of being part of “something larger than ourselves.” "
If morality is bullshit then there's nothing objectively wrong about being a delusional mass murdering Idealist at all.
The notion that all Human and other Animal behavior & thought is just subconsciously driven for reproduction is a pop cultural caricature of Evolution that Darwin himself rejected. Humans and other animals have all sorts of heritable psychological & behavioral traits that have either zero or negative impact on their chances to reproduce yet Natural Selection doesn't do away with them. Also, the idea that Evolution would produce organisms that desire and psychologically need things (like "meaning", "beauty", etc) that don't actually exist goes against how Natural Selection & Biology in general actually works. Its one of several reasons why Darwin himself rejected Nihilistic interpretations of his theory and wasn't an Atheist despite popular belief.
I think there's a subtle mistake in the rationale here, which is to equate the effect (Darwinian self-interest) with the cause (that, therefore, the behaviour itself must have been performed cynically).
Just because the outcome of a certain behaviour is to favour the interest of the gene, you cannot generalise that the motivation behind the behaviour intended this outcome; indeed, as you have pointed out before, humans have very low self-awareness.
When it comes to the evolution of behaviour, the only thing upon which selection acts is the outcome of the behaviour – it does not care about the mechanisms which lead to that outcome. In the case of human behaviour, those mechanisms involve neural processes – thoughts, emotions, etc – which depend upon the development of the brain, including memories, personality, preferences etc. It is not necessary for the motivation of the human to be cynical in order for the outcome – the level at which evolution acts – to have the effect of promoting the interest of the set of genes responsible for the behaviour.
It is entirely plausible – from the perspective of natural selection – for people to altruistically care about other people enough to give charitably and anonymously because they simply care about the cause to which they are giving. As an example, many people donate to Cancer Research because they lost a loved one to cancer, and they don't want other people to experience that same pain – the behaviour is caused as a side-effect of empathy, not cynicism (empathy itself having likely evolved under the selective pressures of our early social environment). Of course, the outcome of this behaviour may well provide social benefits to the individual responsible, as you highlight, or may even be viewed through the lens of "curing cancer would be in the best interests of the individual's family and gene line", but this is making the mistake of interpreting the mechanisms of a behaviour – the individual's motivations – through the lens of the outcomes of that behaviour.
I would say, therefore, that to generalise a cynical interpretation onto the motivations of all humans is to oversimplify the reality, which is that a great many different textures of minds, and a great many different motivations – some noble, some selfish – add up to the complex outcomes which have created human civilisation. Your mind and motivations may be cynical, but that does not mean that everyone else's must be as well.
I feel like there's a kind of equivocation about what we "really" value.
For example, when someone is learning to play an instrument, it's possible to describe this as satisfying the evolutionary goal of signaling competence, cultural awareness, etc. to potential allies and mates. BUT it's also possible to describe this by saying the person *values creating music*. The two descriptions aren't incompatible. Valuing the creation of music is the means by which the person is signaling their competence, etc.
It's like arguing people don't "really" want to have sex. They only "really" want to pass on their genes to another generation. Well no... People *do* want to have sex, and this satisfies their genes' goals of replicating into another generation.
This piece reinforces an intuition that rational insight is more 'beautiful' in some way than sentiment. But evolution seems to have selected for low self-knowledge, given how hard it is to develop - and how few of us ever try.
I just watched the David Pinsof episode of the Modern Wisdom podcast. He's much younger and better looking than I had imagined. I had always pictured him being about 50 years old... normally it takes many years of crushed hopes and dreams to become this cynical.
It's quite psychologically liberating to see things this way. I used to think this was a fascinating but gloomy argument, but I'm changing my mind. Thanks for a great piece!
Great post as always.
I would like some clarification about the "gene of nepotism" and such. Are you referring to literal genes and evolution or is it rather memes than genes as in: nepotistic cultures and societies outperform non-nepotistic cultures and societies?
I think this distinction needs to be made, as in hedonistic societies like Roman Empire before adopting Christianity or WEIRD countries today, status is decoupled from reproduction opportunities and number of offspring, hence the evolution of status related genes stops (Rob Henderson called optimizing for status in such environment an 'evolutionary misfiring'). However, regardless of reproduction, high status people in such societies still have the power to promote memes and drive the cultural norms.
Great article. I would also add, as per Trivers, motives of selfish genes below the selfish individual - but that is selfish nitpicking for status on an otherwise 10/10 article.
Self interest can be complicated. Suppose I think I can solve a problem that makes my life easier some how. In the process of solving this problem, maybe I realize that is has greater value to me if I give the answer away. What is the evolutionary selection there? It may free up my time and reduce the risk for my offspring. Will the ability to solve the problem and the ability to see that the value of spreading the idea propagate? It seems unlikely. I don't know if this example is strong enough to make my case, but think of the skills to make fire from friction. Or, do you think the firemakers kept things to themselves for aeons?
Outstanding. thank you.
Yet another brilliant David Pinsof Substack post. The Starbucks analogy is a good one, and I think it’s a healthy way to look at people in general. No one has a problem with Starbucks trying to make money for two reasons: first, providing products and services to people is a good thing. Second, of course they’re trying to make money… it’s a business! When looking at those around us, we should respect the fact that their motives - sex, status, in-group and family altruism - are normal and inevitable human motives just like earning profits for a business.
Good point about indiscriminate altruism. We have been wired to protect those around us by way of evolution, but not everyone on the planet.
I enjoyed reading this article and I agree with most of it, but I have some thoughts and questions. I’d be curious to hear what you think – if you’re interested in reading and replying.
I think I’m quite cynical myself, yet reading this article made me realize that maybe I’m a bit less cynical than I had thought. I still believe that some people may truly want to make the world a better place – even if part of their motivation is still selfish or self-serving. After all, if I succeed in making the world a better place for everyone, *I* will also get to live in a better world. Plus, I’d experience more meaning, feel better about myself in the process, etc.
But isn’t there room for an honest desire to make the world better (mostly) for the sake of it? Just like we do small acts of kindness for strangers we’ll never see again. If evolution would only select for selfishness and small moral circles (that include our family or in-group), why do we still feel good when we help others indiscriminately – including strangers or people who cannot reciprocate? Why wasn’t this selected against so that we’d only feel good when we help those who are family or part of our group?
Since you mentioned knowledge and beauty, why do you think we seek and take pleasure in them? And why do we experience something that feels like pure joy when we see a beautiful painting or finally understand something about human nature, for example? Does it all come down to increasing or signaling status?
"The distinction is crucial, because if people "really" wanted music as an end in itself, then the status they gained from it would have no effect on their behavior: they'd keep on making music regardless of how much status they got from it."
>So the test of whether people 'really' want X is: would they do X in the absence of acquiring status by doing X?
> People donate to charity anonymously
>Pinsof: BUT they MUST be seeking status secretly even if they donate anonimously! It's "buried" signaling, you see!
It appears your "theory" is unfalsifiable.
In short, David, it seems you are ... bullshitting.
"Any altruism that wasn't laser-focused toward our families or our allies [...] would be mercilessly selected against by evolution."
What about a flexible and adaptable concept of family, ally, or tribe? We see it all the time. Fans of a particular professional sports team consider other fans of the same team from 2,000 miles away similar to close family or friends in psychological studies. People who share an amorphous identity like "queer" or "Jew" consider others of the same identity to be close allies, and are willing to be altruistic.
If our biological sense of family-hood is that flexible, maybe it's pretty easy to trick it to include all of humanity?
I think that there is no evidence to eliminate the possibility that some people simply view "their group" in much larger terms, and this type tends to mate with similarly minded individuals. And by larger I mean, really really large. Most people don't do this, but some people do. Their in-group includes, in theory, millions of people: they truly feel this, it's not just something they say. Not all people, but millions (the dispossessed; their co-nationals; the members of their religion, etc.)...
Once again, you make another hypocritically moralistic article while claiming to believe in Darwinism. If morality and values are bullshit then so is the very idea of moral progress, because there wouldn't exist any objective moral standard to progress towards at all.
"Just think of the most villainous groups in history—the most zealous Nazis, Maoists, inquisitors, and holy warriors. None of these groups saw themselves as apes vying for dominance."
A lot of those guys really did openly see themselves exactly as that. Most people who join violent ideological groups are not wide eye Idealists at all, some of them aren't even believers of their ideologies. Most are actually very blunt about their self-interests and don't even bother making a justification.
"None of them reflected on their ugly, unconscious motives."
You are assuming that self-interests and selfishness is universally seen as evil when it isn't.
"What should terrify us most is not the lone cynic, but the mob, the movement, the higher purpose—the feeling of being part of “something larger than ourselves.” "
If morality is bullshit then there's nothing objectively wrong about being a delusional mass murdering Idealist at all.
The notion that all Human and other Animal behavior & thought is just subconsciously driven for reproduction is a pop cultural caricature of Evolution that Darwin himself rejected. Humans and other animals have all sorts of heritable psychological & behavioral traits that have either zero or negative impact on their chances to reproduce yet Natural Selection doesn't do away with them. Also, the idea that Evolution would produce organisms that desire and psychologically need things (like "meaning", "beauty", etc) that don't actually exist goes against how Natural Selection & Biology in general actually works. Its one of several reasons why Darwin himself rejected Nihilistic interpretations of his theory and wasn't an Atheist despite popular belief.
I think there's a subtle mistake in the rationale here, which is to equate the effect (Darwinian self-interest) with the cause (that, therefore, the behaviour itself must have been performed cynically).
Just because the outcome of a certain behaviour is to favour the interest of the gene, you cannot generalise that the motivation behind the behaviour intended this outcome; indeed, as you have pointed out before, humans have very low self-awareness.
When it comes to the evolution of behaviour, the only thing upon which selection acts is the outcome of the behaviour – it does not care about the mechanisms which lead to that outcome. In the case of human behaviour, those mechanisms involve neural processes – thoughts, emotions, etc – which depend upon the development of the brain, including memories, personality, preferences etc. It is not necessary for the motivation of the human to be cynical in order for the outcome – the level at which evolution acts – to have the effect of promoting the interest of the set of genes responsible for the behaviour.
It is entirely plausible – from the perspective of natural selection – for people to altruistically care about other people enough to give charitably and anonymously because they simply care about the cause to which they are giving. As an example, many people donate to Cancer Research because they lost a loved one to cancer, and they don't want other people to experience that same pain – the behaviour is caused as a side-effect of empathy, not cynicism (empathy itself having likely evolved under the selective pressures of our early social environment). Of course, the outcome of this behaviour may well provide social benefits to the individual responsible, as you highlight, or may even be viewed through the lens of "curing cancer would be in the best interests of the individual's family and gene line", but this is making the mistake of interpreting the mechanisms of a behaviour – the individual's motivations – through the lens of the outcomes of that behaviour.
I would say, therefore, that to generalise a cynical interpretation onto the motivations of all humans is to oversimplify the reality, which is that a great many different textures of minds, and a great many different motivations – some noble, some selfish – add up to the complex outcomes which have created human civilisation. Your mind and motivations may be cynical, but that does not mean that everyone else's must be as well.