41–50 of 75 posts
But is it necessarily a bad thing? It seems like a way for nature to filter out less competitive genetic material. There are always going to be hierarchies and there will always be people at the bottom. It's an inherent part of how matter organises itself.
But is it necessarily a bad thing? It seems like a way for nature to filter out less competitive genetic material. There are always going to be hierarchies and there will always be people at the bottom. It's an inherent part of how matter organises itself.
But is it necessarily a bad thing? It seems like a way for nature to filter out less competitive genetic material. There are always going to be hierarchies and there will always be people at the bottom. It's an inherent part of how matter organises itself.
This is well known. Relative social status has an influence on health. Above survival level, it's healthier to be at the top of a poor culture than at the bottom of a rich one, even if the absolute level is lower.
That Big-Fish-Little-Pond effect is seen to be relevant in a lot of places, including academic performance [1][2], depression, and suicide rates.
[1] http://aer.sagepub.com/content/47/2/390.abstract
[2] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-008-9075-6
As with many things, this is also more complex. This article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303694650_Primate_r... suggests that higher status animal in this particular group have a higher parasite burden.
Low status is stressful. And so is high status.
Opting out and just not giving a four letter word does not have to be.
But is it necessarily a bad thing? It seems like a way for nature to filter out less competitive genetic material. There are always going to be hierarchies and there will always be people at the bottom. It's an inherent part of how matter organises itself.
Logical fallacy. Social status ≠ genetics. Social status is unfortunately often determined by income, race, religion, and a host of other nonlogical designations. In this experiment, social status was determined by "newness" to the group. Nothing to do with genetics.
But is it necessarily a bad thing? It seems like a way for nature to filter out less competitive genetic material. There are always going to be hierarchies and there will always be people at the bottom. It's an inherent part of how matter organises itself.
Logical fallacy. Social status ≠ genetics. Social status is unfortunately often determined by income, race, religion, and a host of other nonlogical designations. In this experiment, social status was determined by "newness" to the group. Nothing to do with genetics.
These are all heritable. This is not a matter of (formal) logic (so stop throwing 'fallacy' around); it's genetics.
But is it necessarily a bad thing? It seems like a way for nature to filter out less competitive genetic material. There are always going to be hierarchies and there will always be people at the bottom. It's an inherent part of how matter organises itself.
Well, we also organize the systems that organize people into hierarchies, and our normative choices are just as "natural." And, to continue this kind of thinking, the mushroom clouds of the next nuclear war will also be nature's means of expression, as was slavery, and also the emancipation of slaves.
Yes, we tend to put the most intelligent people into the best positions. Clearly what we need is more cognitive diversity because hierarchy and ranking is bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, we also organize the systems that organize people into hierarchies, and our normative choices are just as "natural." And, to continue this kind of thinking, the mushroom clouds of the next nuclear war will also be nature's means of expression, as was slavery, and also the emancipation of slaves.
> Well, we also organize the systems that organize people into hierarchies Yes, we tend to put the most intelligent people into the best positions. Clearly what we need is more cognitive diversity because hierarchy and ranking is bad.
Also, if you're implying that this human world is a functioning meritocracy, then I just can't agree. For example, just try to convincingly guess where Donald Trump would be if he'd been born into poverty.