Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 207 posts

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#111

Post by emodendroket »

libdong wrote: post #94
emodendroket wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adultery and murder have happened in just about every human society in the history of time but nobody thinks we shouldn't bother trying to suppress those impulses.

When murdering someone or cheating on your partner, you probably have a lot more time to second-guess your motives. When subconsciously judging a passer-by, you don't. In my case at least, they are long gone before I even realise that I've judged someone.

Yeah, but that's more akin to fantasizing about someone. Actually committing adultery is more akin to, say, refusing renters based on their race.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#112

Post by emodendroket »

bluthru wrote: post #98
emodendroket wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adultery and murder have happened in just about every human society in the history of time but nobody thinks we shouldn't bother trying to suppress those impulses.

I don't think you could ever make an argument that murder is good, but tribes have their benefits. For example, we know that homogenous societies have less conflict, a greater sense of community, and higher social trust.

So do smaller towns, but that doesn't seem to stop people from advocating urbanization here.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#113

Post by vorg »

There was a book I read in the 1970's about "sociobiology" that explained this. If I remember right:

People share exactly 50% of their genes with their parents and children, but only probably 50% of genes with siblings -- it could be 51%, or could be 48%. To preserve their own genes, people will feel altruistic to give their lives for three of their siblings (about 150% of their own genes saved), but not for one sibling (only about 50% saved). People share between 90% to 110% of their genes with two siblings (I'm guessing the variance here), so will give their lives for two siblings they share 110% of their genes with, but not two they only share 90% with. The feeling of "liking a sibling as a friend" is the same as being willing to give one's live for them, so in today's age of large urban groups where friendship is a proxy for one's siblings in small tribes during the hunter-gatherer era, it follows people choose their friends because they share more than the average genetic material with them.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#114

Post by grzm »

vorg wrote: post #113

There was a book I read in the 1970's about "sociobiology" that explained this. If I remember right: People share exactly 50% of their genes with their parents and children, but only probably 50% of genes with siblings -- it could be 51%, or could be 48%. To preserve their own genes, people will feel altruistic to give their lives for three of their siblings (about 150% of their own genes saved), but not for one sibl…

Could it have been E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology: The New Synthesis?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology:_The_New_Synthesi...

The two brothers/eight cousins idea goes back as far as Haldane regarding kin selection:

> No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane

Wikiquote has that as quoted in 2007, but I'm not sure how far back he originally stated it.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#115

Post by pdeuchler »

jawns wrote: post #42
tosser350 wrote: post #9

People need to realize we are built on hardware that is hundreds of millions of years old. We share a similar hormonal dominance hierarchy system with fucking lobsters. You can't just say it's and expect these things to disappear. Tribalism was important for survival, trusting someone who didn't look like you could mean death and thus was selected for over long periods of time.

And then we became human and started not acting like lobsters. We have intellects, a sense of morality, and a will. Those allow us to drastically curtail what might otherwise be instinctive behaviors. I know there are some determinists who say that free will is illusory and we're as much slaves to our genetics and instincts as lobsters are. But it certainly seems as if, in practice, tribalism (at least the clear-cut…

Drawing your argument to its logical conclusion, those that act on such impulses based on their genetics and instincts are less evolved than those who don't.

Sounds like something a plantation owner from the antebellum south would agree with.

Now obviously anti-racism isn't "the real racism", but I think it's kind of funny that many commentators here seem to think that by defining certain sects of people based on cherry picked attributes will somehow prove that we've moved beyond the biological impulses of discrimination.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#116

Post by Ultimatt »

vorg wrote: post #113

There was a book I read in the 1970's about "sociobiology" that explained this. If I remember right: People share exactly 50% of their genes with their parents and children, but only probably 50% of genes with siblings -- it could be 51%, or could be 48%. To preserve their own genes, people will feel altruistic to give their lives for three of their siblings (about 150% of their own genes saved), but not for one sibl…

It doesn't follow at all because the vast majority of genetic diversity is not tangibly self evident from just being friends with someone. We all share the same number of genes with each other. The common differences are tiny single base changes. The vast majority of these are not phenotypic but neutral chamges that dont impact the products produced by your genes.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#117

Post by BearGoesChirp »

jawns wrote: post #42
tosser350 wrote: post #9

People need to realize we are built on hardware that is hundreds of millions of years old. We share a similar hormonal dominance hierarchy system with fucking lobsters. You can't just say it's and expect these things to disappear. Tribalism was important for survival, trusting someone who didn't look like you could mean death and thus was selected for over long periods of time.

And then we became human and started not acting like lobsters. We have intellects, a sense of morality, and a will. Those allow us to drastically curtail what might otherwise be instinctive behaviors. I know there are some determinists who say that free will is illusory and we're as much slaves to our genetics and instincts as lobsters are. But it certainly seems as if, in practice, tribalism (at least the clear-cut…

Even if we stop all overt biases, there is plenty of sub-conscious bias that is impossible to recognize as the personal level because of how small the effect is verses the sample size (and how poor we are at doing mental statistics). Until we get to the point that we have personal AIs letting us know every time we begin to favor in-groups slightly more than out-groups, there isn't the ability to correct for this.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#118

Post by drewmol »

matkoboska wrote: post #47
jawns wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then we became human and started not acting like lobsters. We have intellects, a sense of morality, and a will. Those allow us to drastically curtail what might otherwise be instinctive behaviors. I know there are some determinists who say that free will is illusory and we're as much slaves to our genetics and instincts as lobsters are. But it certainly seems as if, in practice, tribalism (at least the clear-cut…

You are on a cocktail party. Have had a few drinks with friends. You all start talking about spiders. How they are these wonderful tiny creatures to be protected. You know, they got rid of insects and it's actually good to be above this. After all we have intellects, a sense of morality, and a will. We're not some freaking lobsters driven by phobias. And you know what? At this wonderful evening party, we all agree, t…

After the phobia kicks in, after the threat is neutralized, I encourage you to thoughtfully consider not wasting a flush to dispose of the dead spider/toilet paper combo.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#119

Post by rublev »

emodendroket wrote: post #72
matkoboska wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are on a cocktail party. Have had a few drinks with friends. You all start talking about spiders. How they are these wonderful tiny creatures to be protected. You know, they got rid of insects and it's actually good to be above this. After all we have intellects, a sense of morality, and a will. We're not some freaking lobsters driven by phobias. And you know what? At this wonderful evening party, we all agree, t…

> That's why after 30 years of perfect marriage you might do stupid things when 23 year old hot blonde is sexually provoking you. Actually you have to make a number of conscious decisions to have an affair. "It just happened" is an excuse.

Nobody said that. They're saying you cannot reason yourself out of your boner. Just that the impulse will always be there, I just choose to ignore it.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#120

Post by bykovich2 »

SirensOfTitan wrote: post #53
jawns wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then we became human and started not acting like lobsters. We have intellects, a sense of morality, and a will. Those allow us to drastically curtail what might otherwise be instinctive behaviors. I know there are some determinists who say that free will is illusory and we're as much slaves to our genetics and instincts as lobsters are. But it certainly seems as if, in practice, tribalism (at least the clear-cut…

> We have intellects, a sense of morality, and a will. Those allow us to drastically curtail what might otherwise be instinctive behaviors. An excerpt from Julian Jaynes's 'Origin of Consciousness' comes to mind here: > Consciousness is a much smaller part of our mental life than we are conscious of, because we cannot be conscious of what we are not conscious of. How simple that is to say; how difficult to appreciate…

One might go so far as to say that substance and sustenance of life dwells in those holes. I won't go so far, but someone (not me, of course) might.
Post reply on HN