3 ms·
But is it necessarily a bad thing? It seems like a way for nature to filter out less competitive genetic material. There are always going to be hierarchies and
by bunchofdweebs 10y ago
But is it necessarily a bad thing? It seems like a way for nature to filter out less competitive genetic material. There are always going to be hierarchies and there will always be people at the bottom. It's an inherent part of how matter organises itself.
- drawnwren 10y agoThe human side of your comment aside, it isn't absolute. So it may 'filter out more competitive genetic material,' from the bottom of more competitive pools than the 'less competitive material' at the top of worse performing pools.
- cyrusshepard 10y agoLogical fallacy. Social status ≠ genetics. Social status is unfortunately often determined by income, race, religion, and a host of other nonlogical designations. In this experiment, social status was determined by "newness" to the group. Nothing to do with genetics.
- wybiral 10y agoBut if social status has an impact on sexual selection or individual survival then it does have something to do with genetics. It's a selective pressure meaning that genetics will likely drift in that direction.
- bunchofdweebs 10y agoSocial status is determined by social status of forebears, intelligence, physical attractiveness, good health. These are all heritable. This is not a matter of (formal) logic (so stop throwing 'fallacy' around); it's genetics.
- aaron695 10y agoYou can't just name a fallacy from the wiki 'List of Fallacies' and try and win an argument. Social status in humans and other animals is a large part genetic. This is take as fact by many people. If you believe it's not you really need proof. The original OP didn't need to provide proof as they took it as a given and was talking a different interesting premise.
- Eerie 10y agoTrolling HN is really low status, though.
- malloryerik 10y agoWell, we also organize the systems that organize people into hierarchies, and our normative choices are just as "natural." And, to continue this kind of thinking, the mushroom clouds of the next nuclear war will also be nature's means of expression, as was slavery, and also the emancipation of slaves.
- bunchofdweebs 10y ago> Well, we also organize the systems that organize people into hierarchies Yes, we tend to put the most intelligent people into the best positions. Clearly what we need is more cognitive diversity because hierarchy and ranking is bad.
- malloryerik 10y agoPlease show me where I said that hierarchy or ranking was bad -- I was trying to say that we can control the shape of our societies, including the forms of inequality, hierarchy, ranking and so on. The comment I was replying to portrayed weakened immune systems from high social inequality as something that was just part of "nature" as matter organizes itself. Well, we are that matter, and we have this amazing ability to make choices. Look at the diversity of social orders even just in Hellenic Greece, even simply comparing Sparta, Athens, and a kingdom or tyranny. Also, if you're implying that this human world is a functioning meritocracy, then I just can't agree. For example, just try to convincingly guess where Donald Trump would be if he'd been born into poverty.
- tpeo 10y agoGiven how seniority (older being more dominant) was supposedly the major predictor to dominance ranking, it doesn't seem as if the macaque's ranking criterion reflected any kind of genetic fitness.