Cultures vary in many ways, including planfulness, punctuality, and violence. Van Lange et al. propose a novel, creative theory suggesting that proximity to the equator increases aggression. The mediating factors are heat (temperature), environmental predictability and harshness, life history orientation, and self-control.
We find much to admire in this (CLASH) theory, especially its emphasis on low self-control. In this brief comment, we respectfully note one problematic assertion and propose possible remedies.
The issue concerns the nature of prediction and prospective cognition. CLASH theory asserts that harsh and unpredictable climates reduce self-control. A priori, it seems one could make the opposite assumption, because self-control may be more needed for survival in harsh and unpredictable climates than in comfortably benign and predictable ones.
Harshness and unpredictability are perhaps slippery terms. Van Lange et al. assert that climates near the equator have harsher and less predictable climates than those far from it, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. We found this claim surprising and suspect many others will also. To compare the U.S. states closest to and farthest from the equator, it seems implausible to assert that Hawaii's climate is harsher and more unpredictable than Alaska's. Anecdotally, local Hawaii television stations do not bother with on-air weather reports, reportedly because the weather is so easily predictable that it seems foolish to have an expert go on camera and make essentially the same forecast every day.
The term predictability is perhaps slightly the wrong concept for this theory. The usual meaning of predictability refers to how accurately future events can be specified in advance. We suspect that if inhabitants (or experts) were asked to predict the high temperature on a particular day one or two months hence, their predictions would be more accurate in Hawaii than in Alaska. In that literal sense, Hawaii's climate is more predictable than Alaska's.
In contrast, a recent analysis of prospection proposed that the simple emphasis on predicting what is going to happen has misled psychological theory (Baumeister et al. Reference Baumeister, Vohs and Oettingen2016). Instead of predicting what is sure to occur in the future, people seek to predict points at which there are multiple possibilities and at which their own actions and responses can make a difference. This “pragmatic prospection” approach can be traced back to William James' (Reference James1890) famous assertion that thinking is for doing. In pragmatic prospection, people think about the future not because they can predict the outcomes of events, but rather because they can anticipate the choice points and performance challenges to which their responses will be decisive – because preparing for those in advance can improve one's outcomes. Thus, it is precisely because the outcomes are not known that one thinks about the future.
As one illustration, pragmatic prospection theory is at odds with the view that knowledge of one's ineluctable mortality is the paramount driving concern of all humans and the foundation of all human motivation (Pyszczynski et al. Reference Pyszczynski, Greenberg and Solomon1997; based on Becker Reference Becker1973). Pragmatic prospection theory says that if thinking is for doing, there is no point in thinking about the inevitability of one's death, precisely because it is (very predictably) inevitable. In sharp contrast, people may think a great deal about an imminent, avoidable possibility of dying.
Instead of predictability, therefore, we respectfully suggest that CLASH consider incorporating something along the lines of “the utility of prediction.” We suspect that Hawaii residents (and their television stations!) do not devote much effort to predicting the future weather, partly because it is so very predictable, but mainly because there is no pragmatic utility to be gained by preparing for it. In contrast, Alaskan inhabitants probably devote much more thought to upcoming weather, because they need to be prepared for wide fluctuations that include intensely cold spells. Such spells can be lethal unless one prepares for them.
If we regard Alaska rather than Hawaii as the harsh, unpredictable climate (thus reversing the assumption by Van Lange et al.), we think the pragmatic utility of prediction becomes clear. Inhabitants can reduce the danger of the upcoming winter season in Alaska by storing up warm clothes and food. Such preparations are not needed in anywhere near the same measure to get through Hawaii's “winter” (or summer) months intact.
Other evidence fits the view that the cold northern climates are the harsh ones. People seeking a pleasant respite, such as tourist vacationers and retirees, tend to move toward the equator rather than away. The slower pace of life in equatorial climates (as noted by Van Lange et al.) also suggests that life is easier and so haste is unnecessary. To be sure, extreme heat can be harsh, but as they note, aggression may decline when heat is extreme.
Might CLASH theory work even better with this slight revision? The multiple insights proposed by that theory seem quite compatible with it. Self-control and foresight are needed to prepare for eventualities, not because one knows for certain what is going to happen, but rather because one has to be ready in case something bad might happen. It takes self-control to chop wood and store food during the summer, in anticipation of winter. Hawaii's weather does not pose threats for which one can prepare. (Warm-weather deaths typically involve hurricanes and the like, which up until about a century ago were not predictable, and it was hardly feasible to live one's entire life as if a hurricane were about to happen.) Some winters are mild and others are severe, but one had best prepare for the more severe one just in case.
The accelerated life history of the equatorial cultures may be due not to unpredictability, but rather the opposite: Ease of life and predictability of future conditions may have enabled people to live for the present, rather than prepare for future challenges and threats. Indeed, the faster life history of equatorial cultures may be in part a result of their higher aggression, rather than only a cause.
You have
Access
Cultures vary in many ways, including planfulness, punctuality, and violence. Van Lange et al. propose a novel, creative theory suggesting that proximity to the equator increases aggression. The mediating factors are heat (temperature), environmental predictability and harshness, life history orientation, and self-control.
We find much to admire in this (CLASH) theory, especially its emphasis on low self-control. In this brief comment, we respectfully note one problematic assertion and propose possible remedies.
The issue concerns the nature of prediction and prospective cognition. CLASH theory asserts that harsh and unpredictable climates reduce self-control. A priori, it seems one could make the opposite assumption, because self-control may be more needed for survival in harsh and unpredictable climates than in comfortably benign and predictable ones.
Harshness and unpredictability are perhaps slippery terms. Van Lange et al. assert that climates near the equator have harsher and less predictable climates than those far from it, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. We found this claim surprising and suspect many others will also. To compare the U.S. states closest to and farthest from the equator, it seems implausible to assert that Hawaii's climate is harsher and more unpredictable than Alaska's. Anecdotally, local Hawaii television stations do not bother with on-air weather reports, reportedly because the weather is so easily predictable that it seems foolish to have an expert go on camera and make essentially the same forecast every day.
The term predictability is perhaps slightly the wrong concept for this theory. The usual meaning of predictability refers to how accurately future events can be specified in advance. We suspect that if inhabitants (or experts) were asked to predict the high temperature on a particular day one or two months hence, their predictions would be more accurate in Hawaii than in Alaska. In that literal sense, Hawaii's climate is more predictable than Alaska's.
In contrast, a recent analysis of prospection proposed that the simple emphasis on predicting what is going to happen has misled psychological theory (Baumeister et al. Reference Baumeister, Vohs and Oettingen2016). Instead of predicting what is sure to occur in the future, people seek to predict points at which there are multiple possibilities and at which their own actions and responses can make a difference. This “pragmatic prospection” approach can be traced back to William James' (Reference James1890) famous assertion that thinking is for doing. In pragmatic prospection, people think about the future not because they can predict the outcomes of events, but rather because they can anticipate the choice points and performance challenges to which their responses will be decisive – because preparing for those in advance can improve one's outcomes. Thus, it is precisely because the outcomes are not known that one thinks about the future.
As one illustration, pragmatic prospection theory is at odds with the view that knowledge of one's ineluctable mortality is the paramount driving concern of all humans and the foundation of all human motivation (Pyszczynski et al. Reference Pyszczynski, Greenberg and Solomon1997; based on Becker Reference Becker1973). Pragmatic prospection theory says that if thinking is for doing, there is no point in thinking about the inevitability of one's death, precisely because it is (very predictably) inevitable. In sharp contrast, people may think a great deal about an imminent, avoidable possibility of dying.
Instead of predictability, therefore, we respectfully suggest that CLASH consider incorporating something along the lines of “the utility of prediction.” We suspect that Hawaii residents (and their television stations!) do not devote much effort to predicting the future weather, partly because it is so very predictable, but mainly because there is no pragmatic utility to be gained by preparing for it. In contrast, Alaskan inhabitants probably devote much more thought to upcoming weather, because they need to be prepared for wide fluctuations that include intensely cold spells. Such spells can be lethal unless one prepares for them.
If we regard Alaska rather than Hawaii as the harsh, unpredictable climate (thus reversing the assumption by Van Lange et al.), we think the pragmatic utility of prediction becomes clear. Inhabitants can reduce the danger of the upcoming winter season in Alaska by storing up warm clothes and food. Such preparations are not needed in anywhere near the same measure to get through Hawaii's “winter” (or summer) months intact.
Other evidence fits the view that the cold northern climates are the harsh ones. People seeking a pleasant respite, such as tourist vacationers and retirees, tend to move toward the equator rather than away. The slower pace of life in equatorial climates (as noted by Van Lange et al.) also suggests that life is easier and so haste is unnecessary. To be sure, extreme heat can be harsh, but as they note, aggression may decline when heat is extreme.
Might CLASH theory work even better with this slight revision? The multiple insights proposed by that theory seem quite compatible with it. Self-control and foresight are needed to prepare for eventualities, not because one knows for certain what is going to happen, but rather because one has to be ready in case something bad might happen. It takes self-control to chop wood and store food during the summer, in anticipation of winter. Hawaii's weather does not pose threats for which one can prepare. (Warm-weather deaths typically involve hurricanes and the like, which up until about a century ago were not predictable, and it was hardly feasible to live one's entire life as if a hurricane were about to happen.) Some winters are mild and others are severe, but one had best prepare for the more severe one just in case.
The accelerated life history of the equatorial cultures may be due not to unpredictability, but rather the opposite: Ease of life and predictability of future conditions may have enabled people to live for the present, rather than prepare for future challenges and threats. Indeed, the faster life history of equatorial cultures may be in part a result of their higher aggression, rather than only a cause.