4 ms·

[Edit: to all the people downvoting this, care to explain why you find it objectionable? The article is trying to explain a phenomenon and it completely ignores

[Edit: to all the people downvoting this, care to explain why you find it objectionable? The article is trying to explain a phenomenon and it completely ignores the existence of certain kinds of factors that may have an explanatory role. It doesn't even mention them, even to disagree with them. Do think that's not problematic?] I find it disappointing when articles like this don't even consider biological, evolutionary factors that could play a role.

eecsninja 8y ago
Maybe people on this forum aren't as open-minded as they'd like to think.
- jotm 8y ago
  It's "I'm super progressive" Until "I have a downvote button now motherfuckers"
- lsh 8y ago
  I think it's exactly that. Hackernews is just another filter bubble and a haven for a particular personality type.
  - dang 8y ago
    > a haven for a particular personality type These perceptions are in the eye of the beholder. Multiply that 10x when it's about "who downvoted me", since there's literally no information then, just a blank screen to project on.
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  What does open-mindedness have to do with a vague statement about biology without going into said actual biology? We're open minded enough, just bring up some actual arguments and facts to support them.
geofft 8y ago
I didn't downvote this, but, this would be a more productive comment if you said what those factors are.
exit 8y ago
you should propose some "biological, evolutionary factors that could play a role"
- jamesrcole 8y ago
  Why? I'm being serious when I say that. I'm not an expert on that topic, and I could only provide some very general possibilities. I think it's fair to criticise the article for that deficiency without having to propose answers as well. Do you expect film critics to propose how they'd make the film differently?
  - sykh 8y ago
    It's a bit odd that you criticize the author for not considering biological/evolutionary factors when you can't come up with any too. Isn't it possible then that these factors (if indeed they exist) don't provide convincing enough evidence to merit being written about in the article? It seems the burden is on you to demonstrate that your criticism is justified and that the article has a glaring omission. Otherwise, what is your basis for criticism? How can you criticize an article for a deficiency that hasn't been established as being one that exists?
    - jamesrcole 8y ago
      The role of biological and evolutionary factors in human behaviour in general is well established enough that it's a glaring omission to ignore it's possible role in questions of human behaviour. That's why it's ok to criticise a case like this on principal. It's like ignoring the possibility economic factors in trying to explain some feature of society. It should not be necessary to propose specific possible factors to make such a criticism. Since so many people seem to want a possible account, there might be an evolutionary advantage to gaining friends leading up to and during prime reproductive years, advantages that are lesser as you transition past those ages. Just like our brains are more receptive to learning languages when we're younger our younger brains may be more receptive to developing friendships. Note that I've said right from the start that such details could be factors in an explanation, not that they would be the whole explanation.
atomical 8y ago
Do you think dang moderates voting as well?
meesterdude 8y ago
People down vote because the sun is out, or their coffee is cold. You're free to find an article disappointing. Maybe someone would prefer you elaborate. Maybe someone else down votes for a wall of text. Votes are noise, focus more on comments and dialog; if any.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
vorhuts 8y ago
@jamesrcole The reason you're being down-voted is because liberalism believes in a clean slate for human beings. Heritable genetic traits that provide advantages or disadvantages goes against this model.
- musage 8y ago
  In context, I would interpret "biological, evolutionary" as something to do with age, a biological difference between the same individual when young and when old, that came about for evolutionary reasons; not a difference between individuals.

eecsninja 8y ago

Maybe people on this forum aren't as open-minded as they'd like to think.

jotm 8y ago
It's "I'm super progressive" Until "I have a downvote button now motherfuckers"
lsh 8y ago
I think it's exactly that. Hackernews is just another filter bubble and a haven for a particular personality type.
- dang 8y ago
  > a haven for a particular personality type These perceptions are in the eye of the beholder. Multiply that 10x when it's about "who downvoted me", since there's literally no information then, just a blank screen to project on.
Cthulhu_ 8y ago
What does open-mindedness have to do with a vague statement about biology without going into said actual biology? We're open minded enough, just bring up some actual arguments and facts to support them.

geofft 8y ago

I didn't downvote this, but, this would be a more productive comment if you said what those factors are.

exit 8y ago

you should propose some "biological, evolutionary factors that could play a role"

jamesrcole 8y ago
Why? I'm being serious when I say that. I'm not an expert on that topic, and I could only provide some very general possibilities. I think it's fair to criticise the article for that deficiency without having to propose answers as well. Do you expect film critics to propose how they'd make the film differently?
- sykh 8y ago
  It's a bit odd that you criticize the author for not considering biological/evolutionary factors when you can't come up with any too. Isn't it possible then that these factors (if indeed they exist) don't provide convincing enough evidence to merit being written about in the article? It seems the burden is on you to demonstrate that your criticism is justified and that the article has a glaring omission. Otherwise, what is your basis for criticism? How can you criticize an article for a deficiency that hasn't been established as being one that exists?
  - jamesrcole 8y ago
    The role of biological and evolutionary factors in human behaviour in general is well established enough that it's a glaring omission to ignore it's possible role in questions of human behaviour. That's why it's ok to criticise a case like this on principal. It's like ignoring the possibility economic factors in trying to explain some feature of society. It should not be necessary to propose specific possible factors to make such a criticism. Since so many people seem to want a possible account, there might be an evolutionary advantage to gaining friends leading up to and during prime reproductive years, advantages that are lesser as you transition past those ages. Just like our brains are more receptive to learning languages when we're younger our younger brains may be more receptive to developing friendships. Note that I've said right from the start that such details could be factors in an explanation, not that they would be the whole explanation.

atomical 8y ago

Do you think dang moderates voting as well?

meesterdude 8y ago

People down vote because the sun is out, or their coffee is cold. You're free to find an article disappointing. Maybe someone would prefer you elaborate. Maybe someone else down votes for a wall of text. Votes are noise, focus more on comments and dialog; if any.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

vorhuts 8y ago

@jamesrcole The reason you're being down-voted is because liberalism believes in a clean slate for human beings. Heritable genetic traits that provide advantages or disadvantages goes against this model.

musage 8y ago
In context, I would interpret "biological, evolutionary" as something to do with age, a biological difference between the same individual when young and when old, that came about for evolutionary reasons; not a difference between individuals.