5 ms·

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.
      • zerostar07 8y ago
        ok but what could possibly have changed in human evolution in the past ~40 years (it doesnt appear to have been a problem forever)
        • jamesrcole 8y ago
          Why do you think it's only in the last 40 years that people have found it more difficult to make friends after 30 or so? It seems like it's been like that for a long time. Also, I've repeatedly said that biological and evolutionary details may be factors not the whole explanation, so other factors can have changed during that timeframe.
          • zerostar07 8y ago
            What is your evidence that it has been like that for a long time? If anything in the past people were a lot more immobile which means it would be easier for them to eventually make new friends over time. Considering the evolutionary argument, what happens is the opposite of what one would expect - when people are getting old they are more in need of friends for practical reasons - failing physical condition. So if there is an evolutionary reason, it's probably a paradox. It may be true however that people seek more alone time as they get older - our brains become less excitable, less craving of novel environments and people and information etc. That's a behavior that's related to aging however, not evolution.
            • jamesrcole 8y ago
              You're the one who originally claimed it's changed in the last 40 years, so it's on you to back that up. Re: evolutionary argument. That's not what one would expect. That's simply your assumption based on a simplistic notion of what an evolutionary explanation would involve. Re: your final paragraph, that shows you haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying. If you read my comments you'll notice I've said "biological or evolutionary", and aging is most definitely biological. Anyway, you're wrong to assume that has nothing to do with evolution!
  • geofft 8y ago
    I have now downvoted you because you criticize the article for not "even" doing a thing without even believing the thing is reasonable to do. It is not a fair criticism; in fact it is perhaps the exemplar of an unfair criticism.
  • danso 8y ago
    Yes, generally, good film critics describe what the movie could have done better/differently. You don't read many serious critiques solely consisting of, "This movie sucks".
    • jamesrcole 8y ago
      I did exactly what you're taking about - it could have been better by also discussing whether biological or evolutionary factors might play a role.