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

My Lack of Attention

champonthis.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–99 of 99 posts

Re: My Lack of Attention

#91

Post by watwut »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #89
aoanla wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difficulty with this argument is what we mean by "quality". It's tautological to state that hierarchies select for "qualities that enable you to be higher on the hierarchy"; it's much more debatable as to the nature of those qualities (and, indeed, that the existence of the hierarchy itself doesn't change the fitness surface, so that the advantageous qualities are different to what they might have been without it…

> See, eg, the amount of energy antlered deer (especially males) expend on having large, healthy antlers, purely to compete with other male deer. Deers have antlers for reasons other than competing with other deer. To defend themselves from predators. Since they have them, they use them to settle differences in quality. In this case, quality of self-defence.

None of that is hierarchy as we normally use the term.

Re: My Lack of Attention

#92

Post by watwut »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #90
msrenee wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you've ever watched a herd of horses, you'd know that's not true. Dominance bubbles to the top. Pushiness bubbles to the top. If the animal is also a decent leader, then great. A lot of the time it's insecure and too busy trying to maintain its position and the rest of the herd ends up harried and banged up. Seen it in dogs too, seen it a million times in people. Those are more artificial situations though.

You are proving my point. Strength and leadership are survival qualities to wild herd animals. The hierarchy allows those qualities to rise to the top. It is the herd that collectively decides to give space to the individual with those qualities. The "alpha horse" does not "dominate" the herd; no single individual can match the strength of an entire herd. The herd gives permission for the qualities to reach top of hi…

"qualities" and "quality" are two different things. Pushiness is quality as in "property", but not "quality" as in "the degree of excellence of something." In this case, lower quality individual bubbles on top, cause other horses don't want to deal with jerks aggression.

> If the animals making up the hierarchy disagrees with the individual on top, they remove it from the hierarchy. Easily. That's the whole point of herds, packs, and hierarchies. Together stronger than alone.

You write about it as if animals were rational systems thinkers and that is just not so.

Re: My Lack of Attention

#93

Post by arinlen »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #88
arinlen wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It implies that people aren't actively looking for better solutions to their problems, which is just blatantly false. Not really. Think about it for a moment: are there more people actively searching for better solutions to each and every single problem they may or may not know they have? Or are there more people like you and me who go about their day just fine completely oblivious that there might be out there a f…

It's almost as if you believed that a world without advertizing wouldn't propagate any information.

> It's almost as if you believed that a world without advertizing wouldn't propagate any information.

I'm sure you are able to understand that actively spreading information is far more effective in getting the message out than sitting on your rear-end expecting that people are suddenly magically aware of you and things just drop from the sky onto your lap.

Re: My Lack of Attention

#94

Post by hypertele-Xii »

arinlen wrote: post #93
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost as if you believed that a world without advertizing wouldn't propagate any information.

> It's almost as if you believed that a world without advertizing wouldn't propagate any information. I'm sure you are able to understand that actively spreading information is far more effective in getting the message out than sitting on your rear-end expecting that people are suddenly magically aware of you and things just drop from the sky onto your lap.

If your ancestors had sat on their asses waiting for food to fall from the sky, you wouldn't be here. Clearly, exploration is in our DNA.

Sitting on your ass looking at ads is what advertizers want you to do. And it's in their interest to foster the belief that you couldn't survive without it.

Re: My Lack of Attention

#95

Post by hypertele-Xii »

watwut wrote: post #91
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> See, eg, the amount of energy antlered deer (especially males) expend on having large, healthy antlers, purely to compete with other male deer. Deers have antlers for reasons other than competing with other deer. To defend themselves from predators. Since they have them, they use them to settle differences in quality. In this case, quality of self-defence.

None of that is hierarchy as we normally use the term.

I can't help you if you're determined to normalize nonsense, but that's precisely what 'hierarchy' means. Perhaps you're tunnel visioning on a particular kind of hierarchy, a violent dominance hierarchy. But those haven't been a thing in social animals for a while now, because tyrants meet untimely ends when the herd grows wise.

Re: My Lack of Attention

#96

Post by hypertele-Xii »

watwut wrote: post #92
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are proving my point. Strength and leadership are survival qualities to wild herd animals. The hierarchy allows those qualities to rise to the top. It is the herd that collectively decides to give space to the individual with those qualities. The "alpha horse" does not "dominate" the herd; no single individual can match the strength of an entire herd. The herd gives permission for the qualities to reach top of hi…

"qualities" and "quality" are two different things. Pushiness is quality as in "property", but not "quality" as in "the degree of excellence of something." In this case, lower quality individual bubbles on top, cause other horses don't want to deal with jerks aggression. > If the animals making up the hierarchy disagrees with the individual on top, they remove it from the hierarchy. Easily. That's the whole point of…

> Pushiness is quality as in "property", but not "quality" as in "the degree of excellence of something."

It's quality as in the degree of excellence of pushiness.

> In this case, lower quality individual bubbles on top, cause other horses don't want to deal with jerks aggression.

That would be a higher quality individual, according to the horses.

> You write about it as if animals were rational systems thinkers and that is just not so.

We're talking about behavior that evolved millions of years ago in crustaceans, the serotonin brain system that specializes in regulating social hierarchies in animals, is still present and functioning today in you and the horses. Attribution of rationality is on your part, and in no way diminishes the effectiveness of the social brain, and the hierarchy which it encodes.

Re: My Lack of Attention

#97

Post by msrenee »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #96
watwut wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"qualities" and "quality" are two different things. Pushiness is quality as in "property", but not "quality" as in "the degree of excellence of something." In this case, lower quality individual bubbles on top, cause other horses don't want to deal with jerks aggression. > If the animals making up the hierarchy disagrees with the individual on top, they remove it from the hierarchy. Easily. That's the whole point of…

> Pushiness is quality as in "property", but not "quality" as in "the degree of excellence of something." It's quality as in the degree of excellence of pushiness. > In this case, lower quality individual bubbles on top, cause other horses don't want to deal with jerks aggression. That would be a higher quality individual, according to the horses. > You write about it as if animals were rational systems thinkers and…

I feel like you misunderstood my post. I said that pushy, dominant horses end up at the top of the hierarchy. That pushy, dominant horse might be a good leader or it might be insecure or just plain mean and spend its time chasing the rest of the herd around and picking fights. I think I used the phrase "harried and banged up" to describe the state of the herd in this situation. I suppose that in the long run, evolution-wise, that animal's offspring are less likely to survive. During its lifetime, however, it beats up the other horses and they lose body condition as the dominant horse can't chill out and let the band graze.

Re: My Lack of Attention

#98

Post by msrenee »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #95
watwut wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of that is hierarchy as we normally use the term.

I can't help you if you're determined to normalize nonsense, but that's precisely what 'hierarchy' means. Perhaps you're tunnel visioning on a particular kind of hierarchy, a violent dominance hierarchy. But those haven't been a thing in social animals for a while now, because tyrants meet untimely ends when the herd grows wise.

>Perhaps you're tunnel visioning on a particular kind of hierarchy, a violent dominance hierarchy. But those haven't been a thing in social animals for a while now, because tyrants meet untimely ends when the herd grows wise.

Violent dominance is a very good way to describe hierarchy in many extant social mammals. Tyrants arise every day in both human and non-human animals. We aren't a century removed from one of the worst here in 2022. Are you thinking of eusocial mammals? The'yre closer to what you're describing here.

Re: My Lack of Attention

#99

Post by hypertele-Xii »

msrenee wrote: post #97
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pushiness is quality as in "property", but not "quality" as in "the degree of excellence of something." It's quality as in the degree of excellence of pushiness. > In this case, lower quality individual bubbles on top, cause other horses don't want to deal with jerks aggression. That would be a higher quality individual, according to the horses. > You write about it as if animals were rational systems thinkers and…

I feel like you misunderstood my post. I said that pushy, dominant horses end up at the top of the hierarchy. That pushy, dominant horse might be a good leader or it might be insecure or just plain mean and spend its time chasing the rest of the herd around and picking fights. I think I used the phrase "harried and banged up" to describe the state of the herd in this situation. I suppose that in the long run, evoluti…

Sounds like a local optimum, a difficult, unsolved problem permeating everything. How do you know if the good you've got is the best you can have?

Hierarchy is one approximate solution, but hardly the globally optimal one.

Post reply on HN