Blog Coordinator

« Thanks! | Main | McKenna and Pereboom: A Dynamic Duo! »

07/23/2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"find it easier to ‘feel responsible’ [for falling in love]": I don't know if this is necessarily correct - this always seems to me portrayed and experienced as luck ("a lightning bolt") or madness. Attitudes of others are more driven by benevolence, in that love is seen as an intrinsic good. Your more general point reminds me of the properties of Just World Belief.

There is a lot of interesting stuff going on here. I wanted to focus on your suggestion that we nudge depressives and narcissists differently. If these are the two poles of a continuum as you suggest and the continuum itself is adaptive--that is, having some depressives and narcissists is better than having none--then why would we want to nudge everyone towards the middle? You say to enhance responsibility--but is that the only or overriding goal? This reminds me of the literature on optimism and pessimism. In all societies there are optimists and pessimists. When you get too many pessimists, things go awry. When you get too many optimists things go awry (albeit in a different way). It seems like the ideal is to have a majority of optimists and a minority (of vocal) pessimists. So, in this case, we wouldn't want to nudge *all* pessimists towards the middle of the spectrum even if it might be better for them individually. It turns out they play an important social role. So, while it might be better, psychologically speaking, to be an optimist, we need pessimists in our midst to keep us from chasing every pie in the sky! Perhaps the same is true for narcissists and depressives. It might be better for them individually if they were more moderate in their self-attribution style. But collectively, we'd be worse off. Just a thought!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Books about Agency


3QD Prize 2014: Marcus Arvan