In a 2007 interview on The Colbert Report, the psychologist Steven Pinker got ambushed with the following question: “How does the brain work? Five words or less.” The studio audience laughed. The crowd seemed to know it was an impossible question. But rather than laughing it off, Pinker did the impossible. He actually answered it:
Obviously I have been incented to respond in exactly this way in order to appear either intelligent enough to belong to this group or humble enough to charm my way in. That said, I truly enjoyed this kick in the gray matter. I won't stop hating the people and ideas I find morally repugnant and terrifying, but it's good to know that I am as full of shit as anyone.
I would like to see David end up on Colbert, be asked this exact question, then stumble over his words right as he tries to deliver his clever response.
”Incentive determinism is obvious. It’s just a bunch of tautologies: we are who we are, we want what we want, and we do what we’re caused to do. And yet, barely anybody thinks this way. It’s a cold, alien way of thinking.”
Someone who did think like that was B F Skinner. He had a bit of a different angle since he was also interested in reducing all mental life to behavior, but I think you may enjoy his old book Beyond Freedom and Dignity. I heard it was widely derided as authoritarian and creepy in its idea of a utopia based on optimal reinforcement schedules.
I loved this piece. It's definitely been harder to get worked up and to feel self-righteous about things in the news since reading your Substack (and this article in particular really clinches it). That's surely a good thing!
"the more we all become aware of our incentive structures, the more incentivized we will be to choose them wisely"
The more I'm aware of incentive structures and how they work, the more likely I am to choose incentive structures and nudge them to be ones where I can succeed at them more easily or where they come more naturally to me. This has only coincidental relation to creating incentive structures that produce wider pro-social outcomes like capitalism did for intergroup cooperation. An argument could be made that less people know about incentive structures the better, because they'll be more likely to go along with incentive structures that we've stumbled across that works or that have been designed by more benevolent people.
Some time ago I read a bit about 'most disturbing movies'. The overarching theme in most of them is portraying bad people - nihilists, sadists, torturers, murderers - as protagonists - the 'good guys'. They succeed, don't get caught or punished otherwise and generally enjoy themselves - not in a sinister, evil, but a good, happy way.
Think of Hannibal Lecter but way more intense.
The bit about thinking in stories reminded me about all of that. It is not the violence that makes these movies disturbing - it's the cognitive dissonance between the storyline and everyday/mainstream culture stories we consume and think according to.
Over the past few years, what I've put in my news feeds has drifted away from outlets/journalists telling me 'stories' and more towards those doing 'analysis' i.e. those discussing incentives and accepting them for what they are. I like this because the best stuff really does help me understand the world better. If you want examples, look up the newsletter of British journalist Stephen Bush. He writes daily about the strategic dimensions of the stories of the day.
The other thing your post reminds me of is geopolitics. That seems to me a domain where people (journalists, academics, even political actors) talk more freely about incentives than most others.
This article is excellent. It really made me think, and I plan to share it widely.
However, after doing a fabulous job defining and explaining likeability determinism and the various problems with that narrative, you never get back to incentive determinism.
Is it your claim that incentive determinism explains *everything*? 95%? 90%? 80%?? If less than everything, what in your view are the next biggest explanatory factors after incentives?
Inquiring minds want to know… and you are welcome to more than five words for your answer
I am not a big fan of a lot of Evo psych out there. But what I do like is the tendency of Evo psych theorists to think beyond the self-congratulatory illusory way that a lot of mainstream psychology does (I sincerely doubt that most humans can honestly research their own behaviors in a semi-unbiased way) . Seeing how hollow and superficial most self-deception with people tends to be, this way of looking at behavior is not something you see with a lot of psychology anymore. Where it must always be some sort of noble social animal that has always the best interest at heart, either directly or indirectly. But when I observe people (as someone who has autism) I often see more of the self-deceptive egocentricity and the "look and sound the part of the social group but never seriously act the way." I. E. The cheap talk. And yes I know I am no better by definition of me being part of that same social species.
It's a good article. Can you suggest some good books that discuss this? I have read the elephant in the brain book. But that one was mostly a hypothesis (which they themselves are honest about) by two non-scientists. Can you suggest some books that are well supported by some good science that go over some of the topics you address on your articles or maybe some philosophical musings about it?
Good stuff. It occurs to me that, although you never said it explicitly, this argument essential negates the idea of intrinsic motivation. That as long as there are other human beings around, all our incentives are external. That's a pretty big swing at the field of motivational research.
I love this article and among my very favorite of yours, David - but I gotta object, foreclosing altogether on absolutely anyone's ability to transcend our evolutionary drivers and achieve authentic selfless altruism? There are positive outliers in any distribution... in any event, your over-the-top cynicism, your "cold, alien view" makes for super fun reading. What a writer you are!
"People don’t like incentive determinism because it’s disorienting. It tells us that our single greatest obsession, likability, is a distraction."
Perhaps. But the lonely nerd in his bedroom could probably do with focusing on being more likeable. He might be incentivised to do it, might know he's incentivised to do it, but not know how to or, if he does, not be able.
Obviously I have been incented to respond in exactly this way in order to appear either intelligent enough to belong to this group or humble enough to charm my way in. That said, I truly enjoyed this kick in the gray matter. I won't stop hating the people and ideas I find morally repugnant and terrifying, but it's good to know that I am as full of shit as anyone.
I would like to see David end up on Colbert, be asked this exact question, then stumble over his words right as he tries to deliver his clever response.
”Incentive determinism is obvious. It’s just a bunch of tautologies: we are who we are, we want what we want, and we do what we’re caused to do. And yet, barely anybody thinks this way. It’s a cold, alien way of thinking.”
Someone who did think like that was B F Skinner. He had a bit of a different angle since he was also interested in reducing all mental life to behavior, but I think you may enjoy his old book Beyond Freedom and Dignity. I heard it was widely derided as authoritarian and creepy in its idea of a utopia based on optimal reinforcement schedules.
I loved this piece. It's definitely been harder to get worked up and to feel self-righteous about things in the news since reading your Substack (and this article in particular really clinches it). That's surely a good thing!
"the more we all become aware of our incentive structures, the more incentivized we will be to choose them wisely"
The more I'm aware of incentive structures and how they work, the more likely I am to choose incentive structures and nudge them to be ones where I can succeed at them more easily or where they come more naturally to me. This has only coincidental relation to creating incentive structures that produce wider pro-social outcomes like capitalism did for intergroup cooperation. An argument could be made that less people know about incentive structures the better, because they'll be more likely to go along with incentive structures that we've stumbled across that works or that have been designed by more benevolent people.
Some time ago I read a bit about 'most disturbing movies'. The overarching theme in most of them is portraying bad people - nihilists, sadists, torturers, murderers - as protagonists - the 'good guys'. They succeed, don't get caught or punished otherwise and generally enjoy themselves - not in a sinister, evil, but a good, happy way.
Think of Hannibal Lecter but way more intense.
The bit about thinking in stories reminded me about all of that. It is not the violence that makes these movies disturbing - it's the cognitive dissonance between the storyline and everyday/mainstream culture stories we consume and think according to.
Nice post!
Over the past few years, what I've put in my news feeds has drifted away from outlets/journalists telling me 'stories' and more towards those doing 'analysis' i.e. those discussing incentives and accepting them for what they are. I like this because the best stuff really does help me understand the world better. If you want examples, look up the newsletter of British journalist Stephen Bush. He writes daily about the strategic dimensions of the stories of the day.
The other thing your post reminds me of is geopolitics. That seems to me a domain where people (journalists, academics, even political actors) talk more freely about incentives than most others.
This article is excellent. It really made me think, and I plan to share it widely.
However, after doing a fabulous job defining and explaining likeability determinism and the various problems with that narrative, you never get back to incentive determinism.
Is it your claim that incentive determinism explains *everything*? 95%? 90%? 80%?? If less than everything, what in your view are the next biggest explanatory factors after incentives?
Inquiring minds want to know… and you are welcome to more than five words for your answer
I am not a big fan of a lot of Evo psych out there. But what I do like is the tendency of Evo psych theorists to think beyond the self-congratulatory illusory way that a lot of mainstream psychology does (I sincerely doubt that most humans can honestly research their own behaviors in a semi-unbiased way) . Seeing how hollow and superficial most self-deception with people tends to be, this way of looking at behavior is not something you see with a lot of psychology anymore. Where it must always be some sort of noble social animal that has always the best interest at heart, either directly or indirectly. But when I observe people (as someone who has autism) I often see more of the self-deceptive egocentricity and the "look and sound the part of the social group but never seriously act the way." I. E. The cheap talk. And yes I know I am no better by definition of me being part of that same social species.
It's a good article. Can you suggest some good books that discuss this? I have read the elephant in the brain book. But that one was mostly a hypothesis (which they themselves are honest about) by two non-scientists. Can you suggest some books that are well supported by some good science that go over some of the topics you address on your articles or maybe some philosophical musings about it?
Good stuff. It occurs to me that, although you never said it explicitly, this argument essential negates the idea of intrinsic motivation. That as long as there are other human beings around, all our incentives are external. That's a pretty big swing at the field of motivational research.
I love this article and among my very favorite of yours, David - but I gotta object, foreclosing altogether on absolutely anyone's ability to transcend our evolutionary drivers and achieve authentic selfless altruism? There are positive outliers in any distribution... in any event, your over-the-top cynicism, your "cold, alien view" makes for super fun reading. What a writer you are!
Wonderfully brilliant. Insight about ourselves offers hope.
pattern recognition emergent feedback
Constraints are great...
Enjoyed this, but think I can poke a hole.
"People don’t like incentive determinism because it’s disorienting. It tells us that our single greatest obsession, likability, is a distraction."
Perhaps. But the lonely nerd in his bedroom could probably do with focusing on being more likeable. He might be incentivised to do it, might know he's incentivised to do it, but not know how to or, if he does, not be able.
test