MORE
Honestly, social structures probably just fell out of the sky.
Essay: https://stateofthenihil.wordpress.com/2018/01/30/human-nature/
Edits:
When I say social constructionist, I should have said social constructivist.
Notes:
[N1] Indeed, it is only in the hard sciences that we can almost assuredly expect there to be no exceptions to the model. The same is not true for the softer sciences: In biology, there are hardly any universals. Try naming a single trait for human beings that has no exceptions.
[N2] This recommendation should be taken with the caveat that my views have since changed slightly. Look to the comments section of the suggested video to get the general idea. The refined version is what I elucidate here: that we have innate intuitions about the nature of our empirical reality and that these are ubiquitous and inescapable.
[N3] This is not to say that our mathematical models are useless. They have predictive power and they can be used to great effect. They do not have to be perfect for them to have utility. Also, Newton's model for the celestial bodies is not perfect, either.
[N4] I think the reason the in-group our moral intuitions apply to is expanding is due to multiple inter-related factors. First, we are living in large complex societies. We rely on many others for their goods, and it is in our best interest to work alongside them. This fact is bolstered by the second factor, which is government. Having a centralized monopoly of power helps regulate human behavior when we are in large groups. Finally, we are living in a time of resource abundance, at least in the West. Without resources to compete for, there is less reason to compete violently with an out-group.
[N5] I characterize (political) power, the ability to control people, as having two independently sufficient components. There is the violence component. This is straightforward: people who threaten violence have the capacity to control people. Then there is the illusory component. In large part, power is an illu..
