91–100 of 105 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If only we could simulate evolution a few million years and see how chimps evolve. Look around. I see no reason a primate so similar to humans would not continue to evolve along the same lines.
Because humans already exist, perhaps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I respect the utopian ideal, but Ideology separated from reality seems to cause a lot of issues. Basically non violent goals are a great thing to work toward, but non violent rules seem less useful.
I don't understand the terminology of "separated from reality." It's beyond obvious that ideology is a part of reality. What else would it be, supernatural?
There are several less kind ways I could describe such overly simplified models, "Seperated from Reality" seems like the least offensive. Would you prefer, when there is a conflict between ideas and reality it's not reality that's false?
If you ever want to have real fun, point this out to a doctrinaire feminist who is heavily invested in the idea that men are more violent than women because in the primordial landscape men did most of the hunting. I did this to a freind once, quite innocently, and she ended up so angry she could--in her own description--barely speak. There is a whole literature in a particular brand of feminism (mostly associated wit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>There is a whole literature in a particular brand of feminism (mostly associated with the radicals) that simply takes the association of hunting and interpersonal violence on faith This is a straw woman. I cannot think of any radical feminist for whom this is an important point. (You probably don't mean actually radical feminists, but just liberals with whom you disagree, but that's another point.) I think virtually…
I don't know why this was downvoted, it's a perfectly reasonable post. I can believe there is some second wave feminist who has written something like what the GP was saying above – feminists are pretty damn diverse. That said, it seems like most modern feminists are pretty skeptical of evolutionary psychology, and would be unlikely to make arguments about modern human behavior based on paleolithic culture. If you kn…
This encapsulates 90% of hacker news.
If you ever want to have real fun, point this out to a doctrinaire feminist who is heavily invested in the idea that men are more violent than women because in the primordial landscape men did most of the hunting. I did this to a freind once, quite innocently, and she ended up so angry she could--in her own description--barely speak. There is a whole literature in a particular brand of feminism (mostly associated wit…
>There is a whole literature in a particular brand of feminism (mostly associated with the radicals) that simply takes the association of hunting and interpersonal violence on faith This is a straw woman. I cannot think of any radical feminist for whom this is an important point. (You probably don't mean actually radical feminists, but just liberals with whom you disagree, but that's another point.) I think virtually…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>There is a whole literature in a particular brand of feminism (mostly associated with the radicals) that simply takes the association of hunting and interpersonal violence on faith This is a straw woman. I cannot think of any radical feminist for whom this is an important point. (You probably don't mean actually radical feminists, but just liberals with whom you disagree, but that's another point.) I think virtually…
There is a line from a post apocalyptic TV show: "Ain’t nothing sadder than an outdoor cat that thinks he’s an indoor cat" . Why is it considered "misbehaving" when men don't act like women? We have advanced to a rather cushy society that allows for this stance to seem reasonable, and when considered only in this setting, perhaps it is. But the world is not all roses. Sometimes violence is not only an acceptable way…
What does it mean to act like a woman? You think you know. Name a behavior, I guarantee I can name a woman who does not engage in said behavior.
But the world is not all roses. Sometimes violence is not only an acceptable way of dealing with a situation, sometimes it is the only way of dealing with it and achieving a successful outcome.
But the GP was not talking about the entire world, they were specifically talking about child bullies.
The bully and I were lucky, as the bully got bored and moved on.
And yet the lesson you draw from this experience is that children should be taught to respond violently to a bully?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a line from a post apocalyptic TV show: "Ain’t nothing sadder than an outdoor cat that thinks he’s an indoor cat" . Why is it considered "misbehaving" when men don't act like women? We have advanced to a rather cushy society that allows for this stance to seem reasonable, and when considered only in this setting, perhaps it is. But the world is not all roses. Sometimes violence is not only an acceptable way…
Why is it considered "misbehaving" when men don't act like women? What does it mean to act like a woman? You think you know. Name a behavior, I guarantee I can name a woman who does not engage in said behavior. But the world is not all roses. Sometimes violence is not only an acceptable way of dealing with a situation, sometimes it is the only way of dealing with it and achieving a successful outcome. But the GP was…
There is no set of "woman behaviors". If you want me to make a wild guess at a sweeping generalization for which there will be endless counter-examples, then here is my answer: Women in general are more risk-averse than men in general. This is the most logical explanation I have encountered for why both the world's leadership and the world's prisons are populated primarily by men.
> And yet the lesson you draw from this experience is that children should be taught to respond violently to a bully?
Not at all. From my experiences with bullies, the lesson I draw is that children should be taught that there is a time for violence, and they should be taught how to decide when it's time to take violent action against a bully. The mechanics of such an education are certainly non-trivial. If you tell a 5-year-old that "violence is okay", then you have failed. I expect that to properly educate a child in this area would require most of the childhood and into early adulthood. So it's not an easy task. If you want to tell your child that "violence is wrong", as one of those temporary lies that we have to tell our children because they don't yet have the brain capacity or life experience to understand the truth, then that's fine. But it seems like we have a majority of parents who go with the convenient lie and fail to follow up. I think that if the population were properly educated on this topic, the overwhelming majority would never encounter a situation over the course of their entire life where they chose violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is similar to how human civilization formed. Areas of plentiful food have no need for farming or saving up food as wealth thus, it is only in places where food/resources are less plentiful did technological civilization develop.
That's inaccurate. You should check out "guns, germs and steel".
Edit:
I take that back. I just read the synopsis on wikipedia. The books' theory is exactly inline with my statement.
"The first step towards civilization is the move from nomadic hunter-gatherer to rooted agrarian society. Several conditions are necessary for this transition to occur: 1) access to high protein vegetation that endures storage; 2) a climate dry enough to allow storage; 3) access to animals docile enough for domestication and versatile enough to survive captivity. Control of crops and livestock leads to food surpluses. Surplus frees people up to specialize in activities other than sustenance and supports population growth. The combination of specialization and population growth leads to the accumulation of social and technologic innovations which build on each other. Large societies develop ruling classes and supporting bureaucracies, which in turn lead to the organization of nation-states and empires."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is similar to how human civilization formed. Areas of plentiful food have no need for farming or saving up food as wealth thus, it is only in places where food/resources are less plentiful did technological civilization develop.
There's an interesting set of forces when it comes to "early stage" innovation (imo). On the one hand what you say is true...sheer necessity forces innovation. On the other hand if there's plenty of food one can save food and use the time not spent hunting/gathering to invent/build new technology. That's pretty much the economics point of view. Save+invest->innovation/technology. Catch a couple of fish, save them if…
Why save the fish if it's going to rot?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it considered "misbehaving" when men don't act like women? What does it mean to act like a woman? You think you know. Name a behavior, I guarantee I can name a woman who does not engage in said behavior. But the world is not all roses. Sometimes violence is not only an acceptable way of dealing with a situation, sometimes it is the only way of dealing with it and achieving a successful outcome. But the GP was…
> What does it mean to act like a woman? You think you know. Name a behavior, I guarantee I can name a woman who does not engage in said behavior. There is no set of "woman behaviors". If you want me to make a wild guess at a sweeping generalization for which there will be endless counter-examples, then here is my answer: Women in general are more risk-averse than men in general. This is the most logical explanation…
Here's the thing about your answer to the previous question: if what you mean when you say "act like a woman" is "cautious," why not just say "why is it considered misbehaving when men act recklessly?" The answer to that question would be much more instructive, although also somewhat tautological. You correctly describe your response as a sweep generalization with endless counter examples. In other words, wrong.
Gender is a cultural construction. Get that through your skull, and you can start talking about what you're actually talking about rather than muddying things up with your prejudices about men and women.
As for teaching about violence, you've made another mistake. Violence is always an evil. If nothing else, a violent act against an evil person still brutalizes the actor. The difference between story book morality and the real world is that real morality often involves choices between multiple evils. If the evil of not acting violently outweighs the evil of acting violently, then you must act violently. But it is not a lie to teach children that violence is always wrong.
it seems like we have a majority of parents who go with the convenient lie and fail to follow up
Yes, if only parents would stop teaching their children that violence is wrong, there would be less violence in the world. You realize how rediculous that assertion is?