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

Is There Anything Good About Men?

psy.fsu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 237 posts

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#41

Post by oflannabhra »

JonnieCache wrote: post #4

The problem with this essay is that is paints us as slaves to our genes. Since Dawkins became fashionable, it is now normal to portray human beings as nothing more than meat-based mechanisms for storing and transporting DNA. This idea is dangerously embedded in society now, and it risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of barbarism. What possible motivation does one have for behaving in a manner other than that of…

I also have noticed this philosophy ( or I guess worldview, as it encompasses multiple disciplines) gaining traction (especially on sites like reddit), but I haven't read many rebuttals or articles even mentioning it. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. Anyone got good links?

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#42

Post by gte910h »

sandstrom wrote: post #20
gte910h wrote: post #9

Lots of positions, but very little citations to research, etc that backs it up. I'm curious how many of his contentions are borne up by science (other than the outlier study).

I think the main reason is that this is a speech (transcribed). Hence the lack of citation and references, together with rhetorical questions and phrasings more suitable for verbal performance.

Now that I go back, I see that it's a transcription. I missed the transcription bit the first time around.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#43

Post by scythe »

sliverstorm wrote: post #35
scythe wrote: post #13

Obvious problem: Genghis Khan is dead. The fact that a full third of Asia and consequently a sixth of the whole world has some genetic similarity to Genghis Khan does not make him any less dead. Evolution is not teleological and genes do not "want". Genes just happen; they're chemicals. Working to ensure the continuation of your genes is not mandated or valuable -- it is likely . Your parents probably did, because yo…

So what if the Mongol empire lasted only 100 years and left Asia in ruins? It was pretty good for Genghis Khan's genes if a sixth of the world is related to him. You're fundamentally not thinking about genes and evolution the right way. It's not an individual thing. Genghis Khan probably didn't care how many children he had. But in an evolutionary sense, his genes were extremely successful. Genes "wanting" things is…

>It was pretty good for Genghis Khan's genes if a sixth of the world is related to him.

Genghis Khan's genes don't care. They're genes. They just exist.

> it makes things clearer to think of [genes] as if they did have an agenda.

Not really. The Price equation doesn't really bring agenda into the issue.

>It's [genetics] not an individual thing.

Of course not! Life is an individual thing. Where you trail off into the aether is when you say Genghis Khan benefits from something happening today. Genghis Khan cannot possibly benefit from anything happening today, because he died a long damn time ago.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#44

Post by sliverstorm »

JonnieCache wrote: post #4

The problem with this essay is that is paints us as slaves to our genes. Since Dawkins became fashionable, it is now normal to portray human beings as nothing more than meat-based mechanisms for storing and transporting DNA. This idea is dangerously embedded in society now, and it risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of barbarism. What possible motivation does one have for behaving in a manner other than that of…

"slaves to our genes"? Hardly. One of the most commonly forgotten things about evolution and DNA is it describes the system, not the individual.

In other words, it's kind of like statistics. When I roll these two dice, I could get any combination of results. The past has no control, the future has no control. But if I take it beyond one trial, and execute many trials, I will find the system tends towards statistically predictable results.

DNA and evolution is like those statistical predictions.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#45

Post by sliverstorm »

scythe wrote: post #43
sliverstorm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what if the Mongol empire lasted only 100 years and left Asia in ruins? It was pretty good for Genghis Khan's genes if a sixth of the world is related to him. You're fundamentally not thinking about genes and evolution the right way. It's not an individual thing. Genghis Khan probably didn't care how many children he had. But in an evolutionary sense, his genes were extremely successful. Genes "wanting" things is…

>It was pretty good for Genghis Khan's genes if a sixth of the world is related to him. Genghis Khan's genes don't care. They're genes. They just exist. > it makes things clearer to think of [genes] as if they did have an agenda. Not really. The Price equation doesn't really bring agenda into the issue. >It's [genetics] not an individual thing. Of course not! Life is an individual thing. Where you trail off into the…

You did not read what I wrote, did you.

I never once asserted that the man, Genghis Khan, benefited in any way whatsoever from having such a large progeny.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#46

Post by tokenadult »

oflannabhra wrote: post #41
JonnieCache wrote: post #4

The problem with this essay is that is paints us as slaves to our genes. Since Dawkins became fashionable, it is now normal to portray human beings as nothing more than meat-based mechanisms for storing and transporting DNA. This idea is dangerously embedded in society now, and it risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of barbarism. What possible motivation does one have for behaving in a manner other than that of…

I also have noticed this philosophy ( or I guess worldview, as it encompasses multiple disciplines) gaining traction (especially on sites like reddit), but I haven't read many rebuttals or articles even mentioning it. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. Anyone got good links?

Anyone got good links?

There is a collection of book citations (rather than links, mostly, so far) in Wikipedia userspace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Anthropol...

I'm amazed how neglected most of the best scholarly sources are in online discussions of these issues. The linked Wikipedia user subpage has a suggestions page (its "talk" page) for suggesting further resources, which would be helpful to participants here on HN.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#47

Post by 6ren »

JonnieCache wrote: post #4

The problem with this essay is that is paints us as slaves to our genes. Since Dawkins became fashionable, it is now normal to portray human beings as nothing more than meat-based mechanisms for storing and transporting DNA. This idea is dangerously embedded in society now, and it risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of barbarism. What possible motivation does one have for behaving in a manner other than that of…

Animals cooperate at times, as in herds, troups and packs. One can see our instincts as our "animal" aspects, and that we also have an instinct for cooperation. An example is language, which being learnt unconsciously by children is arguably an instinct. Language is primarily used for cooperation. One can further see our emotions as being based on instincts, and clearly we have cooperative emotions and destructive emotions. Though sometimes labeled as "higher" or "lower" emotions, both are emotions.

Secondly, our instincts do delegate perceptual control to our intellectual selves: e.g. if we can work out who the bad guy is, our anger is directed at that person. We can even talk ourselves into all sorts of things! Though we have no choice in having instincts, we have great influence in applying them.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#48

Post by divtxt »

JonnieCache wrote: post #4

The problem with this essay is that is paints us as slaves to our genes. Since Dawkins became fashionable, it is now normal to portray human beings as nothing more than meat-based mechanisms for storing and transporting DNA. This idea is dangerously embedded in society now, and it risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of barbarism. What possible motivation does one have for behaving in a manner other than that of…

I'm sorry but you have this backward.

We already ARE barbarians. Figuring out the cause does not suddenly make us so.

Plenty of people believe in equality but have trouble following through. Figuring out our impulses will only help us understand and control them better. (e.g. genetically-caused discrimination has been countered in many parts of the world by the brainwashing of "equality" memes)

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#49

Post by sliverstorm »

Goladus wrote: post #24
JonnieCache wrote: post #4

The problem with this essay is that is paints us as slaves to our genes. Since Dawkins became fashionable, it is now normal to portray human beings as nothing more than meat-based mechanisms for storing and transporting DNA. This idea is dangerously embedded in society now, and it risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of barbarism. What possible motivation does one have for behaving in a manner other than that of…

The problem with this essay is that is paints us as slaves to our genes. Why would you say this essay "paints us as slaves to our genes?" I didn't read it that way at all. In fact there's so much content there to discuss that I think it's really unfair to make such an unrelated generalization about the whole thing. There is much discussion about evolutionary traits, for sure, but just because it's there as an explana…

It's amusing to live in a world where instinct in animals is readily accepted as heritable, and yet whether or not humans can inherit behaviors is hotly contested.

Almost seems like another round of people looking to maintain the illusion that humans are separate from animals. What was the last one we had, tool use?

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#50

Post by [deleted] »

mitcheme wrote: post #28

What I dislike about these kinds of "evolutionary" arguments is that they tend to assume that the differences between the genders are genetic, even when there's no evidence for that. Even as late as the Victorian ages, several of the traits we now think of as immutable part of being male or female were swapped around. For the Victorians, blue was for girls and pink was for boys, and all women had the potential to bec…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN