GM, dr. Kurzban. Great job as usual, but i have aquestion.
I don't get why you say "menu taboo" are "choice free": choosing a food instead of another is quite an important problem for an individual.
E.g. a nomad herder depends on his herd's milk to survive (e.g. Fulani children drink 5 liter a day only untill 3 y.o.) so the Aryan developed the taboo about cow slaughtering; pigs in hot climate suffers a lot of tapeworm, so semitic people developed the pork taboo.
First, thanks for the kind words! My view is that as you say, there are some cases in which the taboo is not arbitrary and there is some sort of equilibrium selection process. The pork taboo you point to is a good example. My claim is that at least in some cases, there don’t seem to be strong-or maybe any-equilibrium selection forces. I think the best examples of these are taboos about food combinations (you may eat X and Y separately, but not together) and taboos to do with time (you must/must not each X at such and such a time.) So the claim is not that food choices (and rules) aren’t, generally, important. They surely are. The claim is that at least in some cases, it’s very difficult to explain taboos without reference to a pure coordination problem as opposed to some equilibrium selection explanation. In sum, not all food taboos are the result of a pure coordination game, but some food taboos are. So my claim is a somewhat weak one.
Do "taboos about food combinations (you may eat X and Y separately, but not together)" refers to, e.g., Italian taboo about fish and chees? What "taboos to do with time (you must/must not each X at such and such a time.)" refers to?
My bias might be showing here. I have in mind Kosher laws. One may eat meat and dairly, but not in combination. One may eat leavened bread, but not on Passover. That sort of thing. I suspect there are similar rules in other religions, but I confess I am not an expert. But those are the sorts of examples that I think illustrate the point most clearly.
Why bias? That said, are you sure there aren't a reason? I have no idea about meat and dairy, but leavened bread may really be a "relic" of a precipitous flight.
By bias, I'm referring to the fact that I was raised in a Jewish household, so those rules are the ones with which I'm most familiar. And, yes, my sense is that for all taboos, there is a reason that is given, even if it's just textual. But those reasons, to me, are just part of the coordination process. I would distinguish those sort of reasons from the one you pointed out to do with genuine health reasons behind some prohibitions. It's rare, I think, to find any more rule that doesn't have some justification behind it. This fact is analagous to the observation that moral accusations also have some sort of justification - e.g., witchcraft - even if the justification itself isn't the real reason for the accusation.
I got your point but let me reply: why do cicadas use prime numbers?
As you said, everything can be a coordination token, but only a useful coordination token survive.
Not even a "even" token survive: copyright does not coordinate everybody, it separate two tribe, the "Napster" tribe from the "Metallica" tribe, because an "even" token, in fact, is a good token for someone and a bad token for someone else.
GM, dr. Kurzban. Great job as usual, but i have aquestion.
I don't get why you say "menu taboo" are "choice free": choosing a food instead of another is quite an important problem for an individual.
E.g. a nomad herder depends on his herd's milk to survive (e.g. Fulani children drink 5 liter a day only untill 3 y.o.) so the Aryan developed the taboo about cow slaughtering; pigs in hot climate suffers a lot of tapeworm, so semitic people developed the pork taboo.
First, thanks for the kind words! My view is that as you say, there are some cases in which the taboo is not arbitrary and there is some sort of equilibrium selection process. The pork taboo you point to is a good example. My claim is that at least in some cases, there don’t seem to be strong-or maybe any-equilibrium selection forces. I think the best examples of these are taboos about food combinations (you may eat X and Y separately, but not together) and taboos to do with time (you must/must not each X at such and such a time.) So the claim is not that food choices (and rules) aren’t, generally, important. They surely are. The claim is that at least in some cases, it’s very difficult to explain taboos without reference to a pure coordination problem as opposed to some equilibrium selection explanation. In sum, not all food taboos are the result of a pure coordination game, but some food taboos are. So my claim is a somewhat weak one.
Thanks for your answer.
Do "taboos about food combinations (you may eat X and Y separately, but not together)" refers to, e.g., Italian taboo about fish and chees? What "taboos to do with time (you must/must not each X at such and such a time.)" refers to?
My bias might be showing here. I have in mind Kosher laws. One may eat meat and dairly, but not in combination. One may eat leavened bread, but not on Passover. That sort of thing. I suspect there are similar rules in other religions, but I confess I am not an expert. But those are the sorts of examples that I think illustrate the point most clearly.
Why bias? That said, are you sure there aren't a reason? I have no idea about meat and dairy, but leavened bread may really be a "relic" of a precipitous flight.
By bias, I'm referring to the fact that I was raised in a Jewish household, so those rules are the ones with which I'm most familiar. And, yes, my sense is that for all taboos, there is a reason that is given, even if it's just textual. But those reasons, to me, are just part of the coordination process. I would distinguish those sort of reasons from the one you pointed out to do with genuine health reasons behind some prohibitions. It's rare, I think, to find any more rule that doesn't have some justification behind it. This fact is analagous to the observation that moral accusations also have some sort of justification - e.g., witchcraft - even if the justification itself isn't the real reason for the accusation.
I got your point but let me reply: why do cicadas use prime numbers?
As you said, everything can be a coordination token, but only a useful coordination token survive.
Not even a "even" token survive: copyright does not coordinate everybody, it separate two tribe, the "Napster" tribe from the "Metallica" tribe, because an "even" token, in fact, is a good token for someone and a bad token for someone else.
Maybe you should appear in The Dissenter... (the podcast)
Thanks! Ricardo had me on many years ago (https://youtu.be/lCrzBJaqkbw?si=emcZneY2ekxNrd4l), so maybe he'll invite me on again sometime!