3 ms·

I didn't get that impression from reading it. There seemed a "political" (if you want to call it that, but really it was more just what a person thinks is right

• nyxtom 9y ago
  Some research will attribute group cooperation as a fundamental necessity in human progress (given that it is almost impossible that we got anywhere without specialization of tasks and an inherit need to cooperate between groups). Other research points to egalitarian motives that deal with equality between people. For instance, high earners at the expense of the lower earners. Perhaps the egalitarian motives have to due with concentration of power over others. That typically access to survival becomes increasingly limited as power is concentrated. These attributes are different than the evolutionary concern of competitiveness and a will to survive; but certainly there is evidence of both being the case. I should note that there is no way that biology will simply distinguish between a well-meaning deflector and one who is antagonizing a group (such that there is another way to explain it). There is a lot of history of great thinkers who challenged conventional thinking and were persecuted to the fullest extent of the time. I claim that the way most groups justify moral perception and punishment inequalities can be attributed to this evolutionary concept. From justification of slavery (indeed even the repercussions of standing up against slavery was met with changes in laws, and increase deterrents). What is particularly telling is the impact of having this content go widespread in modern society on the internet in the form of social media. It truly brings all of the subgroups that participate online in this discussion to be motivated (from an evolutionary standpoint) to make their case heard in an effort to persuade the group or general direction of behavior between people (whether in small social communities like HN or larger in Twitter, or between small teams...etc). https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6868/abs/415137a.html?foxtrotcallback=true https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6868/abs/415137a... https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7021/full/nature03256.html https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7021/full/nature... The base of the argument is that it doesn't really matter if it's well-intended or not; whether the content of the article is factual or deliberately bias or filled with hateful rhetoric. The only thing that matters is collective moral perception and the emergent properties of social structures (from the smallest group to the largest society). This is evident in fact by how a smaller group of people were not as hostile towards the author but the large viral group was. This merits the idea that approach to varying groups dynamics is an important factor to consider when challenging the norm. Thought provoking indeed! Notes: __ Muhammad ibn Zakariyā Rāzī or Rhazes was a medical pioneer from Baghdad who lived between 860 and 932 AD. He was responsible for introducing western teachings, rational thought and the works of Hippocrates and Galen to the Arabic world. One of his books, Continens Liber, was a compendium of everything known about medicine. The book made him famous, but offended a Muslim priest who ordered the doctor to be beaten over the head with his own manuscript, which caused him to go blind, preventing him from future practice. __ Servetus was a Spanish physician credited with discovering pulmonary circulation. He wrote a book, which outlined his discovery along with his ideas about reforming Christianity – it was deemed to be heretical. He escaped from Spain and the Catholic Inquisition but came up against the Protestant Inquisition in Switzerland, who held him in equal disregard. Under orders from John Calvin, Servetus was arrested, tortured and burned at the stake on the shores of Lake Geneva - copies of his book were accompanied for good measure. The Italian astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei was trialled and convicted in 1633 for publishing his evidence that supported the Copernican theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun. His research was instantly criticized by the Catholic Church for going against the established scripture that places Earth and not the Sun at the center of the universe. Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy" for his heliocentric views and was required to "abjure, curse and detest" his opinions. He was sentenced to house arrest, where he remained for the rest of his life and his offending texts were banned.
  • nyxtom 9y ago
    That being said, I had a different conclusion than you, as did many others about the intention of the article. The repressed outrage seems like a decent way to explain some of the points so I see where you are coming from.
  • dfps 9y ago
    Thanks for the explanation, links and references. I found a few free ones (one is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590188/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590188/) since I don't have a subscription for Nature. I'm still not sure where to draw the line between Google, its managers, larger society, and general ethics, in this case, or how to distinguish 'collective altruistic punishment' from 'selfish punishment to forcefully protect interests against challenges'. One thing I'll note is that the case at hand would be the same if it weren't collective, but was only one (probably relatively powerful) person trying to protect themselves from a challenge. A second thing: that the article was a different object when it was widely circulated (not just the same object treated by a large group versus an earlier smaller group).