4 ms·

I think the point was that extrovertism(?) is hiding whatever might be a disorder that is the opposite.

andrepd 9y ago
But there's no reason to believe there is "an opposite"... Would you say there is a scale ranging from having the flu, to being normal, to... having the opposite of flu, I guess? Makes no sense.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > But there's no reason to believe there is "an opposite"... Nearly every disease has an opposite which is also bad. If something was an unmitigated evil then there would be strong selective pressure for it to not happen and nothing pressing in the other direction to cause it to actually occur in the population. > Would you say there is a scale ranging from having the flu, to being normal, to... having the opposite of flu, I guess? Contracting the flu is a failure of the immune system to fight off the virus, so the opposite of contracting the flu would be an autoimmune disease.
  - andrepd 9y ago
    >Nearly every disease has an opposite which is also bad. [citation needed]. Also, you can't use evolutionary arguments like that, to justify everything. What about the plague? What about an anvil to the head? What's the opposite of getting a heavy object dropped on your head and if there is none then why didn't we evolve a titanium skill? You see where I'm going? It just didn't because we don't immediately evolve defenses against every single danger and disease in existence. Evolutionary arguments aren't worth very much and certainly can't be applied in such a maximalist way.
    - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
      > [citation needed] "[citation needed]" is the claim that an argument is flawed because it lacks an appeal to authority. An immune system that is too lax leads to infections, too stringent leads to autoimmune diseases. Pick almost any substance in the body -- glucose, sodium, serotinin, etc. Too little is one kind of bad, too much is a different kind of bad. And as to the original point: http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?type=printable&id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006618 http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?type=prin... > What about the plague? That seems to be in the same category as the flu. > What about an anvil to the head? What's the opposite of getting a heavy object dropped on your head and if there is none then why didn't we evolve a titanium skill? Are you asserting that there are no trade-offs there? Flexibility, self-healing, availability of carbohydrates vs. titanium compounds in available food sources, etc. > It just didn't because we don't immediately evolve defenses against every single danger and disease in existence. Evolutionary arguments aren't worth very much and certainly can't be applied in such a maximalist way. Evolution is not a divine engineer creating things that are maximally perfect, it's a brute force pragmatist that destroys anything that can't out-compete its neighbors. It isn't that purposeless flaws literally cannot exist at all, it's that they are selected against. Something that beat improbable odds due solely to dumb luck. The assertion that something is the exception to the rule is the one that needs independent support.

But there's no reason to believe there is "an opposite"... Would you say there is a scale ranging from having the flu, to being normal, to... having the opposite of flu, I guess? Makes no sense.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> But there's no reason to believe there is "an opposite"... Nearly every disease has an opposite which is also bad. If something was an unmitigated evil then there would be strong selective pressure for it to not happen and nothing pressing in the other direction to cause it to actually occur in the population. > Would you say there is a scale ranging from having the flu, to being normal, to... having the opposite of flu, I guess? Contracting the flu is a failure of the immune system to fight off the virus, so the opposite of contracting the flu would be an autoimmune disease.
- andrepd 9y ago
  >Nearly every disease has an opposite which is also bad. [citation needed]. Also, you can't use evolutionary arguments like that, to justify everything. What about the plague? What about an anvil to the head? What's the opposite of getting a heavy object dropped on your head and if there is none then why didn't we evolve a titanium skill? You see where I'm going? It just didn't because we don't immediately evolve defenses against every single danger and disease in existence. Evolutionary arguments aren't worth very much and certainly can't be applied in such a maximalist way.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    > [citation needed] "[citation needed]" is the claim that an argument is flawed because it lacks an appeal to authority. An immune system that is too lax leads to infections, too stringent leads to autoimmune diseases. Pick almost any substance in the body -- glucose, sodium, serotinin, etc. Too little is one kind of bad, too much is a different kind of bad. And as to the original point: http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?type=printable&id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006618 http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?type=prin... > What about the plague? That seems to be in the same category as the flu. > What about an anvil to the head? What's the opposite of getting a heavy object dropped on your head and if there is none then why didn't we evolve a titanium skill? Are you asserting that there are no trade-offs there? Flexibility, self-healing, availability of carbohydrates vs. titanium compounds in available food sources, etc. > It just didn't because we don't immediately evolve defenses against every single danger and disease in existence. Evolutionary arguments aren't worth very much and certainly can't be applied in such a maximalist way. Evolution is not a divine engineer creating things that are maximally perfect, it's a brute force pragmatist that destroys anything that can't out-compete its neighbors. It isn't that purposeless flaws literally cannot exist at all, it's that they are selected against. Something that beat improbable odds due solely to dumb luck. The assertion that something is the exception to the rule is the one that needs independent support.