
Why Envy Might Be Good for Us - anarbadalov
https://www.sapiens.org/culture/hunter-gatherer-inequality-namibia/
======
Nokinside
> Everyone jealously scrutinised everybody else all the time – something easy
> to do when all social life was conducted in a public space. They took
> careful note of what others ate, what others owned, what others received or
> gave as gifts, and whether or not they were sufficiently generous in return.

This was typical small village behavior in Nordics less than 100 years ago.
When your survival depends on the village coming to your help when you are in
trouble, you pay for it by giving up some freedoms. Social control is used to
keep everyone in line.

Economic historians have noticed how egalitarian small village farming limited
the innovation in agriculture. You could not adopt new crop or radical new
technology easily unless everybody was on board even if everyone was farming
their own piece of land (you need to come together for investments, risk
sharing and emergency work). In contrast, independent big landowner changing
something was just one man doing the decision.

What is the best socioeconomic system depends on the circumstances. For long
term survival purposes conservative, cohesive and close willage/tribe and
demand sharing/palace economy is probably the best.

~~~
Senderman
I found your comment quite enlightning, and I thought it ended well with an
open-ended "What is the best socioeconomic system depends on the
circumstances."

But you then pick out a specific socioeconomic system as "probably the best"
without specifying those circumstances - unless you mean "long term survival"
to be those circumstances? If so, survival of what? Village/tribe systems? The
problem seems circular, put this way. I'd even suggest that circularity is the
root of the uncertainty in your "probably."

I hope I don't sound like I'm picking a fight; my reaction is just what
springs to mind, and you're touching on a topic I find important.

~~~
Nokinside
I did specify it "long term survival purposes".

Maybe I should have been more specific. In a environment where survival is
uncertain survival values and system that maximizes survival is the best.
Innovation and individuality succeed in a systems where basics are covered and
system can be trusted to work.

Example of wrong system: preppers with single family bunkers loaded with
weapons and food. If the society collapses the best way to guarantee your
survival is to join into tight group with shared values who take care of their
own (like Amish). in Mad Max situations conservative evangelical communities
with medieval values would wipe the floor with roaming biker gangs.

~~~
Senderman
I believe I follow: your advice is to the individual looking to maximise their
own survival chance. I read your original comment in a more abstract way, I
suppose - 'long term survival,' to me, evoked way to preserve what we value as
humanity, elusive as that might be, for ITS survival - if that makes sense.

I must say I'm very fond of this hypothetical amish vs. biker gangs throwdown.

~~~
foop123
sounds like you got your first sci-fi short story right there.

------
user5454
> "For while a particularly spectacular kill was always cause for celebration,
> the hunter responsible was insulted rather than flattered."

This seems to have the same purpose as the Law of Jante[1] we have in the
Nordic countries.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante)

~~~
RugnirViking
As somebody who lives in the nordic countries but is a foreigner I think that
the law is not really a specific thing to Nordic countries but just an amusing
social commentary of certain types of society. It's the same nearly everywhere
that 'boasting' is a bad thing and the most respectable person is the one who
silently gets stuff done.

~~~
olavk
The "Law of Jante" is formulated in a novel by the Danish-Norwegian author
Axel Sandemose. He explicitly states that the law is used by the proletariat
to keep _each other_ down, and that it is a universal phenomenon - just as
strong in Brooklyn as in Jante, the (semi-fictional) Danish town of the book.
A critical part of the book is his description of the "Law of Jante" among a
dysfunctional multinational crew of sailors on a ship. (He ends up murdering
one of the crew-members, and blames the "Law of Jante" for the murder!)

It is rather interesting that it is more often interpreted as a national
characteristic - something uniquely Scandinavian - than a characteristic of
the lower classes, which was the intention of the author.

~~~
RugnirViking
Cultures tend towards believing that something they have is unique about them.
I do not know why this is but I suppose believing in something such as a
national identity presupposes that there is something distinct about that
identity.

As somebody from the UK it's strange that I find a certain source of solace
from this kind of culture even though practically it doesn't seem to make
sense to dislike those who are succesful.

------
asdfman123
Yes, I believe all of our emotions probably serve some evolutionary purpose.

Does that mean they're useful in modern society? Not necessarily.

Being anxious might have helped my ancestors prepare for unexpected famines.
Being aggressive might have helped them lock down the resources they needed to
survive.

Do those emotions help me as an adult software engineer in Houston? Heck no.
Anxiety and aggression just get in the way of a well-lived life.

~~~
adnzzzzZ
That's a very misguided view of things. Aggression will help you fight for
higher wages for yourself more often than if you weren't as aggressive.
Anxiety will drive you towards actions that will decrease your anxiety, and
those actions will generally be useful for you and sometimes the people
employing you.

I think you're not really in touch and being honest with yourself if you don't
think both aggression and anxiety play a crucial role in your life. Or maybe
you just have different definitions of those words than I do.

~~~
anxiouspete
No, it won't. Anxiety lasts long after the actions have been made and the
initial threat eliminated because a lot of people with anxiety disorders will
tend to ruminate on their actions and possibly even catastrophize about them,
creating to a whole different kind of anxiety that are at times unactionable.
This is how people end up with PTSD.

I've been trying very hard to break out of this cycle and can tell you first
hand it's not in anyway beneficial or pleasant and is actually very very
destructive.

~~~
guskel
Ultimately, your genes don't care about your happiness or anxiety. They are
driven for you to be reproductively successful.

~~~
mercer
What does that even mean?

------
vfc1
Also known as the Crab Effect, where the other crabs in a bucket will pull an
escaping crab down if he tries to escape -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality)

There is a lot of this in the West too, although to a lesser degree and in a
less open way. Its one of those ancient behaviors and systems of values that
we keep applying today that don't make much sense anymore.

We don't live in small villages anymore, doing hunter-gathering or communal
agriculture.

In today's society, everyone should feel free to try new things, learn and
achieve their full potential, without having to deal with this constant social
pressure that leads us to be as average as possible, in order to avoid
standing out from the group and get punished for that.

It's not clear if this pull to be as average as possible is something embedded
in our genes or if its purely cultural.

~~~
gowld
Likening it to crab buckets misses a key point: That "status" has value, and
is transferable. Pulling a "human crab" isn't a purely destructive act, as it
prevents a peer from gaining status and power that could be dangerous to the
one pulling down.

Even among crabs (where the wikipedia page doesn't provide source to back up
its claims as to the crab's intent), pulling another crab down creates a
stepping stone opportunity for another crab to climb out. In the absence of
clear trusting coordination (like you see in army ants, ignoring the fact that
many ants sacrifice their lives toward a goal), crab-bucket fighting maximizes
individual survival chance.

~~~
pandumasta
>gaining status and power that could be dangerous to the one pulling down

Or it could be beneficial. It goes both ways. Putting a talented person in the
position to succeed can create enormous value for a lot of people, not just
themself.

------
adityapurwa
I was taught that it is okay to be envious, what isnt okay was to wish that
someone will lose the things we envied about.

When I see someone bought a new car, I will pray “I hope his car is useful and
he can benefit from it, I hope that someday I will have a car like his or even
better”.

While it might be hard in practice, so far it helped me stay positive to
everyone.

~~~
_Microft
In the german language there are the two words _Neid_ and _Missgunst_.

Both could be translated as enviousness but have a slightly different
meanings. While _Missgunst_ is definitely negative and maybe even destructive,
_Neid_ does not need to be negative and can have the meaning like in the
example you gave.

~~~
mepian
This distinction also exists in Russian, though not in single words: _белая
зависть_ translated literally as "white envy" and _черная зависть_ i.e. "black
envy".

~~~
henrikschroder
Colour-coding of emotions in different languages is fascinating!

In Swedish, envy is green (grön av avund), but jealousy is black (svartsjuk).

------
Waterluvian
My experience is that envy when you have nothing can be really demoralizing.
But envy when you're comfortable but others a thriving can be motivating.

~~~
vinceguidry
Nobody ever truly has nothing. You still have something most people that have
ever existed in the world don't, life. You can respond, learn, and grow. No
matter how far you've gone down a path, you can always turn back.

We can only ever trick ourselves into believing we truly have nothing.

~~~
wruza
Whether you can learn and grow depends on various factors, actually. Some
people can’t learn and grow due to internal and external issues, living
relatively crappy live until death. And by ‘some’ I mean many. You may have a
potential but may not see a way to discharge it.

>trick ourselves

In a way a broken engine tricks itself into not working. “You’re 300HP, just
start, dude!”

~~~
vinceguidry
People aren't engines. They don't just break.

~~~
mercer
It's true that people aren't engines, but it's also true that people break,
and often in ways that are much more difficult to diagnose and fix (or even
notice).

I think depression, suicide, and much of the time addiction are clear signs
that humans can break and not have the strength to 'turn back', at least not
with a ton of help.

~~~
vinceguidry
Help can be asked for. From people or from God. It's when we choose not to
ask, choose not to avail ourselves of the many many resources that society has
to offer, that people fall into deep holes.

They may feel very very far from making the choice to ask for help, but a
choice it remains and it never goes away. Asking for help from God in these
situations and opening your heart to the possibility of salvation can be
extremely powerful. I've met people with severe, debilitating depression that
immediately lifted upon setting foot in a church, never to return. It's a lot
more common than you'd think. The religious angle should not be overlooked.

Nobody is so broken that they can't be fixed.

~~~
wruza
(Personally, I wouldn’t even consider life if religion was the only way in it.
But I don’t want to go deeper on this and will treat it as a regular option
here.)

Fact is that ‘choice’ is obviously a part of problem itself, not something you
‘just’ do or do not. Look, you can likewise say that you know people who chose
to go to long vacation, get/drop a family, buy something, get happy with it –
and they never looked back. Religion is not special in this regard, because
you _have_ to choose it before it helps. But some people can’t choose, because
they are broken, like an engine.

~~~
vinceguidry
Having to choose something before it helps you is the whole point of having a
choice. Your choices may not always get you to where you want to go, you
always have them, and they're always meaningful. To say otherwise is to
dehumanise.

~~~
mercer
I think you're making it too black and white. It's absolutely possible for
people to be robbed of choice, sometimes to extreme degrees, both practically
and _especially_ psychologically.

If what you're saying is as black and white as you put it, it means cult
members, those severely abused in relationships, the psychological tortured,
severely addicted, and so on ultimately only have themselves to blame. I'd say
that is more dehumanizing than the alternative.

Of course those are extreme examples, and of course in all of those cases
_some_ have been able to make choices. But I find it callous and presumptuous
to argue that those who _didn 't_ choose to be helped somehow just... chose
not to choose? didn't try hard enough?

In reality choice is a murky concept. Philosophical debates about free will
aside, practically speaking the most generous and human assumption is that
depending on all sorts of factors, we have various degrees of choice. And
sometimes the best help we can give people is to, with as much respect and
wisdom as possible, choose for them.

Going even further, I find the whole idea of independent choice rather murky.
I think we have consciousness, and experience a degree of choice, and avoiding
learned helplessness is important. But so much of what I consider 'me', is so
obviously strongly affected by those around me who shape and shaped me, that I
cannot help but conclude that I'm not even remotely a product of my own
choices in more ways than I'd like to admit. And that's not even getting into
the whole issue of the subconscious playing a significant role in much of what
I do!

~~~
vinceguidry
Anybody can be robbed of _a_ choice. Nobody can be robbed of _all_ choice.

------
TangoTrotFox
The author's final conclusions take, as a matter of fact, that inequality is
what drove revolutions of the past. It seems that the more precise cause of
these revolutions throughout time has not been the lack of equality, but the
lack of fairness. And these are two very different things. If we take 1000
people and give rewards in proportion to performance at some task, it will be
extremely unequal - yet fair. If we take these 1000 people and instead give
identical rewards in accordance with who a grand arbiter thinks would be
somehow 'better', it would be radically unfair. Even if the final result in
the distribution of rewards is the same, the general view and tolerance of
such distribution would be very different.

The example most commonly cited as a revolution of inequality is the French
Revolution, yet the people did not protest because the ruling class enjoyed
feasts of wine and meat while they ate grain and water, as had been the case
since time immemorial. It happened because the masses were required to pay
ever larger taxes to subsidize a government that was increasingly in debt with
very little to show for it, all because of the actions of those that lived in
luxury. And this happened at the same time that famine was sweeping the nation
magnifying the absurdity of it all. Put another way, those in power were
destroying their nation and demanding the poor pay for their failures. That's
not about inequality, it's about unfairness.

And I think this generalizes to the entire article. People do not generally
seem to care about equality -- they care about fairness. The Waltons and Elon
Musk are both billionaires, but they are perceived in vastly different ways.
Imagine if we lived exactly as we do today, yet the vast majority of wealthy
obtained their wealth and behaved in a fashion similar to the Waltons. The
stability of this nation would be quite different.

~~~
ikeyany
> If we take 1000 people and give rewards in proportion to performance at some
> task, it will be extremely unequal - yet fair.

How can you possibly claim it's fair if those 1000 all started with different
opportunities, different abilities, and different privileges?

~~~
TangoTrotFox
Imagine you and I decided to have a race in a couple of years with some
reasonably incentivizing prize. Who would win? Would it come down to genetics,
background, our physiological development in youth? Probably not. It's mostly
just going to be decided by who puts more effort into training and preparing
for it. It's only when we speak of the best of the best that things like
genetics and developmental history start playing significant roles. For us
mere mortals in most things, the winner is just the person who puts more into
it.

And this is the standard for life. In most things just putting in the blood,
sweat, and tears is enough to end up well above average - and that's well more
than what's needed to succeed. And this gets even nicer in real life since
it's not just a race. There are a practically unlimited number of fields
enabling people to try whatever they want and aim to put their unique
characteristics to optimal usage letting them be the one with the 'homefield
advantage.'

------
oytis
> For while a particularly spectacular kill was always cause for celebration,
> the hunter responsible was insulted rather than flattered. Regardless of the
> size or condition of the carcass, those due a share of the meat would
> complain that the kill was trifling, that it was barely worth the effort of
> carrying it back to camp, or that there wouldn’t be enough meat to go around

Seems to me, a lot of people in modern society still excercise this ritual.

~~~
cinspicuous
Yes they do.

Perhaps the insulting was ritual in the sense that an airport check-in person
asks if you packed your own bag today. They're listening to the tone of your
reply rather than the words. Similarly, if the insulters of the successful
hunter are truly envious then there will be a different tone to their insults.
Then a problem is exposed. Note that this ritual isn't encouraging envy (which
is a harmful emotion). Rather it is helping to expose any envy that may have
arisen, in a safe manner.

The flipside is that some people _try_ to arouse envy in others. In modern
times by conspicuous consumption, bling, expensive shoes, super-yachts,
bragging on social media, etc. Such people deserve to be mocked until they've
updated their idea of success.

Yet we are morally obliged to differentiate between them and those who've made
original contributions: artists, inventors, innovators, problem-solvers and so
on. Our survival in the long term actually _depends_ on the latter group.
After all we shouldn't be aiming to thrive for an 'extraordinarily long period
of time', but indefinitely, just as the Ju/’hoansi would no doubt have
preferred to.

~~~
gowld
> Perhaps the insulting was ritual in the sense that an airport check-in
> person asks if you packed your own bag today. They're listening to the tone
> of your reply rather than the words.

Are you sure that's not just checking to see if honest innocent victims might
have been conned by a criminal?

~~~
cinspicuous
Good point. Tone + words.

------
a_d
“Namibian hunter-gatherers deride those who stand out.“

It depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to produce abnormal outsized
returns: they likely come from standing out. Being somewhat contrarian against
the tribe helps with finding new pastures - infact it might be the only way.

If the goal is to maximize egalitarianism, which is a worth-while goal, then
having mimetic/conforming attitudes would be a virtue. Envy is a by-product of
our mimetic desires.

------
JunaidBhai
Feeling envious might be good as long as it enforces you to take a positive
change in your life.

Feeling envious for someone who has purchased a new house, a new car or
established a new business would make you strive to have one for yourself
would be regarded as a positive influence of envy.

~~~
AmericanChopper
That sounds more like aspiration than envy to me.

------
DannyB2
Envy might be a virtue?

Virtues of a software developer:

1\. Lazyness. Lazyness is the first step towards efficiency. Why was the
dishwasher invented?

2\. Impatience. Impatience is the first step towards performance optimization.

3\. Being Anti Social. This allows hyper focus.

4\. Pride. The desire to strive ever harder for better code, simplicity,
maintainability, more features, etc.

------
ttoinou
Those interested in this topic should read Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour
by Helmut Shoeck

------
naveen99
Suppose you are playing go and losing. You can see in the future and know you
will lose. Now imagine go is life. Pray for reincarnation, to play again.

------
waterhouse
I've figured there's exactly one place where envy makes sense: _If_ someone
else has more than you _because_ some authority is distributing things, and is
supposed to do it one way but is doing it another way, then it makes sense to
be mad... _at that authority_. It still doesn't make sense to be mad at the
recipient of the extra stuff, unless they are in some way aiding and abetting
the authority in its unfair behavior.

~~~
andromedaworld
I think you should be mad at the whole disgraceful debacle. The expropriator
and the recipient of expropriated goods/services are in a collaborative effort
to harm you. They're both willing and delighted participants in your demise
and the incentive structure created by these actions undertaken by both
parties ensure that you continue to suffer in their collective hands.

I honestly don't know where you're going with this and I'm not even trying to
malign you.

~~~
waterhouse
> The expropriator and the recipient of expropriated goods/services are in a
> collaborative effort ... They're both willing and delighted participants in
> your demise

This is an assumption, and I think it is manifestly not always true. Have you
_ever_ benefited from some piece of regulatory unfairness, which was set up
without your knowledge or consent (possibly before you were even born)? For
example, if you use services that are partly or fully paid for by taxes, are
you aware of exactly where all the tax money comes from, and who is taxed more
than you think is fair and who is taxed less? (I'll take it as a given that no
one thinks the tax code is totally fair, though people disagree on what
_would_ be fair.)

------
robius
Similarly, having grown up in a Socialist Republic with a Communist party,
envy was a big motivator for crime against your neighbor.

While some would never have a thought of harming another over perceived better
off neighbor, most would take action as some form of irrational justice. And
if they were found out or caught, the 'actual' justice would never be
forgiven, despite all this being their own doing.

Many leave this type of village environment for different cultures and more
maturity.

~~~
andromedaworld
Envy is deplorable and there are few to zero things that would justify it. It
quite frankly is very strange to see it being somewhat justified or even
outright glorified by some here.

I'm of the opinion that egalitarianism is not a desirable outcome. Hierarchies
(but not necessarily ultra-hierarchies as I like to call them) are much more
preferable and have demonstrated to be the better pick for humanity.

~~~
fit2rule
The normalisation of envy as a means of social control is a key element in the
socialist playbook. Without envy, there is no point to socialism; if I don't
care what my neighbour has, why would I ask the state to enforce its
redistribution?

So, just be aware that what we're seeing in this article is a pro-
socialist/-communist stance, broadly dressed up in anthropological mythos in
order to make a political point, which seems to be "envy is a moderator of
inequality", whereas there is a big point missed: not being envious of anyone,
equalises everyone.

~~~
hn0
So it’s a propaganda piece?

I read it as an evolutionary biology/psychology explaination for much of human
political sentiment. It’s well established that hunter gatherer tribes (the
predominant mode during most of human evolution) are very egalitarian.

~~~
andromedaworld
> So it’s a propaganda piece?

Science and studies can be utilized to skew towards a specific and deliberate
narrative.

Somewhat tangentially, this is why science and conservatism have always had a
tumultuous relationship. Most scientists are curious by their very nature
whereas conservatism requires that status quo be observed and if questions
must be asked then it has to be, as Burke alluded to, in small digestible
portions. Revolutions are typically uncalled for and most of the time things
tend to degenerate into worse conditions than what was being fought against
initially. Case in point, a country that is on my continent - Libya. Things
are worse now than under the revolutionarily deposed Muammar.

------
dm319
The title is easily misunderstood - the article describes a type of envy in
Namibian hunter-gatherers which resulted in a behaviour that is not usually
seen as ok in most Western societies. They would insult and demean whatever
windfall or wealth the person got, and also demand some of it.

This meant that those who were successful hunter gatherers didn't start
believing they were superior or more deserving than their fellow tribesmen:

> just as the humility shown by good hunters and others with something to brag
> about was ascribed to “embarrassment.”

The article goes on to say how this behaviour has discouraged members of this
group taking on higher management and political roles, which mean this
community are under-represented on a national level, and also still very poor.

I found it a thought-provoking article. I seem to remember a time when the
rich I met were somewhat embarrassed about their money, whereas I feel like at
the moment people seem to be showing off their wealth a lot more. But maybe
that is more to do with my social circles, or the facebook effect, or a
different time in my life.

Personally, I find envy to be a very toxic emotion, which sways me and others
to make life-choices that don't necessarily increase our happiness. I find I'm
starting to avoid people who seem to care too much about their own and other's
financial (and other) types of achievement.

Maybe I should take a leaf from the Ju/Hoansi and start insulting people's
bragging rights. 'My! That is a shit bathroom you've got! And to think you
spent that much...'

