JL on Female Founders • Hacker News Board

Re: JL on Female Founders

#41

Post by smanek » Sat, Jul 12, 2008, 8:04 AM UTC

DaniFong wrote: post #23

smanek wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's close - but not quite what I was taught. Basically, men aren't as important as women. If 99.99% of men died today, the human race could be back to it's normal population within a generation (a man could easily father a child a day for 30 years ~10,000 children). On the other hand, we'd have much more trouble if 99.9% of women died, since a women can only realistically have about 10 children in a lifetime. This…

A women, on the other hand, can likely have 10 children whether or not she is successful Surely you are joking... Miscarriages, even a century ago, claimed so many women . You would be lucky to live past your third, much less your tenth! Without some network to provided for her (either by her family, or the village, or her mate, all of which are strongly effected by status), the likelihood of surviving a pregnancy be…

Oh, and the 10 was an upper bound. If it's 3 that's even better - women are even more of a limiting reagent and they have less of a evolutionary need for massive amounts of wealth.

Re: JL on Female Founders

#42

Post by mattmaroon » Sat, Jul 12, 2008, 8:08 AM UTC

DaniFong wrote: post #36

whacked_new wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The reference to cultural memes is a chicken an egg argument; by claiming "complete domination" you essentially overlook the origin of said memes. I'm not armed with sources, but I daresay that nature has given everything specialization, so much so that applying the same ideas to the sexes is not the slightest bit strange. More strongly said, there is nothing surprising when one sex exhibits traits much more ost…

you essentially overlook the origin of said memes. I don't overlook the origin. Your thrust seems to be that culture only magnifies innate difference. Perhaps this is true in simple cases, but I think that there are particular examples where culture takes on a mind of its own. I point out that existing cultural bias might be due to biological bias interacting with environmental factors long extinct. This bias is enco…

The easiest way to prove something is genetic rather than cultural is to examine different cultures throughout the world, especially isolated ones like pygmies or aborigines.

The paradigm of man as provider and woman as nurturer, and the mating ramifications of that (i.e. women preferring men who are able to provide, which most closely translates in our society to wealth, and men preferring women more fit to raise children, which in our society most closely translates to healthy appearance) are virtually universal.

That would strongly suggest that it is genetic rather than cultural.

Re: JL on Female Founders

#43

Post by mattmaroon » Sat, Jul 12, 2008, 8:14 AM UTC

DaniFong wrote: post #18

mixmax wrote: post #5

I think that natural selection might explain it. What characrerises reproductively successful men? Or, to put it another way, what qualities do women seek in a mate? Women tend to prefer dominant men of high status with lots of money, and there is little reason to believe that their ancestors differed. For much of human history male status came from being a skilled hunter and warrior and from the ability to influence…

Unfortunately, your explanation does not go the whole way. Consider the evolution of biological genes: a) Men and women share mostly the same genes (the y chromosome is a desolate wasteland), and there are few (if any) known mechanisms by which gene merging is different for male and female humans. b) Dominant, decisive, intelligent, women are likely to share similar evolutionary advantages to men. Note that I leave h…

a) irrelevant b) I don't think anyone suggested that "dominant, decisive, intelligent, women" are any less likely to start startups than "dominant, decisive, intelligent" men. (I'd define the characteristics that drive one to start up differently, but you get the picture. However you define it, it may be that fewer women have those characteristics). a) ok. undoubtedly a part. b) Perhaps you have cause and effect bakcwards. Perhaps women with fewer kids are more likely to become high status. Perhaps both are just correlated and caused by some other factor.

And Hillary Clinton is getting a lot of the treatment she is now because her refusal to concede for a long time when it was clear that Obama would be the nominee has been potentially very destructive to her party. I'm not so sure a male candidate who did the same thing would be thought of any better, or at least not much.

Re: JL on Female Founders

#44

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 12, 2008, 8:17 AM UTC

DaniFong wrote: post #18

mixmax wrote: post #5

I think that natural selection might explain it. What characrerises reproductively successful men? Or, to put it another way, what qualities do women seek in a mate? Women tend to prefer dominant men of high status with lots of money, and there is little reason to believe that their ancestors differed. For much of human history male status came from being a skilled hunter and warrior and from the ability to influence…

Unfortunately, your explanation does not go the whole way. Consider the evolution of biological genes: a) Men and women share mostly the same genes (the y chromosome is a desolate wasteland), and there are few (if any) known mechanisms by which gene merging is different for male and female humans. b) Dominant, decisive, intelligent, women are likely to share similar evolutionary advantages to men. Note that I leave h…

[deleted]

Re: JL on Female Founders

#45

Post by mattmaroon » Sat, Jul 12, 2008, 8:24 AM UTC

aasarava wrote: post #20

mixmax wrote: post #5

I think that natural selection might explain it. What characrerises reproductively successful men? Or, to put it another way, what qualities do women seek in a mate? Women tend to prefer dominant men of high status with lots of money, and there is little reason to believe that their ancestors differed. For much of human history male status came from being a skilled hunter and warrior and from the ability to influence…

While that makes for a neatly packaged Darwinian theory, it's important to remember that genetic selection is not the only force that affects our decisions. Medicine, culture, technology, and many other factors affect, and even override, what our genes may steer us toward if they could "act in a vacuum." Not convinced? By the same theory, one would think that men in today's society would be highly encouraged to have…

Men have always been encouraged to have sex with a lot of different partners, not to sire children with them. (Children were, of course, the reason that men developed the urge, but the urge stands separately, as shown by the fact that men do not decrease their mating habits when there is no chance of pregnancy.) That's clearly still the case in modern society. Spend 10 minutes in a high school locker room and you'll see that.

Darwinian theories about women being wired differently than men are perpetuated because science backs them up. We don't know exactly how, or how much of the difference is genetic vs. cultural, but it's just a reality that men and women have different motivations, aptitudes, etc.

Nobody would argue that evolution has made us different physically. Men are much stronger and better coordinated. Women are more able to bear pain and often have stronger senses of smell and taste. Why would it not stand to reason that evolution might make each sex better at some mental tasks than the other, just as it has physical? It's not sexist to point out that male weight-lifters are able to bench more because men have been designed by evolution to be stronger. Why is it sexist to say we show up more frequently in science departments because we have also been designed by evolution to be better at math?

Sexism is not believing that one sex is different than another, it's believing that those differences make it inferior.

Re: JL on Female Founders

#46

Post by rsheridan6 » Sat, Jul 12, 2008, 8:28 AM UTC

DaniFong wrote: post #18

mixmax wrote: post #5

I think that natural selection might explain it. What characrerises reproductively successful men? Or, to put it another way, what qualities do women seek in a mate? Women tend to prefer dominant men of high status with lots of money, and there is little reason to believe that their ancestors differed. For much of human history male status came from being a skilled hunter and warrior and from the ability to influence…

Unfortunately, your explanation does not go the whole way. Consider the evolution of biological genes: a) Men and women share mostly the same genes (the y chromosome is a desolate wasteland), and there are few (if any) known mechanisms by which gene merging is different for male and female humans. b) Dominant, decisive, intelligent, women are likely to share similar evolutionary advantages to men. Note that I leave h…

a) Genes are not expressed the same way in men and women. To oversimplify a little, if a gene is only activated in the presence of male levels of testosterone, it will not be expressed in women. In the long run, natural selection hooks up genes that are beneficial in men and harmful in women to testosterone-sensitive gene promoters, though this may take a long time, and in the meantime you may end up with women with deleterious traits that were beneficial for their fathers.

While we're at it, similar mechanisms account for the difference between a neuron and a muscle fiber, which share identical genomes.

b) A very successful man can end up with hundreds of concubines and children. A significant percentage of Asians are direct descendents of Genghis Khan, and there was a King Niall in Ulster who is said to be an ancestor of 25% of the men in Northwest Ireland. Monogamy somewhat limits this in our culture, but most people for most of the time humans have existed have been polygynous. For a woman, this is impossible - she can have a dozen or so babies at best.

Re: JL on Female Founders

#47

Post by mattmaroon » Sat, Jul 12, 2008, 8:35 AM UTC

smanek wrote: post #19

mixmax wrote: post #5

I think that natural selection might explain it. What characrerises reproductively successful men? Or, to put it another way, what qualities do women seek in a mate? Women tend to prefer dominant men of high status with lots of money, and there is little reason to believe that their ancestors differed. For much of human history male status came from being a skilled hunter and warrior and from the ability to influence…

that's close - but not quite what I was taught. Basically, men aren't as important as women. If 99.99% of men died today, the human race could be back to it's normal population within a generation (a man could easily father a child a day for 30 years ~10,000 children). On the other hand, we'd have much more trouble if 99.9% of women died, since a women can only realistically have about 10 children in a lifetime. This…

I remember once reading that before modern medicine, 1/4 of pregnancies ended in death to the mother due to the baby's size. That would certainly explain why women don't take mating lightly.

Re: JL on Female Founders

#48

Post by DaniFong » Sat, Jul 12, 2008, 9:04 AM UTC

mattmaroon wrote: post #43

DaniFong wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, your explanation does not go the whole way. Consider the evolution of biological genes: a) Men and women share mostly the same genes (the y chromosome is a desolate wasteland), and there are few (if any) known mechanisms by which gene merging is different for male and female humans. b) Dominant, decisive, intelligent, women are likely to share similar evolutionary advantages to men. Note that I leave h…

a) irrelevant b) I don't think anyone suggested that "dominant, decisive, intelligent, women" are any less likely to start startups than "dominant, decisive, intelligent" men. (I'd define the characteristics that drive one to start up differently, but you get the picture. However you define it, it may be that fewer women have those characteristics). a) ok. undoubtedly a part. b) Perhaps you have cause and effect bakc…

a) irrelevant with respect to what? The point of this is that it contrasts with the case for memes. Memes are directed towards the different groups much more strongly, and so by that force you'd assume that they're more likely divergent.

I don't think anyone suggested that "dominant, decisive, intelligent, women" are any less likely to start startups than "dominant, decisive, intelligent" men.

That is in fact more along the lines of what i'm suggesting. I think that conditioned on the same startup traits, women are actually less likely to start startups due to cultural factors, of which one of the strongest is the cultural disincentive to risk. My specific claim is that the cultural disincentive strongly outweighs the innate tendency.

I'd define the characteristics that drive one to start up differently

I too, but these were the traits on topic.

b) Perhaps you have cause and effect backwards.

My central hypothesis was that women, currently, face more resistance than men in spreading any memes that create high 'provider status'. And that under the model postulated, you'd expect the evolution of memes to dominate genes.

And Hillary Clinton is getting a lot of the treatment she is now because her refusal to concede for a long time when it was clear that Obama would be the nominee has been potentially very destructive to her party.

Her maltreatment long preceded that moment -- the media has consistently typecast her as 'icequeen' or 'man', and I have heard that sentiment abundantly reflected.

Re: JL on Female Founders

#49

Post by rkts » Sat, Jul 12, 2008, 9:10 AM UTC

mattmaroon wrote: post #47

smanek wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's close - but not quite what I was taught. Basically, men aren't as important as women. If 99.99% of men died today, the human race could be back to it's normal population within a generation (a man could easily father a child a day for 30 years ~10,000 children). On the other hand, we'd have much more trouble if 99.9% of women died, since a women can only realistically have about 10 children in a lifetime. This…

I remember once reading that before modern medicine, 1/4 of pregnancies ended in death to the mother due to the baby's size. That would certainly explain why women don't take mating lightly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death

"The historical level of maternal deaths is probably around 1 in 100 births." However: "Mortality rates reached horrible proportions in maternity institutions in the 1800s, sometimes climbing to 40 percent of birthgiving women."

Re: JL on Female Founders

#50

Post by DaniFong » Sat, Jul 12, 2008, 9:11 AM UTC

smanek wrote: post #41

DaniFong wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A women, on the other hand, can likely have 10 children whether or not she is successful Surely you are joking... Miscarriages, even a century ago, claimed so many women . You would be lucky to live past your third, much less your tenth! Without some network to provided for her (either by her family, or the village, or her mate, all of which are strongly effected by status), the likelihood of surviving a pregnancy be…

Oh, and the 10 was an upper bound. If it's 3 that's even better - women are even more of a limiting reagent and they have less of a evolutionary need for massive amounts of wealth.

My theory is that there are two types of fundamental 'evolutionary units' that are important when discussing humans. Memes, and genes. I agree that, when memes were unimportant, the genetic influence, for females, of an outstanding capability to provide, would be largely wasted.

However, massive wealth only became possible once human culture grew, and then, for reasons I outlined below, memes became far more sticky, more influential, and more important, by comparison. In this, women have a greater evolutionary incentive to gain wealth or prestige or spread memes, but not a greater genetic incentive.