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

The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 83 posts

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#71

Post by sjducb »

photon_lines wrote: post #8
sjducb wrote: post #5

I feel like the paper lacks a discussion about why males are more likely to take risks. Typically extremely reproductively successful men like Chengis Khan take enormous risks to get the power and status that leads to high reproductive success. Unfortunately we are all descended from those men.

I don't feel like there needs to be a discussion on 'why' they take more risks. Females expand way more energy in having and raising kids than males do (within the human species). In other species (like sea-horses) - the females actually compete for males since males are the ones that expand way more energy in raising / producing children... (i.e. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/seahorse.html ).

If you don’t think there needs to be a discussion then don’t engage.

In my first year at college we were all set an essay about why human females invest lots of resources preening and enhancing their appearance, while across nature females normally put almost no effort into their appearance, and males are the ones with the bright colours.

This is an enormous area of study with thousands of papers published. Sexual selection is incredibly important. Especially as modern human evolution is driven almost entirely by sexual selection.

It’s worth understanding how sexual selection works.

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#72

Post by sjducb »

huytersd wrote: post #24
sjducb wrote: post #5

I feel like the paper lacks a discussion about why males are more likely to take risks. Typically extremely reproductively successful men like Chengis Khan take enormous risks to get the power and status that leads to high reproductive success. Unfortunately we are all descended from those men.

Unfortunately?

We evolved in the only phylogenetic family to use organised group conflict (war) as a mating strategy.

I think we’d have a much more peaceful world if we’d evolved from crocodiles or something peaceful like that.

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#73

Post by naasking »

bumby wrote: post #70
naasking wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Negligible gain can still be enough to distinguish oneself. What gain do colourful feathers on birds really have except to draw attention. Also, evolution is likely not precise enough to have evolved accurate intuitions about the fitness value of all possible risks. We should expect some reasonably broad degree of randomness around the value of risk taking.

I disagree. It's a self-contradictory point. I was being charitable to call it "negligible" considering the article also refers to the gain as "non-existent." > "What gain do colourful feathers on birds really have except to draw attention" When drawing attention gives you a disproportionate advantage to attracting a mate vs. attracting a predator, it's a very important (and non-neglible) gain. > We should expect som…

> When drawing attention gives you a disproportionate advantage to attracting a mate vs. attracting a predator, it's a very important (and non-neglible) gain.

Humans have no natural predators, so one side of the equation is zero, and the other non-zero.

> Just because the there is a distribution in the value doesn't mean there isn't a statistically significant directionality of that distribution.

Yes, and there is directionality in risk-taking as well. Discoveries, fortunes and high-value mates all require risk taking.

Even risks that appear to have negligible or even zero fitness value, like extreme sports, have netted many people valuable sponsorships or YouTube fame and fortune.

Evolution is not precise and simply cannot capture the full nuance of a concept like "status" in human culture, therefore it has permitted a broad distribution of risk taking.

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#74

Post by bumby »

naasking wrote: post #73
bumby wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. It's a self-contradictory point. I was being charitable to call it "negligible" considering the article also refers to the gain as "non-existent." > "What gain do colourful feathers on birds really have except to draw attention" When drawing attention gives you a disproportionate advantage to attracting a mate vs. attracting a predator, it's a very important (and non-neglible) gain. > We should expect som…

> When drawing attention gives you a disproportionate advantage to attracting a mate vs. attracting a predator, it's a very important (and non-neglible) gain. Humans have no natural predators, so one side of the equation is zero, and the other non-zero. > Just because the there is a distribution in the value doesn't mean there isn't a statistically significant directionality of that distribution. Yes, and there is di…

>Even risks that appear to have negligible or even zero fitness value, like extreme sports, have netted many people valuable sponsorships or YouTube fame and fortune.

You do realize you contradict yourself here, right?

You’ve essentially said “This activity that amasses stays and resources has negligible fitness value.”

That only makes sense if you think status and resources don’t impact fitness/survivability. You might be confusing inherent value with signaling value. Driving a Ferrari doesn’t give me any additional inherent fitness. But it does serve as a potential signal for status, which can confer added fitness in practice. Signals can be wrong, of course, while still giving an advantage.

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#75

Post by naasking »

bumby wrote: post #74
naasking wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When drawing attention gives you a disproportionate advantage to attracting a mate vs. attracting a predator, it's a very important (and non-neglible) gain. Humans have no natural predators, so one side of the equation is zero, and the other non-zero. > Just because the there is a distribution in the value doesn't mean there isn't a statistically significant directionality of that distribution. Yes, and there is di…

> Even risks that appear to have negligible or even zero fitness value, like extreme sports, have netted many people valuable sponsorships or YouTube fame and fortune. You do realize you contradict yourself here, right? You’ve essentially said “This activity that amasses stays and resources has negligible fitness value.” That only makes sense if you think status and resources don’t impact fitness/survivability. You m…

> You do realize you contradict yourself here, right?

I'm pointing out your contradiction, because extreme sports are exactly the same kind of behaviour which is the subject of this article, and that you classified as negligible or zero value before it exploded in popularity.

The point being that a wide latitude of risk seeking behaviour allows people to find new and unexpected success modes, even if they at first appear to convey little benefit and incur considerable risk.

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#76

Post by photon_lines »

sjducb wrote: post #71
photon_lines wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't feel like there needs to be a discussion on 'why' they take more risks. Females expand way more energy in having and raising kids than males do (within the human species). In other species (like sea-horses) - the females actually compete for males since males are the ones that expand way more energy in raising / producing children... (i.e. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/seahorse.html ).

If you don’t think there needs to be a discussion then don’t engage. In my first year at college we were all set an essay about why human females invest lots of resources preening and enhancing their appearance, while across nature females normally put almost no effort into their appearance, and males are the ones with the bright colours. This is an enormous area of study with thousands of papers published. Sexual se…

The same to you. If you feel like you're best contribution to tell someone to 'not engage' - then you should look at not engaging at all yourself :)

My comment tries to give the PCA to what contributes to males taking more risks than females within the human species. This isn't a hypothesis - there have been a lot of studies which have shown human males to engage in risk-related behaviors when other females are present. It's also supported by other male-dominated species as well - the males have one single 'alpha' male which females choose to mate with -- but that 'alpha' male will need to take more 'risks' and be more aggressive in order for him to be in such a position in the first place. I'm not sure what you're expecting me to also list out in a hacker news discussion, but this is the best I can do. If you feel like you have counter-arguments -- feel free to post them and I'll be happy to take a look at them and reconsider my position OR post studies which show that you're wrong. Cheers.

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#77

Post by bumby »

naasking wrote: post #75
bumby wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even risks that appear to have negligible or even zero fitness value, like extreme sports, have netted many people valuable sponsorships or YouTube fame and fortune. You do realize you contradict yourself here, right? You’ve essentially said “This activity that amasses stays and resources has negligible fitness value.” That only makes sense if you think status and resources don’t impact fitness/survivability. You m…

> You do realize you contradict yourself here, right? I'm pointing out your contradiction, because extreme sports are exactly the same kind of behaviour which is the subject of this article, and that you classified as negligible or zero value before it exploded in popularity. The point being that a wide latitude of risk seeking behaviour allows people to find new and unexpected success modes, even if they at first ap…

So your point is that the v types of behavior displayed by Darwin Awards have the potential to be widely remunerated by society one day? So, things like pointing a gun at your head and pulling the trigger to prove that it’s loaded? I guess I’m not quite as cynical about society and classify those as not just differences in degree, but also differences in type.

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#78

Post by lupusreal »

Log_out_ wrote: post #69
lupusreal wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not necessarily Of course it isn't true literally every single time , but it's certainly true on average. There is a strong correlation between a man being respected by many other men, e.g. high status among his peers, and that man being a stable reliable provider. If their is a famine, who gets cut off from the communal source of food first? The man all the other men like, or the man none of the other men respect?…

In a famine.. the man who believes in a ordered hierarchical society with laws are worthless. Family clans and crooks is what survived. Example: Africa, or the collapse of the ussr

Who's talking about laws? I am talking about reputations. Men who lack the respect of others get kicked out of their family klans, among other things. And while a few crooks may rise to the top (USSR), most get beaten to death by angry mobs.

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#79

Post by Shorel »

sjducb wrote: post #68
Shorel wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not paint it that way. For fish, it is often the case the male takes care of the eggs, and the females are free of any responsibility. There are other behaviours in the sea, and they are in general so different to mammals that we can consider them as alien. I would even say mammals are the edge case, just by virtue of having a fewer number of species than fish, arthropods, insects, and almost any other clad.…

Can you cite some sources?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2973910/

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#80

Post by sjducb »

globular-toast wrote: post #33
sjducb wrote: post #5

I feel like the paper lacks a discussion about why males are more likely to take risks. Typically extremely reproductively successful men like Chengis Khan take enormous risks to get the power and status that leads to high reproductive success. Unfortunately we are all descended from those men.

Presumably the presence of risk-taking males is advantageous to the species as a whole. If our species was asexual each individual would have to be fairly risk averse as any individual lost is lost breeding capacity. But in a sexual species a lost male is fine and happens all the time. Just losing males is, of course, pointless but presumably the advantages brought by the successful ones outweighs any disadvantages b…

Natural selection operates at the gene level, not the population level.

There has to be a positive expected return for the genes of the individual that takes the risks.

If it’s beneficial to not take risks then populations will be full of individuals who play it safe.

Post reply on HN