From: Robin Hanson (hanson@hss.caltech.edu)
Date: Tue Jul 15 1997 - 13:01:38 MDT
I wrote:
>I'm afraid you've completely lost me here. I was making an analogy to
>clothes, where one might have to trade off functionality, such as
>tennis shoes might provide, with social roles such as fashion, such as
>high heels might provide. There can be similar tradeoffs in choosing
>beliefs.
Sarah Marr writes:
>But in the case of clothes one could argue that what was occurring was a
>trade-off of functionality: the functions of grip, support, etc. against
>the functions of leg-enhancement, attractiveness, etc. Or one could argue
>that what was occurring was a trade-off social roles: tennis shoes which
>allow one to be a part of tennis-playing society, against high-heels which
>allow one to be part of fashion-conscious society. Therefore, there is not
>necessarily a tradeoff between functionality and social role.
I agree that with a liberal definition of "functional", social roles
are also functional, and that with a liberal definition of "social"
all functions serve some social goal at some level. But while I may
not have chosen ideal terms to denote it, isn't there a distinction
here worth making? If you grant this, please suggest better terms, or
grant me the license to use my not-perfect terms.
Robin D. Hanson hanson@hss.caltech.edu http://hss.caltech.edu/~hanson/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:35 MST