A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves • Hacker News Board

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#41

Post by tropo » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 6:21 PM UTC

porpoisely wrote: post #21

navaati wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my reading of the TFA, it's not. It's the idea that less aggressive individual were naturally selected, partly via sexual selection of the males by the females, partly by pruning of the most violent individuals by the whole group. Nothing to do with the domestication of one group by another.

I see that theory about female selection being pushed a lot lately, but it's a fairly easily debunked theory. Female selection didn't occur in human society. Females didn't get to choose who they married. Rather it was the men who decided which females marry which male. Also, there is far less diversity in the Y chromosome than the X. The best possible explanation is during ancient tribal war, the winning side killed…

Females did select, in multiple ways.

First, they sometimes cheated.

Second, arranged marriage is normally set up by people who largely share DNA with those getting married. (the parents negotiate) Since the DNA is pretty much the same, genetically it's as if the bride herself got to choose.

Third, opinion of the bride was not universally ignored.

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#42

Post by mercer » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 6:29 PM UTC

WhompingWindows wrote: post #29

blacksqr wrote: post #2

Funny, Freud suggested something very similar in _Totem and Taboo_, and faced a lot of ridicule for it. Would be interesting if he were finally vindicated to some extent.

He's been vindicated time and time again, his theories are the most influential of any one writer in psychology. I took a great books course and had to struggle through MULTIPLE made up case studies, and pretend these are "great" when it's just BS. Still, thousands reading his works every year and universities vindicating his theories doesn't mean he didn't fabricate data, espouse cocaine use, and all of the other ne…

Freud is far from 'vindicated'. At least over here (The Netherlands, and probably most of Western Europe/US), Freud is seen as an important figure historically, but (most of?) his work is not considered valid.

EDIT: I mean in academia; I suppose his ideas are still quite popular culturally.

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#43

Post by captainmuon » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 6:34 PM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #3

This is the old theory that the nobility domesticated peasants while the peasants were domesticating animals.

I've never heard about that theory. Even if it is debunked (or a joke) it sounds intriguing. Do you have any links or names to read up on it?

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#44

Post by phkahler » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 6:35 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #36

phkahler wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> What is the effect of males selecting for docile females on future sons and daughters? Or do you believe that males aren't discriminating? What makes you think males get to select a mate? And who deliberately goes for a docile female?

>What makes you think males get to select a mate We're not talking about insects, or birds, we're talking about human beings. Humans don't select mates, we select partners with whom we may or may not mate, and the process of selection is social, mutual and complex.

>> We're not talking about insects, or birds, we're talking about human beings.

Well aren't we special then.

We're talking about evolution, so the part of "we select partners with whom we may or may not mate" where people don't mate is not even relevant. In fact, if there is a genetic component to not mating, it is selected against in evolutionary terms.

I thought we were talking about what people are attracted to (i.e. make one feel like mating), not who they like to hang out with - if you find both of those characteristics in one person that's great and I think we all strive for that. But don't kid yourself that humans don't have primitive instinctual drives governed by biology and evolution.

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#45

Post by lurquer » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 6:44 PM UTC

porpoisely wrote: post #21

navaati wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my reading of the TFA, it's not. It's the idea that less aggressive individual were naturally selected, partly via sexual selection of the males by the females, partly by pruning of the most violent individuals by the whole group. Nothing to do with the domestication of one group by another.

I see that theory about female selection being pushed a lot lately, but it's a fairly easily debunked theory. Female selection didn't occur in human society. Females didn't get to choose who they married. Rather it was the men who decided which females marry which male. Also, there is far less diversity in the Y chromosome than the X. The best possible explanation is during ancient tribal war, the winning side killed…

Men are shaped, in their most formative years, by their mothers. That's nearly universal.

Consequently, you may want to consider Ghengis Khan's and Charlemagne's mothers... those two ladies, due to the manner in which the raised their offspring, had their genes spread throughout a good portion of the planet.

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#46

Post by debacle » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 6:57 PM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #3

This is the old theory that the nobility domesticated peasants while the peasants were domesticating animals.

While that theory is valid, it's not what the linked article is about.

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#47

Post by debacle » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 6:59 PM UTC

lurquer wrote: post #45

porpoisely wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that theory about female selection being pushed a lot lately, but it's a fairly easily debunked theory. Female selection didn't occur in human society. Females didn't get to choose who they married. Rather it was the men who decided which females marry which male. Also, there is far less diversity in the Y chromosome than the X. The best possible explanation is during ancient tribal war, the winning side killed…

Men are shaped, in their most formative years, by their mothers. That's nearly universal. Consequently, you may want to consider Ghengis Khan's and Charlemagne's mothers... those two ladies, due to the manner in which the raised their offspring, had their genes spread throughout a good portion of the planet.

> Men are shaped, in their most formative years, by their mothers.

[citation needed]

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#48

Post by dTal » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 7:02 PM UTC

porpoisely wrote: post #21

navaati wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my reading of the TFA, it's not. It's the idea that less aggressive individual were naturally selected, partly via sexual selection of the males by the females, partly by pruning of the most violent individuals by the whole group. Nothing to do with the domestication of one group by another.

I see that theory about female selection being pushed a lot lately, but it's a fairly easily debunked theory. Female selection didn't occur in human society. Females didn't get to choose who they married. Rather it was the men who decided which females marry which male. Also, there is far less diversity in the Y chromosome than the X. The best possible explanation is during ancient tribal war, the winning side killed…

To suggest that female selection simply "didn't occur in human society" is just nonsense. Utter nonsense. Over what evolutionary time period are you prepared to make this bold claim? Assuming you agree that females do select mates now, when in your opinion did the female-selection revolution come? Presumably it was already well established by the time Homer wrote of Penelope selecting suitors nearly 3 thousand years ago. And once established, how long did it take for women to evolve their current acutely sensitive awareness of male mate fitness?

Miles of copy have been written about mate selection strategies in humans and other species - it's a game of exquisitely delicate game theory, with complex strategies evolved over millennia. It's an arms race of epic proportions that is a fundamental driver of evolution. Our biology is shaped by it - women have concealed estrus, for example, as one more play in the intricate dance of information warfare that is mating.

But no, you casually dismiss it all as a "fairly easily debunked theory", somehow (?) supported by the fact that millions died in China in the 20th century.

If you feel like dipping your toe in the vast ocean of science you just flippantly wrote off, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_choice is a good place to start.

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#49

Post by debacle » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 7:04 PM UTC

captainmuon wrote: post #43

danieltillett wrote: post #3

This is the old theory that the nobility domesticated peasants while the peasants were domesticating animals.

I've never heard about that theory. Even if it is debunked (or a joke) it sounds intriguing. Do you have any links or names to read up on it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#50

Post by Toine » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 7:19 PM UTC

This is just one more "proof" of René Girard's mimetic theory. The scapegoat mechanism at the core of all human societies was heavily explained and documented 50 years ago. René Girard, whose theories heavily influenced the world vision of Peter Thiel and many more, is still dramatically absent in this kind of articles. I'm not sure why. His mimetic theory absolutely revolutionized the field of anthropology, theology, and many more should come. I strongly suggest reading Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World. Changed my life.