6 ms·
"When the researchers tested children, they found that rank-reversal aversion doesn't develop until children are 6-10 years old, which suggests that this aversi
by interfixus 9y ago
"When the researchers tested children, they found that rank-reversal aversion doesn't develop until children are 6-10 years old, which suggests that this aversion is learned culturally as the child grows up"
"In addition, the Tibetan herders who participated in the study had a markedly higher level of rank-reversal aversion than other subjects. This also suggests the trait is cultural"
An all too common kind of sloppy thinking, which generally kills my desire to read any further. No such thing is suggested. The trait may be learned, or it may be completely hardwired, kicking in action between ages six and ten. Different populations may have evolved different inbred attitudes to equality.
- danieltillett 9y agoJust like male facial hair - it doesn’t start appearing until the teenage years so its appearance must be cultural :P When you have a preformed ideological conclusion then logic is the first causality in any study.
- colordrops 9y ago> logic is the first causality Probably the opposite of your intended meaning heh
- adrianratnapala 9y agoNah, it's a special logic caused by the intended conclusion.
- danieltillett 9y agoLOL. Yes that should be casualty :)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 9y agoYou seem to have made the common error of confusing “suggests” with “admits of no other explanation.”
- interfixus 9y ago"No such thing is suggested" How much more explicit do you need me to be?
- Dylan16807 9y agoWhy do you say that? The suggestion looks clear to me. A suggestion is a not overwhelming evidence.
- interfixus 9y agoAs presented in the article, the learned behaviour suggestion is a complete non sequitur. I suspect it appears clear to you only because you share the author's preconceived and possibly subconscious notion.
- Dylan16807 9y agoThe notion that children are not developing many new brain functions as late as 10, so behaviors that show up then are probably cultural? That is not a non sequitur.
- dragonwriter 9y agoThe arguments you presented supporting that do not support the absence of a suggestion, they support the absence of conclusive proof by presenting a possible alternative explanation.
- throwaway2048 9y agoIts wrong to say no such thing is suggested, what it isn't is strong evidence of causation.
- johnchristopher 9y agoAre you suggesting rank-reversal aversion (and so other behaviours in the social reflexes range, I suppose) is innate ?
- interfixus 9y agoTwo answers: In relation to the article, I am certainly not falling into the trap of suggesting anything not really indicated by the data in case. Personally, I most definitely am.
- dmurray 9y agoMany "social reflexes" behaviours are innate. Try raising a cat to have the same social behaviours as a dog.
- undersuit 9y agoWhat does this day about the difference between charitable people and selfish people. It's all just a throw of the dice?
- vanderZwan 9y agoCall me paranoid, but it's also a Chinese study suggesting Tibetan culture is worse than the Chinese one. Having said that, whatever the cause of it is, the results might still be something we want to try to address.
- tom_mellior 9y ago> Different populations may have evolved different inbred attitudes to equality. I agree with the rest of your post, but here you seem to be reaching. Are there examples of behavioral/moral differences between human populations that are known to have a genetic basis?
- interfixus 9y agoAre there any which are known not to? Why would you assume human populations to follow a pattern distinctly different from all the rest of biology?
- yequalsx 9y agoBecause humans haven't been around long enough for one to expect that sort of genetic variation. Possibly because the link between behavior and genetics is nonexistent. I don't know enough about the topic to know if there is a link between genetics and behavior. Do you know if there is?
- interfixus 9y agoYou would not expect populations separated by thousands of years of existence under wildly differing conditions to evolve different patterns of behaviour? Please elaborate.
- yequalsx 9y agoYour last sentence of your original post was "...evolved different inbred attitudes..." This refers to evolved in the sense of genetics. Of course human populations have different patterns of behavior. But the question is whether these patterns are cultural versus being genetic. My response above has to do with the genetic basis of behavior differences. EDIT: Thousands of years may not be enough time to cause a genetic basis for differences in human behavior. This was the original objection raised by interfixus. The objection does not seem reasonable given the lack of evidence given for said objection in the context of interfixus complaining about the sloppy thinking in the article.
- yequalsx 9y agoI'm guessing you are not an expert in human behavior. I'm not either. Your last sentence though is an example of the sort of sloppy thinking that kills your desire to read further. You say, "different populations may have evolved...". You don't present any evidence for this. You just state it as a possibility. It might be the case that god causes the delay in Tibetans. Is it the responsibility of the article to counter this possibility? The article gives a credible reason for the delay in Tibetans and if the reason is correct it reinforces the idea that it is cultural. I assume the researchers know a lot more about the topic than I do. In my experience if there is a possible objection to a conclusion researchers have made that I can think of when thinking about the topic for a few minutes then I'm the one who is almost certainly wrong.