6 ms·

> I disagree. The drive to work and/or be productive is one of the reasons we're the apex predator, and not our prior evolutionary human-like variations. It's n

by sedachv 10y ago

> I disagree. The drive to work and/or be productive is one of the reasons we're the apex predator, and not our prior evolutionary human-like variations. It's not "society" that says you have to work, but your DNA. I disagree. The large amount of mooches, bums, alcoholics, and freeloaders around clearly points out that the evolutionary hypothesis you posit is wrong. In general, any time you find yourself trying to justify something with evolutionary psychology, you are probably wrong. I really hate the abuse of the field and the trendy brainless use of "DNA-this" "in-our-DNA that" in popular jargon. Evolutionary psychology is just Social Darwinism for the 21st century with a new name. Unless there is a study that tested and confirmed an evolutionary psychology hypothesis, consider it wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psyc...

module0000 10y ago
Let's break it down to DNA then, and not "dna-this" or "dna-that" - which I agree is popular and usually incorrect. Can we agree that your DNA(and most species) does give you an innate drive to reproduce? Past(last 100000+ years) and present mating suitability in a male is perceived by his ability to feed/defend/nurture their mate and offspring. The large amount of "mooches, bums, alcoholics" you reference would be poor mates, yet they continue to reproduce. They do so [mostly] with the assistance of another willing member of the class of "mooches, bums, alcoholics". However, the people that are not "mooches, bums, alcoholics" make more desirable mates, because they have a higher potential to feed/defend/nurture their mate and offspring. That means that yes, your biology is still telling you that you need to work, even if it is only to achieve higher mating success, and fulfill your biological imperative. Hrm...I really don't like the direction my own thought is taking as I write this down. It ends with "well, then those (people) should be eliminated for the good of the species", and no one wants to hear that, whether it is correct or incorrect. It can be interpreted in a very dark and nasty context, and that is absolutely not what I'm trying to promote or champion. In a nutshell, I'm arguing that I will win at the biological imperative because of my drive to work and succeed. Those people that don't want to work and succeed would contribute to their species by going off somewhere quiet, and avoiding consumption of the resources needed by their fellow species members that are grinding away at "life" in the evolutionary sense - not in the "pursuit of happiness" sense, which is subjective and altogether distracting.
- kefka 10y ago
  Yep. And this argument is in parity with those people who wear white robes with pointy hats, and burn crosses in people's yards whom they do not like. It's also similar to Phrenology, the "science" of skull size, weight, and shape that indicate intelligence. Of course, non-whites were all inferior. There were many interests all surrounding Margret Sanger, with Planned Parenthood and the original intentions of that group. Ideally, blacks, Jews, "retards", and any other undesirable were sterilized as to not continue their genes. But talking of eugenics, even in a roundabout way has a lot of baggage. Is there a way to do it right? I'm not sure. I'd think voluntary methods could work, but only if they were truly voluntary. Remember, the kind of people we have coming in government believe that one can electrocute the gay out of someone (Pence).
  - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
    >Remember, the kind of people we have coming in government believe that one can electrocute the gay out of someone Maybe he means it in the tongue in cheek "there's no disease that can't be treated with a 12ga slug" way. /s
  - module0000 10y ago
    > Yep. And this argument is in parity with those people who wear white robes with pointy hats, and burn crosses in people's yards whom they do not like. Erm...is it? I thought that groups' entire mindset came from some religious interpretation of doing a deity's work. Maybe I'm wrong, but when a bunch of people(such as those that you mention) are so ridiculously self-destructive, I can only assume some-or-other <insert-religious-stupidity> is behind it. I'm not making a case for any of the things you mention(sterilization...really!?). I'm making a case for the working people building a working civilization and non-working people can't participate or benefit.
- sedachv 10y ago
  > In a nutshell, I'm arguing that I will win at the biological imperative because of my drive to work and succeed. No, you are just using the same flawed reasoning over and over again. The way it can also work is that a bigger and more aggressive man comes along, kills you, and takes your woman. Even the words you use come from Social Darwinism: "success" and "imperative" at some goal. The innate drive you talk about has nothing to do with reproduction - it is a set of instincts that makes mate finding and mating pleasurable. Goals and even establishing the causal connection between mating and reproduction requires reasoning faculties that not even most apes are capable of. > Those people that don't want to work and succeed would contribute to their species by going off somewhere quiet, and avoiding consumption of the resources needed by their fellow species members that are grinding away at "life" in the evolutionary sense And these people would listen to you tell them where to go and what to do because ...? It is quite obvious that you are trying to use a single evolutionary psychology argument without having any knowledge of the field. Human mating strategies are incredibly diverse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_system#In_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_system#In_humans. You have some kind of Puritan mental hangup about work that you are trying to justify with flawed reasoning.
dTal 10y ago
There's definitely an issue with people claiming their own pet theory is supported by "evolutionary psychology" when it's not even supported by data. But it's the framework we currently have, so that's to be expected. When people thought God invented everything, people fit their theories into that too. And what's the alternative? Evolution has no effect on psychology? Our perfect mind came from divine inspiration? Evolutionary psychology is threatening as a concept to many liberal ideals we've worked hard for. Men and women are equal. People are rational and can be trusted to make their own decisions, or vote intelligently. Liberalism can be boiled down to a kind of "faith in humanity", and like the earlier faith, thou shalt not question it, especially with science. But like before, it's better in the long run if we face the uncomfortable truths, whatever they be. edit: everything I'm trying to say here has been better said in The Blank Slate.
- sedachv 10y ago
  > And what's the alternative? The alternative is the same as for every theory: do not assume your hypothesis is correct until you have empirical evidence, and do not assign your moral values to theories. Obviously the idea of evolutionary psychology follows from evolution. Neither evolutionary psychology nor social Darwinism are wrong - they are just names for a particular class of consequences of evolution and natural selection. They are falsifiable because the theory of evolution is falsifiable. As far as we have evidence, evolution is true, so saying that evolution has consequences is true. What those consequences are is not for you to decide based on your prejudices. Saying things like "your DNA says you have to work" and poor people deserve to die out "because evolution, duh" is wrong.

by sedachv 10y ago

module0000 10y ago

Let's break it down to DNA then, and not "dna-this" or "dna-that" - which I agree is popular and usually incorrect. Can we agree that your DNA(and most species) does give you an innate drive to reproduce? Past(last 100000+ years) and present mating suitability in a male is perceived by his ability to feed/defend/nurture their mate and offspring. The large amount of "mooches, bums, alcoholics" you reference would be poor mates, yet they continue to reproduce. They do so [mostly] with the assistance of another willing member of the class of "mooches, bums, alcoholics". However, the people that are not "mooches, bums, alcoholics" make more desirable mates, because they have a higher potential to feed/defend/nurture their mate and offspring. That means that yes, your biology is still telling you that you need to work, even if it is only to achieve higher mating success, and fulfill your biological imperative. Hrm...I really don't like the direction my own thought is taking as I write this down. It ends with "well, then those (people) should be eliminated for the good of the species", and no one wants to hear that, whether it is correct or incorrect. It can be interpreted in a very dark and nasty context, and that is absolutely not what I'm trying to promote or champion. In a nutshell, I'm arguing that I will win at the biological imperative because of my drive to work and succeed. Those people that don't want to work and succeed would contribute to their species by going off somewhere quiet, and avoiding consumption of the resources needed by their fellow species members that are grinding away at "life" in the evolutionary sense - not in the "pursuit of happiness" sense, which is subjective and altogether distracting.

kefka 10y ago
Yep. And this argument is in parity with those people who wear white robes with pointy hats, and burn crosses in people's yards whom they do not like. It's also similar to Phrenology, the "science" of skull size, weight, and shape that indicate intelligence. Of course, non-whites were all inferior. There were many interests all surrounding Margret Sanger, with Planned Parenthood and the original intentions of that group. Ideally, blacks, Jews, "retards", and any other undesirable were sterilized as to not continue their genes. But talking of eugenics, even in a roundabout way has a lot of baggage. Is there a way to do it right? I'm not sure. I'd think voluntary methods could work, but only if they were truly voluntary. Remember, the kind of people we have coming in government believe that one can electrocute the gay out of someone (Pence).
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  >Remember, the kind of people we have coming in government believe that one can electrocute the gay out of someone Maybe he means it in the tongue in cheek "there's no disease that can't be treated with a 12ga slug" way. /s
- module0000 10y ago
  > Yep. And this argument is in parity with those people who wear white robes with pointy hats, and burn crosses in people's yards whom they do not like. Erm...is it? I thought that groups' entire mindset came from some religious interpretation of doing a deity's work. Maybe I'm wrong, but when a bunch of people(such as those that you mention) are so ridiculously self-destructive, I can only assume some-or-other <insert-religious-stupidity> is behind it. I'm not making a case for any of the things you mention(sterilization...really!?). I'm making a case for the working people building a working civilization and non-working people can't participate or benefit.
sedachv 10y ago
> In a nutshell, I'm arguing that I will win at the biological imperative because of my drive to work and succeed. No, you are just using the same flawed reasoning over and over again. The way it can also work is that a bigger and more aggressive man comes along, kills you, and takes your woman. Even the words you use come from Social Darwinism: "success" and "imperative" at some goal. The innate drive you talk about has nothing to do with reproduction - it is a set of instincts that makes mate finding and mating pleasurable. Goals and even establishing the causal connection between mating and reproduction requires reasoning faculties that not even most apes are capable of. > Those people that don't want to work and succeed would contribute to their species by going off somewhere quiet, and avoiding consumption of the resources needed by their fellow species members that are grinding away at "life" in the evolutionary sense And these people would listen to you tell them where to go and what to do because ...? It is quite obvious that you are trying to use a single evolutionary psychology argument without having any knowledge of the field. Human mating strategies are incredibly diverse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_system#In_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_system#In_humans. You have some kind of Puritan mental hangup about work that you are trying to justify with flawed reasoning.

dTal 10y ago

There's definitely an issue with people claiming their own pet theory is supported by "evolutionary psychology" when it's not even supported by data. But it's the framework we currently have, so that's to be expected. When people thought God invented everything, people fit their theories into that too. And what's the alternative? Evolution has no effect on psychology? Our perfect mind came from divine inspiration? Evolutionary psychology is threatening as a concept to many liberal ideals we've worked hard for. Men and women are equal. People are rational and can be trusted to make their own decisions, or vote intelligently. Liberalism can be boiled down to a kind of "faith in humanity", and like the earlier faith, thou shalt not question it, especially with science. But like before, it's better in the long run if we face the uncomfortable truths, whatever they be. edit: everything I'm trying to say here has been better said in The Blank Slate.

sedachv 10y ago
> And what's the alternative? The alternative is the same as for every theory: do not assume your hypothesis is correct until you have empirical evidence, and do not assign your moral values to theories. Obviously the idea of evolutionary psychology follows from evolution. Neither evolutionary psychology nor social Darwinism are wrong - they are just names for a particular class of consequences of evolution and natural selection. They are falsifiable because the theory of evolution is falsifiable. As far as we have evidence, evolution is true, so saying that evolution has consequences is true. What those consequences are is not for you to decide based on your prejudices. Saying things like "your DNA says you have to work" and poor people deserve to die out "because evolution, duh" is wrong.