I just got around to watching Robin’s diavlog with Brian Christian, on Christian’s book The Most Human Human. I find the comments section fascinating.
Here is one quote
Seems to me Brian raises a valid concern. Don’t act like an animal, and don’t act like a machine. Robin seems to have a hard time understanding the concept, maybe it would help if he’d read EF Schumacher’s book with the very telling (to Brian’s argument) "Small is Beautiful– Economics as if people mattered."
It seemed to me that Christian’s point was that shallow people suck and deep people rock, and that Robin attacked this immediately.
The core split between Christian’s perspective and that of economists is that Christian implicitly assumes that good systems elevate “good people”.
So for example, if the system of an agrarian economy was so good then why did the Kings and Queens of that world spend their time playing like they were hunter-gathers.
Further, scripts whether in sales, dating or politics cannot be good if they allow people who are fundamentally shallow to rise to prominence.
We can go on to analogize that systems which allow computes – which are lessor – to fake at being human are not good because they are elevating the lessor.
Of course, the reply is that makes sense if you have all of the qualities that make a person good. But, what if you don’t? What if you are a less human, human?
Then this entire philosophy is demeaning.
In short don’t act like an animal or a machine is a nice sentiment if you are the type of person who is very different from an animal or a machine. If you are the type of person who is more like an animal or a machine or enjoys being more like an animal or a machine then it is just telling you that you suck.

6 comments
Comments feed for this article
Saturday ~ April 9th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
James Wynn
Although Christian’s argument might be fatuous and even syllogistic, it seems to me that your argument is perverse. Every system of government bases its quality on its ability to allow the good people to excell, bad people to suffer and face stigmatism, and those in between to succeed and fail based on their position between the two.
Sunday ~ April 10th, 2011 at 1:18 am
Hyena
I take this sort of thing more as a call to cultivate humanity. We’ve spent a lot of time using human computers and not a lot of time really developing what it is to be a person-for-its-own-sake.
Sunday ~ April 10th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Blackadder
What’s wrong with saying that certain types of people suck? Isn’t this obviously true?
Monday ~ April 11th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Apex
I completely agree. I am baffled by any suggestion that all people regardless of their behavior or predisposition to behavior are equally worthy of being elevated.
If that is the case then there is really no standard for what is preferred. There is no standard of what we would call “good”. There is no idea of any moral code whatsoever.
We decide as a society that certain things are considered good and others suck. If you are predisposed to one of the elements we say sucks, then you suck. It may be a suckiness brought on by birth right but that’s irrelevant. Does a pedophile not suck because he was born that way? Nope, he sucks. Too bad for him.
Monday ~ April 11th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Sister Y
Morality can exist consistent with an awareness of the stochastic distribution of traits considered to be morally relevant and of the fundamental attribution error in general. If it can’t exist consistently with these truths, it doesn’t exist at all.
Tuesday ~ April 12th, 2011 at 9:43 am
IVV
Certainly certain types of people suck. However, I am not convinced that shallowness is the proper dimension.
“Don’t act like an animal. Don’t act like a machine.” There are still plenty of actual animals and machines, not only people who act like animals or machines, that I would rather associate with than, say, serial killers. Even if the serial killer is as deep as Hannibal Lecter.