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

221–230 of 237 posts

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#221

Post by jordan0day »

sliverstorm wrote: post #103
jordan0day wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm on the opposite side of that. I find it amusing when people try to justify certain actions with corollaries found in animals. The amazing thing about being human is that we can overcome instinct, and it doesn't even require superhuman effort. Regular old human effort will do.

You've never seen a dog overcome instinct? It's not a uniquely human ability.

I wasn't arguing that it was uniquely human (I don't think I was arguing anything at all, really).

That said, what is the cutoff for determining if a behavior is instinctual or not? There's a lot of variables in play. For example, I would imagine my dog's instinct is to just jump up and snatch the treat from my hand. Does she sit, shake, lay down, roll over, high-five, whatever else I tell her to do because she knows it will get her the treat and earn favor? Couldn't this also be explained as instinct?

That is, how exactly do we determine what is "overcoming" instinct in a dog, and what is merely more complex expression of what is also instinctual behavior? We could question this equally with humans as well, except we're absolutely confident that humans have the ability of introspection, even if it's not necessarily put to good use all the time.

Edit: Let me just state I wasn't trying to be argumentative in my original response above. My "I'm on the opposite side of that" was apparently poorly-worded. I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was trying to say something orthogonal to your comment. That is, I felt like my starting assumption was that human behavior could be heritable, while the context of your comment was that some felt that is even up for debate.

I'm sorry if I'm not making this very clear, I'm frankly taken aback by the amount of furor over my comment, which I meant not as a direct response or argument to yours, but as an aside.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#222

Post by ohashi »

westicle wrote: post #216
ohashi wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia? USA? Canada? There are many different resources besides simply oil (I am making an assumption that's what is in your mind because of the Norway example). Mongolia doesn't simply have oil (and they rank #92 in the world for oil production - so they don't even have much of it), they have richer mineral deposits.

Those examples don't necessarily refute grandparent's point. See link below regarding "two speed economies" in which resource booms can actually have a negative structural impact on production. http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1421/HTML/docshell.asp?...

I am aware that natural resources have caused trouble for a lot of countries. Just stating that it isn't an automatic death sentence to have them.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#223

Post by jordan0day »

tomelders wrote: post #199
mannicken wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It pisses me off when people don't concede that they were wrong" In this case, we have saturn exemplifying a pure animalistic instinct of rage. You being pissed off is not an argument that helps the conversation. Humans are not pets of society because humans are a part of society. You're trying to personalize society, in a similar way that religious freaks try to personalize the universe. In reality, society is bett…

I think Saturn made two very salient points that contributed greatly to this converstaion. 1. jordan0day was wrong and Saturn expanded on Silverstorms rebuttal in a meaningful way. 2. It would be nice if people owned up to being wrong. Especially when they're "that" wrong.

What was I wrong about? I shouldn't expect humans to be capable of overcoming instinct? I don't think I can ever apologize for having that sort of expectation. I wasn't disagreeing with silverstorm's comment, in fact my comment implies that I agree with silverstorm's point (that human behavior can be heritable). I'd really like you to tell me what I am "that" wrong about. (Not sure why "that" is quoted?)

Additionally, is your second comment directed at me as well? I guess maybe you'll say it applies after what I just wrote above, but it's not like I came back and responded to these other comments wit "NO UR WRONG IM RIGHT!" I haven't been on hn for a few days, so I haven't even had a chance to respond. When I haven't made any additional comments, why is your first instinct (relevant!) to presume I'm refusing to "own up", rather than "given that jordan0day hasn't had any additional activity in this thread, perhaps they haven't read these responses yet?"

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#224

Post by EGreg »

saturn wrote: post #218
EGreg wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) re evolution: when I say it's a "loaded" term, it's because it is sometimes by people who seem to make the additional assumption that mutation and natural selection are sufficient to produce the results we see today. I think that assumption is unfounded and seems to be more like a wish to keep things simple. I don't for example see how gay people could be genetically predisposed to be gay, since they would have a…

I gave up arguing with creationists long ago, but on the off chance you actually do want to improve your understanding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution#Misuse

Yeah I read that already, but what I said doesn't necessarily imply creationism. What arguments do you have to show that everything we see today came about SOLELY through mutation and natural selection?

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#225

Post by saturn »

EGreg wrote: post #224
saturn wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gave up arguing with creationists long ago, but on the off chance you actually do want to improve your understanding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution#Misuse

Yeah I read that already, but what I said doesn't necessarily imply creationism. What arguments do you have to show that everything we see today came about SOLELY through mutation and natural selection?

Unless you have some truly spectacular competing theory, with plenty of hard evidence to back it up, there is only one conceivable reason for your attempted nitpicks at evolutionary biology and that is religious conviction. I'm pretty sure you don't have the former, so changing away from this very repetitive channel..

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#226

Post by tel »

EGreg wrote: post #204
tel wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No on many counts. Evolution theory is an umbrella term for a number of predictions including common descent, mutation, natural selection which is sufficient in theory and observation to create genetic and then physical changes in a population. We have observed macro evolution countless times in bacteria and viruses. It's not even difficult. I'm not sure why you'd call Evolution a loaded term in a scientific domain.…

1) re evolution: when I say it's a "loaded" term, it's because it is sometimes by people who seem to make the additional assumption that mutation and natural selection are sufficient to produce the results we see today. I think that assumption is unfounded and seems to be more like a wish to keep things simple. I don't for example see how gay people could be genetically predisposed to be gay, since they would have a…

Genetic algorithms are a pretty simple to replicate demonstration that mutation and selection together constitute a sufficient condition for descent with modification.

Evolution doesn't claim to explain all changes, just the "force" which causes populations to grow to resemble the units of the population which are best selected for in later generations. It, for instance, doesn't explain eye color either; there isn't sufficient reproductive pressure to affect those aleles. Eye color requires understanding of DNA and the structure of our genetics to begin to make sense of.

Microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing at different (orthogonally arbitrary) scales. The appearance of a significant difference occurs under strong selective pressure or differential selective pressure leading to punctuated equilibria or genetic splitting, but really it's just a matter of sharp changes of a smooth parameter instead of actual categorical differences.

---

Because there were presumably first few seconds of the universe. The cosmic microwave background radiation is a picture of these first few seconds when everything was closer together and thus interacted strongly! The resolution to this conundrum turns out to not be tied to the finiteness of the universe but instead the astounding fact that if you fix two objects in space the distance between them will still grow (very slowly) with time.

---

I'm not a physicist either, so I avoid seriously proposing strange theories of cosmology. It's gotta be pretty equivalent to having a manager ask for some new feature assuming it'll be trivial to build.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#227

Post by tel »

EGreg wrote: post #224
saturn wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gave up arguing with creationists long ago, but on the off chance you actually do want to improve your understanding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution#Misuse

Yeah I read that already, but what I said doesn't necessarily imply creationism. What arguments do you have to show that everything we see today came about SOLELY through mutation and natural selection?

It's the true form (generalization) of the old "new proposals require evidence" catchall. The space of possible ways things could happen and be in accordance with our ignorance is enormous. If you want the best chances of being right, you keep you guesses maximally simple!

If you create a more complex model that includes more factors than mutation and natural selection and it is able to predict reality better than one that only includes those factors then you win. As it turns out, people have by using more complete understanding of the actual mechanics of human genetics, but a rough and basically accurate picture can be painted without invoking those mechanisms.

That "mostly accurate" picture is where most people stop when they argue "for evolution". It's a fantastic rule of thumb.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#228

Post by tel »

saturn wrote: post #225
EGreg wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I read that already, but what I said doesn't necessarily imply creationism. What arguments do you have to show that everything we see today came about SOLELY through mutation and natural selection?

Unless you have some truly spectacular competing theory, with plenty of hard evidence to back it up, there is only one conceivable reason for your attempted nitpicks at evolutionary biology and that is religious conviction. I'm pretty sure you don't have the former, so changing away from this very repetitive channel..

This is a shortsighted and reactionary post: DH1 or DH2 at best [1]. I understand your frustration, but if you only have frustration to contribute then HN prefers silence. It's the path to maintaining a respectful community.

It turns out, unsurprisingly, that all human phenotypes cannot be explained by naïve evolutionary biology but instead require more genetics and biochemistry to describe. Consider the specifics of eye color: evolution does not specify this feature, so a theory which goes above evolution (not contrary to what EGreg is asking for) is necessary to predict this phenotype. We're just more complicated than that.

This is a rebuttal to using pure evolution to model the shape of human physiology that doesn't introduce religion.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#229

Post by saturn »

tel wrote: post #228
saturn wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you have some truly spectacular competing theory, with plenty of hard evidence to back it up, there is only one conceivable reason for your attempted nitpicks at evolutionary biology and that is religious conviction. I'm pretty sure you don't have the former, so changing away from this very repetitive channel..

This is a shortsighted and reactionary post: DH1 or DH2 at best [1]. I understand your frustration, but if you only have frustration to contribute then HN prefers silence. It's the path to maintaining a respectful community. It turns out, unsurprisingly, that all human phenotypes cannot be explained by naïve evolutionary biology but instead require more genetics and biochemistry to describe. Consider the specifics of…

You're right, I shouldn't have taken the bait. Entirely deserving of the downvotes ...

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#230

Post by EGreg »

tel wrote: post #227
EGreg wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I read that already, but what I said doesn't necessarily imply creationism. What arguments do you have to show that everything we see today came about SOLELY through mutation and natural selection?

It's the true form (generalization) of the old "new proposals require evidence" catchall. The space of possible ways things could happen and be in accordance with our ignorance is enormous. If you want the best chances of being right, you keep you guesses maximally simple! If you create a more complex model that includes more factors than mutation and natural selection and it is able to predict reality better than on…

What makes it fantastic, though? What is the hypothesis / theory exactly that they are espousing, when they talk about evolutionary psychology for example?

Isn't it the fact that our behaviors all have an evolutionary basis, including e.g. the desire for a human male to sleep after sex? Each of these gets its specially concocted rendition of the narrator's fantasy -- e.g. "so that the women could get away more often after copulating".

I find this to be completely unscientific and wonder what falsifiable predictions these theories make. I mean the ones that imply that everything can be explained simply in terms of "evolution" by mutation and natural selection.

Post reply on HN