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

Parasite gives wolves what it takes to be pack leaders

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 189 posts

Re: Parasite gives wolves what it takes to be pack leaders

#161

Post by thaumasiotes »

tafda wrote: post #101
thaumasiotes wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

“ Republicans lead among married men (51%-38%), while married women are evenly divided (44% Republican, 44% Democratic). ” https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-... That’s out of more than 60 million married couples in the US. Barely here equals about half?

> Barely here equals about half?

Well, first, married women are not evenly divided. They are more Republican and less Democratic than unmarried men, who are also Republican.

Second, even by the numbers you cite, Democrats aren't coming close to half of the vote among married couples.

Third, you have over 11% of the vote going to third parties. In reality, in 2016 the two-party vote share was just over 94%.

Some of these problems seem to arise from you confusing party affiliation with voting. They're different.

Re: Parasite gives wolves what it takes to be pack leaders

#162

Post by freeflight »

tgv wrote: post #11

I don't see anything in that article that makes the conclusion inevitable. It's a remarkable correlation for sure, but unfortunately it doesn't go beyond that. There's no pathway from infection to leadership (just a vague hypothesis that doesn't resemble the mechanism in rats and hyenas), and it doesn't look as if they looked at uninfected pack leaders. Perhaps pack leaders or strays eat more dead cat, or some other…

> Perhaps they sampled in the wrong time frame. The full article might have more info, but the linked one doesn't.

The data was collected over nearly 27 years, the link to the full open access paper is in the references; https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs42003-022-04122-0

Re: Parasite gives wolves what it takes to be pack leaders

#163

Post by [deleted] »

yesbut wrote: post #93
acuozzo wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is the idea that anyone that wants to be a leader probably shouldn't be a leader. These are the types of people who crave being in positions of authority over others. Which is why it's helpful to have as many (what I refer to as…) "power traps" in a society as possible: coaching, teaching, leading an HOA, leading a PTA, etc. I have nothing against these endeavors, you must understand, but my view is that a pe…

Solution: Put term limits on democratically elected Dog Show judges, as well as normal judges.

[deleted]

Re: Parasite gives wolves what it takes to be pack leaders

#164

Post by salawat »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #122
voltaireodactyl wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a fascinating and unexpected piece of information. I would be very intrigued to read your source.

Here's CNN's exit poll for November 2022: https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/exit-polls/national-result... Unmarried women vote Democratic, 68-31. Unmarried men vote Republican, 52-45. Married women, Republican, 56-42. Married men, Republican, 59-39. Here's an image purporting to describe the Reuters-Ipsos poll of 2012: https://i.imgur.com/I3ycNpC.png . (I haven't been able to find the actual poll.) It only gives the…

Sampling bias: those that respond to polls.

Re: Parasite gives wolves what it takes to be pack leaders

#165

Post by salawat »

klipt wrote: post #143
jesushax wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He probably didn't have the stat off the top of his head, so it was exaggerated based on assumptions. But the underlying intuition had a kernel of truth and applies to any political party, or any institution, really. For example, if an organization dedicated to the poor mainly draws support from poor people, they have a kind of incentive to subtly maintain poverty. This theory that institutions kind of have a tendenc…

Yes you could definitely make an argument that democrats benefit from poverty, or that republicans benefit from illegal immigration. People in poverty receiving benefits vote democrat because they're afraid republicans will cut benefits. People who fear illegal immigrants taking their jobs will vote republican because they think republicans will be tougher on illegal immigration. If democrats actually solved poverty…

>Arguably by the same reasoning, republicans benefit from legal abortion and their finally getting Roe v Wade reversed was terrible for their electoral performance.

You aborted your analysis too early. Getting Roe v. Wade overturned still benefits Republicans until such time as Legislation is successfully passed to outlaw abortion at all levels (i.e. State & Federal, though arguably we're talking Republican here, so one would think they'd content themselves with States). Only then would the "problem" be solved.

Re: Parasite gives wolves what it takes to be pack leaders

#166

Post by dtgriscom »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #87
pydry wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things also get interesting if you look at economic and social systems in this context.

Quoted post unavailable.

We went from wolf parasites to "Democrats want to prevent marriage", via exaggerated polling data. How does this add to our conversation?

Re: Parasite gives wolves what it takes to be pack leaders

#167

Post by salawat »

victor106 wrote: post #67
stncls wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was once part of a department that was so well-managed and functional that I couldn't quite believe it. Then when time came choose a new department head, someone told me that they had always specifically avoided people who wanted to lead the department for the job.

My simple mind thinks:- Why would you want someone who does not want to do a job do that job? If you are interviewing someone and that person said “I don’t want to do this job” would you hire that person?

There's a difference between "I don't want to do this job", and "I don't want to do this job, but it needs to be done, and apparently everyone else thinks I'm the best fit for it. As much as I now hate you all, I'll do it, and may God have mercy on your souls."

I've been told several times that I become scarily competent at anything I hate, far in excess of those things that make me happy or bring me joy.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't discount disgust or aversion to something or it's lack as a disqualification to manage that thing. Quite to the contrary, they may be just the person aware enough of the thing in question to reliably manage it. I'll take a candidate who can explain at length why they hate that job over the most eager "this'll be great" candidate ever.

I'll just be realistic about my assessment of their tenure, and the compensation offered, and try really hard to figure out what they actually want before pulling the trigger on the hire.

Re: Parasite gives wolves what it takes to be pack leaders

#168

Post by nix23 »

msrenee wrote: post #126
nix23 wrote: post #52

Can we please do the same study with politicians?

I think you're being facetious, but that would actually be an interesting segment of the population to look at for prevalence of T. gondii. I'd really like to see that study.

Well no, it's was kind of a real question..but also with "the elon's of the world"

Re: Parasite gives wolves what it takes to be pack leaders

#169

Post by jesushax »

klipt wrote: post #143
jesushax wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He probably didn't have the stat off the top of his head, so it was exaggerated based on assumptions. But the underlying intuition had a kernel of truth and applies to any political party, or any institution, really. For example, if an organization dedicated to the poor mainly draws support from poor people, they have a kind of incentive to subtly maintain poverty. This theory that institutions kind of have a tendenc…

Yes you could definitely make an argument that democrats benefit from poverty, or that republicans benefit from illegal immigration. People in poverty receiving benefits vote democrat because they're afraid republicans will cut benefits. People who fear illegal immigrants taking their jobs will vote republican because they think republicans will be tougher on illegal immigration. If democrats actually solved poverty…

You are completely correct, I didn't mean to argue against the Dems, just noting that I hear this critique raised against them a lot.

>Arguably by the same reasoning, republicans benefit from legal abortion and their finally getting Roe v Wade reversed was terrible for their electoral performance.

Indeed, the far-right has raised exactly this criticism of overturning Roe v Wade:

>If you have limited energy and a limited number of possible wins, it is important to focus your limited energy on one kind of win: wins that make future wins easier. By definition, these are the kinds of wins that augment your power. These are real wins. > >There is another kind of “win,” wins which expend your power in order to achieve some result you want. These are sometimes called “Pyrrhic victories.” Pyrrhus took the battlefield, but after the battle his chances of winning were reduced. His tactical “victory” was a strategic defeat.

Source: You can only lose the culture war (https://graymirror.substack.com/p/you-can-only-lose-the-cult...)

This kind of thinking isn't partisan, I think it describes the a problem that occurs with institutions in any society. I'm not sure what the solution is, other than to be collectively vigilant against institutions succumbing to these tendencies. Which seems woefully inadequate.

Post reply on HN