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

Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass

newscientist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 75 posts

Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass

#41

Post by yungchin »

henrikschroder wrote: post #38
dkarl wrote: post #23

The article seems to confirm the idea that we can't improve the life of the underclass, we can only shrink the underclass by moving people out of it. Unfortunately, not many people who are magically plucked out of their culture and society (via scholarships or employment) can bear to alienate themselves from their roots forever, so that isn't a solution, either. Even if we consistently skim off the exceptional indivi…

Belonging to the working class or underclass means not only that you lack the money and resources of the classes above you, it also means that you have a completely different outlook on life. What you suggest would take generations before you get any real results.

Yes, intuitively I'd also expect it to take many generations. But the article's examples - Sweden, Japan (both effects established post-WWII I suppose), the North Carolina district (1990s!) - surprisingly suggest otherwise.

Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass

#42

Post by Nwallins »

davnola wrote: post #30
greenlblue wrote: post #15

Not much new here but I'm always suspicious of anything with an 'evolutionary psychology approved' sticker. I know that the basis of the theory is that most behavior is a response to maximizing gene propagation but I haven't seen the theory used to rule out any behaviors. It basically justifies whatever is the status quo with what sounds like science because the initial hypothesis sounds reasonable and scientific.

> I haven't seen the theory used to rule out any behaviors The article itself includes more than one example. E.g. the researchers hypothesized that, given some premises about evolution, poor women would have more kids earlier. This rules out them having fewer kids later. Then they went and tested it.

> the researchers hypothesized that, given some premises about evolution, poor women would have more kids earlier.

Um, isn't this already well known? Did they not craft the hypothesis to fit their existing understanding?

> Then they went and tested it.

No comment.

Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass

#43

Post by cschwarm »

SandB0x wrote: post #4
joe_the_user wrote: post #3

How much validity is there in positing the evolution of different contemporary human subgroups when these change at a fairly rapid rate and intermingle quite readily? The modern "underclass" has probably only existed for at most, 100-200 years in various places. That's 3-10 generations with plenty of gene-movement in and out of the group in the meantime. It seems a bit more plausible to me to argue that humans alread…

> How much validity is there in positing the evolution of different contemporary human subgroups when these change at a fairly rapid rate and intermingle quite readily? The article doesn't suggest that subgroups have evolved, rather that we have evolved to produce offspring sooner and faster in response to harsh conditions. (So basically what you write in the rest of your post agrees with the article. I think!)

> we have evolved to produce offspring sooner and faster in response to harsh conditions.

One could also understand the article the other way around: We have evolved to reproduce in response to natural conditions, and one result is women being able to get pregnant at about 15. Now, why should something like this happen if the natural 'optimum' would be rather 20 or 25?

Read this way, the fact that needs an explanation is women getting pregnant rather late.

Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass

#44

Post by davnola »

Nwallins wrote: post #42
davnola wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I haven't seen the theory used to rule out any behaviors The article itself includes more than one example. E.g. the researchers hypothesized that, given some premises about evolution, poor women would have more kids earlier. This rules out them having fewer kids later. Then they went and tested it.

> the researchers hypothesized that, given some premises about evolution, poor women would have more kids earlier. Um, isn't this already well known? Did they not craft the hypothesis to fit their existing understanding? > Then they went and tested it. No comment.

> Um, isn't this already well known?

No idea. The point is that it's a substantive claim that could be tested empirically.

> Did they not craft the hypothesis to fit their existing understanding?

I hope so. Using what you already know helps generate interesting hypotheses. They don't pop into existence asexually.

Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass

#45

Post by henrikschroder »

yungchin wrote: post #41
henrikschroder wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Belonging to the working class or underclass means not only that you lack the money and resources of the classes above you, it also means that you have a completely different outlook on life. What you suggest would take generations before you get any real results.

Yes, intuitively I'd also expect it to take many generations. But the article's examples - Sweden, Japan (both effects established post-WWII I suppose), the North Carolina district (1990s!) - surprisingly suggest otherwise.

There is still a substantial working class in Sweden, and although the income gap between the social classes is much lower here than elsewhere, the different mindsets are the same as everywhere. I have friends that are working class through and through, even though some of them make about as much money as I do. It's not about standard of living.

In my own case, I can thank our free university system for helping me drag myself from middle class to upper middle class, but then again I started with the middle class sentiment that education is always good. If you're working class, everyone in your environment will tell you that university is a huge waste of time, and I don't know how to address that. Throwing money at it won't do anything.

Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass

#47

Post by anamax »

todayiamme wrote: post #21
brondaire wrote: post #11

Anytime an article hits Hacker News such as this; that is, with explicit references to class and socioeconomic status, I cringe as I read the comments. The comments are both predictable, and utterly devastating. Psychology is largely at play here, since both the Fundamental attribution error ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error ) and cognitive dissonance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitiv…

It's not their fault. Most people simply don't know what bottomless despair is like. Even fewer know what it's like to have no resources whatsoever to deal with it. I sometimes still cry and question why I wasn't born normal like others. It doesn't matter what I know and understand. It doesn't matter what I tell myself. I still feel that stab. I couldn't have imagined what this felt like until I had to go through it,…

> The reason why they don't have pretty often is because they can't afford abortions.

When I lived in such communities, access and cost weren't significant issues. Young girls wanted to have children. They got status and other social rewards for having children. (The sad ones said "a baby has to love me".)

They didn't see having children as a cost because, for them, it wasn't.

Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass

#48

Post by jseliger »

todayiamme wrote: post #33
nostrademons wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The very idea that such behavior is driven by genetic impulses is something that shows a flawed understanding of the entire concept at some stage by the writer." The article isn't saying that poverty is caused by genes, it's saying that the the behavior of having more children earlier when poor is caused by genes. Which is exactly the same sort of "coder" analogy that Richard Dawkins points out. It then says that th…

I am so sorry that I couldn't get my point across effectively. What I was trying to say was that the idea that such behavior tends to trap people into poverty is a derivative of our genetic code is extremely deterministic. Of course, you're right, but you forget that these are people capable of making a conscious choice. They are people who if given the right resources and understanding can choose otherwise. Perhaps…

What I was trying to say was that the idea that such behavior tends to trap people into poverty is a derivative of our genetic code is extremely deterministic.

I think the key word here is "tends:" as far as I know, no evolutionary biologists or psychologists would argue a 1:1 correspondence between these kinds of situations and behavior. But, from both a game theory and evolutionary point of view, the kind of behavior described in the article makes sense. This isn't at all about being "extremely deterministic;" it's about analyzing how people might respond to certain forces and situations. They will have free will and can still exert their preferences in a wide variety of ways.

I think the author of the study and many others are trying to figure out how genes and environment interact -- which turns out to be a far more complex question than many simplifiers would have (and I'm not saying you're one of them).

For more on the topic of genes/environments in a less contentious / politically loaded setting, see "The Orchid Child" in The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/the-scie... .

Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass

#49

Post by greenlblue »

davnola wrote: post #30
greenlblue wrote: post #15

Not much new here but I'm always suspicious of anything with an 'evolutionary psychology approved' sticker. I know that the basis of the theory is that most behavior is a response to maximizing gene propagation but I haven't seen the theory used to rule out any behaviors. It basically justifies whatever is the status quo with what sounds like science because the initial hypothesis sounds reasonable and scientific.

> I haven't seen the theory used to rule out any behaviors The article itself includes more than one example. E.g. the researchers hypothesized that, given some premises about evolution, poor women would have more kids earlier. This rules out them having fewer kids later. Then they went and tested it.

If evolutionary psychology explains why poor people act the way they do then it should be able to do the same for rich people as well. But I never see any papers or popular articles in evolutionary psychology explain why rich people have fewer kids. After all if people just want to propagate their genes and all our behaviors over the eons evolved for such a purpose then why do rich and educated people have fewer kids? It seems to contradict the basic premise of evolutionary psychology but no one seems to address this or just waves it away by saying "Oh, well humans are more complicated when it comes to learned behavior except of course when those people are poor in which case evolution and selfish genes rule". This double standard in an obviously symmetric situation is what makes me suspicious of evolutionary psychology. In fact it seems that according to evolutionary theory the rich would have a lot more kids since they have the resources to support those kids but that's not what happens.

Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass

#50

Post by REALLYHUGENEKO »

greenlblue wrote: post #49
davnola wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I haven't seen the theory used to rule out any behaviors The article itself includes more than one example. E.g. the researchers hypothesized that, given some premises about evolution, poor women would have more kids earlier. This rules out them having fewer kids later. Then they went and tested it.

If evolutionary psychology explains why poor people act the way they do then it should be able to do the same for rich people as well. But I never see any papers or popular articles in evolutionary psychology explain why rich people have fewer kids. After all if people just want to propagate their genes and all our behaviors over the eons evolved for such a purpose then why do rich and educated people have fewer kids…

I assume that the poor create resources when they have kids (more hands), but the rich divide resources when they have kids. IANAP.
Post reply on HN