On the Paradox of Abundance (pt. 2)
The dichotomies (yet highly advantageous traits) of a social species
Last week I wrote about the Paradox of Abundance, an idea presented by David Perell which outlines that more information does not predetermine better decisions on a societal scale… one explanation for why this paradox occurs is the concept of Evolutionary Mismatch, which is when our hard-wired behavioural traits no longer serve us as well in the present context as it did in the past, leading our intuitions astray… and a potential way forward is by looking back at what used to work: social events and community functions, and their regulatory (regulation in the hormonal-like sense, rather than the law sense) role in helping us harness our hard-wired behavioural traits to resist the Paradox of Abundance.
The question I left you with was: Is the solution simply to create more social events and community-building opportunities? Is it that simple? How does that work?
To pick up this thread, let’s look at individual-group dynamics.
The paradox of identity
How we simultaneously carry identities of both being individuals and being members of a group, both of which benefit from being mutually exclusive to one another. Let me explain…
Humans are full of paradoxes and here's another: we are most definitely a social animal, yet there is a lot of individuality that each human brings to the social experience. To define yourself as an individual means that you consciously draw lines and create contrast between yourself and that which isn't you. Who you are, or your identity, is a decision that either you or others impose on you, and is most likely a mix. But to fit in groups means you are agreeable and that you prioritize group harmony. This requires self-regulation. You won’t always get it exactly the way you want, and it is a necessary dance between you and the group.
Individual autonomy has proven to be desirable. In the past, the sales pitch for staying in a group was very strong due to obvious benefits such as increased chances of survival; today the benefits of belonging to a group are more indirect and therefore also less concrete of an argument. Jobs supply us with money, an infinitely exchangeable currency. We can choose between an unlimited selection of occupations. Most of us now get food from supermarkets, not savannahs. Plus, no one likes to be forced into doing something against their will. We prefer to be in charge of our own bodies and minds, and we continue to vote with our feet by migrating to places with more individual autonomy (I am consciously avoiding using the word "freedom" here), not less. Autonomy is a condition where society creates systems where every person has the opportunity to grow into their full potential without being systematically repressed, and is not unhealthily dependent on anyone or any thing.
But along the way, there was a fumble and autonomy got swapped out for individualism. Individualism is different: it is an active rejection of the social contract. It is low trust. There is no sense of group responsibility, or benefits. Every one is left to fend for themselves. At risk of stating the obvious: this kind of behaviour does not lead to long-term survival of the species.
The person who I think best describes the benefits of “strong individual = strong group” dynamic is Norwegian comedian Harald Eia. His 14 min segment that poignantly addresses the American people is a gem, here’s the description:
Once upon a time, the USA was called ‘the land of the free’. This is no longer true. Harald gives the Americans a recipe for how they can become as free as us (Norwegians).
As an example, in one section Harald points out the necessity of shallow dating advice for women in the US (marry rich etc), which comes from a survival need: being able to raise children in an environment where you’re largely left to fend for yourself. Women, I’m sure, do not want to make decisions based on “shallow” things like that, but if they don’t keep that in the back of their minds, then they’re the ones who suffer the greatest hit to their autonomy. (Men suffer too, in different ways.) Norway has significant social supports for children and families, which lessens the need to just marry for money. You know you’re marrying someone, not because you need their money or status, but because you truly appreciate that person in your life. It’s just different.
When a group’s culture bolsters each individual, it strengthens the group and the individuals in tandem: it's 1+1=3. It lifts the individual up using the power of the social contract and the benefits of group dynamics. So, the ideal is if we can foster strong autonomous individuals within a healthy group environment, regulating individuals just enough that they together apply themselves towards a larger, more meaningful and survival-grounded purpose.
The paradox of urban innovation: Competition x Collaboration
Yet another interesting dichotomy that exists in our social species is that of competition and collaboration between groups. To me, it is all bundled in the idea of urban innovation.
Both are important on their own, but choosing one over the other is like only having one blade on your propeller: it is not enough to move you forward.
Cities exist because of the convenience of proximity. More choices = more possibilities. Clusters of competing companies benefit from proximity to one another, even if they compete within the same sector. Due to competition and collaboration, new information is immediately applied, which leads to faster innovation cycles. Talent pools move companies for the same reason. The fitness of a sector increases the more excuses there are to compete and to remain competitive with one another.
The innovation cycle benefits both from super-secret groups who intensively brew and stew on new ideas, and from the low-friction availability and flow of goods, services and talent. Both have to exist, and they must exist together as yin and yang. The push-pull is necessary for species fitness, and it says something about our social nature: we almost require these paradoxical conditions in order to maintain balance and healthy regulation on the species level of existence.
Cumulative Cultural Evolution: the foundation of capital-C Civilization? We learn better together and over time.
Doing things together. This conclusion ain't complicated like rocket science, but is in fact more akin to the indecipherability of magic sauce. We have very little idea how we got here. I mean, we can trace our steps backwards, but a crazy amount of random choices were made by groups and individuals that we cannot interview, and it somehow got us to this moment in civilization that we live in. It’s pretty wild.
What is the pattern in all this? It seems that on our own, we neither have the options, nor are we predispositioned to choose the options that yield the best chances for survival, despite our strongest illusions of otherwise. Our greatest leg up is being a social species. Our ability to pass on and build upon hard-earned knowledge on surviving gives the next generation a huge advantage over other peer species. Joseph Heinrich, in his book “The Secret of Our Success” calls the threshold that our species crossed into the cumulative cultural evolution:
This threshold is the point at which culturally transmitted information begins to accumulate over generations, such that tools and know-how get increasingly better fit to the local environments—this is the “ratchet effect”. It’s this process that explains our cultural adaptations, and ultimately, the success of our species.
To realize cumulative cultural evolution requires a massive group effort over a long period of time. It is not cheap, but cities help a lot in maintaining cumulative cultural evolution going by providing the infrastructure for it. Without the help of cities, the social activities that maintain long lineages of knowledge and traditions that test knowledge are at risk of dissolving.
If we read between the lines, what does the Paradox of Abundance actually show us? Without the cumulative effects of the group, we are just monkeys.
As individuals, we are mere marbles being poured onto a level surface: we tend to spread out wherever there is space. As such, the phenomenon described in the paradox of abundance is not an indication of fitness, or applied morals. The distribution of people along the spectrum is merely a map of possibilities, highlighting the conditions within which people are capable of surviving in both very healthy and very unhealthy conditions. If it is possible, we will see it. The Paradox of Abundance doesn’t make sense because we believe that all humans innately have the ability to "do the right thing" and that given the choice, they should. The bad news is: individually, we don’t. The hopeful news is: we do know that humans in group settings are much more regulated and pack-oriented. Is the rise of this paradox due to our increasingly isolating communities?
Stay tuned for part three next week as we delve into the socio-spatial aspect of The Paradox of Abundance, and how this can inform a set of enduring urban principles that are anchored to the essence of being human.
Whoa, you made it all the way here!? Congrats 🎉 Do you have questions? Different ideas about stuff? Do you disagree? Share your thoughts in the comments 👇 By the time I’m done, this exploratory piece On the Paradox of Abundance will be by far the longest piece I’ve written, and I’m only able to string together all these different ideas and concepts I’ve come across because of applying zettelkasten thinking. A mere year ago I only wish I had the wherewithal to write something like this. I know it’s raw and rough at times, but the bones and structure is there, and I believe it’ll only get better with time.
Thank you for reading, and if any part of this was helpful in expanding your understanding of why things are the way they are, please do give it a heart ❤️
Cheers and until next week,
—Fei 🪢