Even in a leisure situation, such as a party, people are going to make choices about how much time to interact with (or not interact with) certain people. Or spending time pontificating on HN.
An example of this that was told to me is imagine you're going to dinner with the in-laws (or maybe your best friend's parents). What would their reaction be if you took out your wallet and offered to pay them cash for the meal? As opposed to offering to e.g. bring a bottle of wine or helping to set the table?
Offering to pay might be the "transactional" trade meant by the grandparent. While offering to contribute [food | labour | goodwill] is more of the trading time in a leisure situation.
Basically, either your proto-society develops ways to track balance of trade[0], or it'll grow a freeloader problem, which will keep it down and possibly even destroy the group. That point comes early enough that it's entirely likely the early societies that didn't develop money didn't grow large enough, and didn't survive long enough, to enter historical record.
--
[0] - Trading via a medium of exchange - that is, some form of money - is just one way to achieve it, but it has the useful property of being self-balancing, thus not requiring shared global state. That is, you don't have to keep official logs of every trade made by everyone in your group to keep things fair and balanced (or even define, update and defend what "fair" and "balanced" means, which is something everyone has slightly different view of) - you can just establish a common medium of exchange, give people freedom to individually negotiate the exchange rates, and you have a self-balancing system.
I remember reading on acoup that in agrarian societies, often they relied on favours and communal sharing in times of bounty. So say if I butchered a hog today, all my neighbours might get some. Not in exchange for something directly, but in the expectation that when I fall on hard times or they get a windfall, they'll do the same for me.
There's probably some potential for freeloading here, but these sorts of communities are likely often right on the edge of survival. If someone develops a reputation for being miserly, that might well result in them starving (or freezing) because they're rejected by their neighbours. So there's an incentive to at least appear generous and pay your fair share.
It's amazing to feel emotions I'd normally not want to express in everyday life and just let them flow out. Rage, jealousy, lust. The music is such a great trigger to tap into these primal feelings, and then expressing them through movement just feels incredible. It feels real and amazingly cathartic, but the transience of the experience leaves no consequences.
I guess that's why there's the saying dance like nobody's watching. Because for many people, that expression of feeling strips us down and leaves our feelings exposed and vulnerable .
Objectively, that's not true. The finance industry is under 10% of GDP and under 5% of jobs.
That feeling when you’re so het up about the Modern World you conflate communism and “liberal democratic cosmopolitanism” as “tHE lEFt”.
The true travesty in intellectual diversity is the American right wing abandoning any semblance of intelligent debate. Cue Shapiro calling Andrew Neil a leftist, or almost anything written by Jordan Peterson.
Haven't reread recently, but it was interesting at the time, and sort of helpful for keeping me motivated to get myself out of a bit of a rut. What parts of his writing did you find to be indicative of abandoning intelligent debate?
Reducing that to "but many women will still want something expensive "just so that the man will prove that she matters to him by buying her something"" .... this is pure sexism.
But there are differences in the sexes with regards to the process of conceiving and rearing a child. And it seems to me that a big part of our social constructs that were developed to deal with those differences can be reduced to "the man doing something expensive and hard to fake". Which isn't really that different from "the man proving she matters to him by buying something".
The traditional meaning allows you to have a society. You can live next to someone who you disagree with.
The new meaning is a profoundly negative one. It means that if you are tolerant, then there is something wrong with you, because you are tolerating bad ideas. A society that embraces the second definition doesn't seem like it will last very long.
The traditional definition allows conversations to take place. It gives people space to grow and change their minds. It puts people as more important than ideals.
The new definition makes ideals more important than people. It requires cancelling people if they believe the "wrong" things, or at least unfashionable things.
Because practically, aren't ideas tied to people? I don't think you can have an idea survive without people keeping it alive. So how do you express intolerance for "bad" ideas without letting that expression bleed into an intolerance for the people propagating the "bad" idea?