I like a good evolutionary pyschology analysis more than almost anyone, but I didn't find most of this one particularly compelling. If you're going to make the claim that we evolved under zero-sum conditions, you have to at least offer some defense of that claim, which you did not, and unfortunately, a skeptic is going to find good reason to doubt the claim... Mating for example is clearly a non-zero sum game that was in existence during and well before the hunter-gatherer days, and in general tribalism is a non-zero sum relationship involving a plethora of voluntary trades, from mutual protection to specialization within the tribe to the sharing of animal kills (noting the classic observation that no hunter can eat a downed animal themselves before it goes bad, so that sharing your animal in return for getting a share of others' is a clear non zero sum trade).
Later in the article you make the classic of mistake of describing evolutionary advantage in group terms, e.g. for "society". In fact, as Dawkins made abundantly clear in The Selfish Gene, evolution does not work at the group level but rather at the individual level (well, really at the gene level, but for humans that is almost always the same outside of very close family). You can't say that X evolved because it was an advantage to "society", you have to show how it was an advantage to the individual in which it was selected.
In the end, protectionism is probably better explained as simple xenophobia: in the hunter-gatherer times, someone very different from you was almost certainly from another tribe and represented a high chance of being a threat, and so being suspicious of those not like us actually conferred a selective advantage (which obviously explains our predilection for racism, for example). All groupism is basically a manifestation of this trait, from nationalism to racism to partyism to regional identification etc.
Similarly I did not find the explanation of some sort of preference for "physical goods" compelling. Even in tribal times, the most powerful person was often the chieftain, who offered no physical goods but instead had value through leadership "services". As soon as there was social structure, there was value in many things other than the provision of physical goods; this is not new to modern times.
As for a psychological preference for "physical goods", I think it's more a manifestation of an evolutionary tendency to put the highest priority on the most basic and indispensable needs: food, water, shelter, clothing etc. In the hunter-gatherer days, you were never an unexpected disaster away from being without one or more of these things, so those that had a focus on having a protected, reliable store of these things would have outcompeted those that didn't. Other things had value, but a preference for them had less selection advantage associated with it.
In the end I applaud the attempt to provide an evolutionary psychology explanation for behavior that otherwise seems difficult to explain in rational terms, I just want to encourage a more careful analysis.
Good post but I think protectionism is rooted in economic ignorance and a comfortable position that makes people feel better for supporting it. Much like the average American probably feels better about himself for supporting welfare, he supports “saving American jobs” and “made in America”.
This issue is not new to Western civilization and has been extensively debated and written about by economists even before Adam Smith.
The best treatment can be found in Fredric Bastiat’s Economic Sophisms or Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. And if you want a perspective from an American writer who lived during the end of the freest century read The Forgotten Man, and Other Essays by William Graham Sumner.
Without getting involved in the esoteric world of psychology and semantics , I found this article quite strange. It is quite UNLIKE most of YOUR other great articles that I have previously read !
I know nothing of the person but read that he is a "right wing commentator"
[ "Richard Hanania is an American political science researcher and right-wing political commentator."......which , however vague , makes him sound like someone important though ! ]
What I find strange is that HE is not POTUS and to the best of my limited knowledge , has not sought to be POTUS ! And yet , he feels adequately equipped to adversely criticise one who is !
Even in the depths of my almost total ignorance of trade and commerce , it occurs to me that
"Protectionism" can be in a county's BEST INTERESTS where matters of defence are concerned.
To allow your country to 'run short of vital materials , manufacturing facilities and the latest technology , medicines , rare-earths , etc' whilst freely allowing the export [ trade ? ] of high tech equipment and knowledge to a openly-hostile-country could be regarded as a form of TREASON
in wartime...and just plain stupidity otherwise !
The MAGA slogan is apt if somewhat prosaic , and if it actually stirs people patriotically , produces unity , improvements in manufacturing , border-control , etc , and produces actual benefits for people , then who is Richard Hanania to comment so adversely ?
Please pardon my allusion to "Oliver"and Fagin and the song"I am reviewing the situation":
but it [ almost ] contains MY ADVICE TO YOU : "I think you'd better think it out again!"
Many public schools barely touch on economic theory, free trade benefits, the difference between wealth and income, how the stock market works, the time value of money or how to complete a tax return. Career public elementary and highschool teachers work in a system that generally rewards non-risk taking with set benefits, consistent pay and a good retirement. It becomes easier for politicians to take advantage of those who haven't been taught the advantages of free trade and peaceful economic cooperation between all nations.
Kevin , you state with audacity that : "Many public schools barely touch on economic theory, free trade benefits, the difference between wealth and income, how the stock market works, the time value of money or how to complete a tax return."
I think you are probably right ! There is little or no need to teach these kids how to fill in a tax return.........they will probably not need that skill ! However , filling in a DOLE FORM !!! Now you are talking !......Seriously , education today is the black-hole-of-society ! God alone knows what the poor kids get given besides doom , gloom , death and disaster ! They emerge , at best , as either totally bored or enthused "activists" , depressed , some suicidal , pro-marxist , atheistic and ignorant of anything like maths , reading and writing , history , geography and all signs or erudition , accomplishment or articulation and eloquence ! And despite having "instant communication constantly IN THEIR FINGERTIPS" they are isolated , lonely and bereft ! [ This used to incur the use of the word FAILURE
'writ large on the report' to our parents and : "Must work harder.Could do better ! REPEAT YEAR REQUIRED" ....totally absent today it seems ! ].
So....it comes as no surprise that you conclude with : " It becomes easier for politicians to take advantage of those who haven't been taught .................".
I like a good evolutionary pyschology analysis more than almost anyone, but I didn't find most of this one particularly compelling. If you're going to make the claim that we evolved under zero-sum conditions, you have to at least offer some defense of that claim, which you did not, and unfortunately, a skeptic is going to find good reason to doubt the claim... Mating for example is clearly a non-zero sum game that was in existence during and well before the hunter-gatherer days, and in general tribalism is a non-zero sum relationship involving a plethora of voluntary trades, from mutual protection to specialization within the tribe to the sharing of animal kills (noting the classic observation that no hunter can eat a downed animal themselves before it goes bad, so that sharing your animal in return for getting a share of others' is a clear non zero sum trade).
Later in the article you make the classic of mistake of describing evolutionary advantage in group terms, e.g. for "society". In fact, as Dawkins made abundantly clear in The Selfish Gene, evolution does not work at the group level but rather at the individual level (well, really at the gene level, but for humans that is almost always the same outside of very close family). You can't say that X evolved because it was an advantage to "society", you have to show how it was an advantage to the individual in which it was selected.
In the end, protectionism is probably better explained as simple xenophobia: in the hunter-gatherer times, someone very different from you was almost certainly from another tribe and represented a high chance of being a threat, and so being suspicious of those not like us actually conferred a selective advantage (which obviously explains our predilection for racism, for example). All groupism is basically a manifestation of this trait, from nationalism to racism to partyism to regional identification etc.
Similarly I did not find the explanation of some sort of preference for "physical goods" compelling. Even in tribal times, the most powerful person was often the chieftain, who offered no physical goods but instead had value through leadership "services". As soon as there was social structure, there was value in many things other than the provision of physical goods; this is not new to modern times.
As for a psychological preference for "physical goods", I think it's more a manifestation of an evolutionary tendency to put the highest priority on the most basic and indispensable needs: food, water, shelter, clothing etc. In the hunter-gatherer days, you were never an unexpected disaster away from being without one or more of these things, so those that had a focus on having a protected, reliable store of these things would have outcompeted those that didn't. Other things had value, but a preference for them had less selection advantage associated with it.
In the end I applaud the attempt to provide an evolutionary psychology explanation for behavior that otherwise seems difficult to explain in rational terms, I just want to encourage a more careful analysis.
Good post but I think protectionism is rooted in economic ignorance and a comfortable position that makes people feel better for supporting it. Much like the average American probably feels better about himself for supporting welfare, he supports “saving American jobs” and “made in America”.
This issue is not new to Western civilization and has been extensively debated and written about by economists even before Adam Smith.
The best treatment can be found in Fredric Bastiat’s Economic Sophisms or Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. And if you want a perspective from an American writer who lived during the end of the freest century read The Forgotten Man, and Other Essays by William Graham Sumner.
Without getting involved in the esoteric world of psychology and semantics , I found this article quite strange. It is quite UNLIKE most of YOUR other great articles that I have previously read !
I know nothing of the person but read that he is a "right wing commentator"
[ "Richard Hanania is an American political science researcher and right-wing political commentator."......which , however vague , makes him sound like someone important though ! ]
What I find strange is that HE is not POTUS and to the best of my limited knowledge , has not sought to be POTUS ! And yet , he feels adequately equipped to adversely criticise one who is !
Even in the depths of my almost total ignorance of trade and commerce , it occurs to me that
"Protectionism" can be in a county's BEST INTERESTS where matters of defence are concerned.
To allow your country to 'run short of vital materials , manufacturing facilities and the latest technology , medicines , rare-earths , etc' whilst freely allowing the export [ trade ? ] of high tech equipment and knowledge to a openly-hostile-country could be regarded as a form of TREASON
in wartime...and just plain stupidity otherwise !
The MAGA slogan is apt if somewhat prosaic , and if it actually stirs people patriotically , produces unity , improvements in manufacturing , border-control , etc , and produces actual benefits for people , then who is Richard Hanania to comment so adversely ?
Please pardon my allusion to "Oliver"and Fagin and the song"I am reviewing the situation":
but it [ almost ] contains MY ADVICE TO YOU : "I think you'd better think it out again!"
........................... [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAUfaRQk_rs ]
Many public schools barely touch on economic theory, free trade benefits, the difference between wealth and income, how the stock market works, the time value of money or how to complete a tax return. Career public elementary and highschool teachers work in a system that generally rewards non-risk taking with set benefits, consistent pay and a good retirement. It becomes easier for politicians to take advantage of those who haven't been taught the advantages of free trade and peaceful economic cooperation between all nations.
Kevin , you state with audacity that : "Many public schools barely touch on economic theory, free trade benefits, the difference between wealth and income, how the stock market works, the time value of money or how to complete a tax return."
I think you are probably right ! There is little or no need to teach these kids how to fill in a tax return.........they will probably not need that skill ! However , filling in a DOLE FORM !!! Now you are talking !......Seriously , education today is the black-hole-of-society ! God alone knows what the poor kids get given besides doom , gloom , death and disaster ! They emerge , at best , as either totally bored or enthused "activists" , depressed , some suicidal , pro-marxist , atheistic and ignorant of anything like maths , reading and writing , history , geography and all signs or erudition , accomplishment or articulation and eloquence ! And despite having "instant communication constantly IN THEIR FINGERTIPS" they are isolated , lonely and bereft ! [ This used to incur the use of the word FAILURE
'writ large on the report' to our parents and : "Must work harder.Could do better ! REPEAT YEAR REQUIRED" ....totally absent today it seems ! ].
So....it comes as no surprise that you conclude with : " It becomes easier for politicians to take advantage of those who haven't been taught .................".
Sorry , "we" really do NEED A NEW CURRICULUM !!!