3 ms·

Do we even need to hypothesize this as a specialized evolutionary response? “My life sucks; studying hard and looking for a job will not make it suck less, bec

by sethg 16y ago

Do we even need to hypothesize this as a specialized evolutionary response? “My life sucks; studying hard and looking for a job will not make it suck less, because even if I get good grades, nobody will hire me; however, if I have a baby, then there will at least be something cute in my immediate environment that loves me” looks like a straightforward chain of logical reasoning to me.

Unseelie 16y ago
Snarky response is that we don't need hypothesises at all anymore, we understand enough of the universe to be rather ok. But there is value in accepting this theory, which I might add is reasonably well accepted as far as most other mammals. The value is that your chain of logic blames first the people themselves, and feeds back into the aticle's final justification, that is, while such things as increasing education are politically expedient, they don't actually change conditions. Getting this theory widely accepted can do a great deal for changing how governments fight the problems of poverty.
SandB0x 16y ago
It's one factor - there are going to be a whole host of influences. But remember even cuteness is an evolutionary response. Nature selects for mothers who care for little things with wide eyes and big heads. If you're interested in evolutionary psychology and the nature-nurture debate I highly recommend The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker.
watmough 16y ago
If there is a shortage of viable fathers in the local community, then having a baby will frequently lead to preferential financial and housing outcomes. More benefits, and a much better chance of getting social housing. There's very little way to get out of this cycle, besides either creating a lot of jobs, sufficient that men become useful, or simply increasing peoples' benefits such that strategies like having babies no longer get you a better outcome.

by sethg 16y ago

Unseelie 16y ago

Snarky response is that we don't need hypothesises at all anymore, we understand enough of the universe to be rather ok. But there is value in accepting this theory, which I might add is reasonably well accepted as far as most other mammals. The value is that your chain of logic blames first the people themselves, and feeds back into the aticle's final justification, that is, while such things as increasing education are politically expedient, they don't actually change conditions. Getting this theory widely accepted can do a great deal for changing how governments fight the problems of poverty.

SandB0x 16y ago

It's one factor - there are going to be a whole host of influences. But remember even cuteness is an evolutionary response. Nature selects for mothers who care for little things with wide eyes and big heads. If you're interested in evolutionary psychology and the nature-nurture debate I highly recommend The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker.

watmough 16y ago

If there is a shortage of viable fathers in the local community, then having a baby will frequently lead to preferential financial and housing outcomes. More benefits, and a much better chance of getting social housing. There's very little way to get out of this cycle, besides either creating a lot of jobs, sufficient that men become useful, or simply increasing peoples' benefits such that strategies like having babies no longer get you a better outcome.