4 ms·
I did not argue that "everything can be simplified to genetic fitness". So please, for the second time, stop putting words into my mouth. It is my understandin
by ckuehne 16y ago
I did not argue that "everything can be simplified to genetic fitness". So please, for the second time, stop putting words into my mouth.
It is my understanding, that your argument is:
1) Article assumes people discuss ideas to signal social standing. But: 2) People discuss ideas because the enjoy it, 3) and not because they want to signal social standing. Therefore the article is faulty.
All I am saying is: 1) and 2) may both be right. The contradiction between 2) and 3) does not arise if people are not aware of the underlying motivations for their behavior.
See also rdtsc's comment.
- metamemetics 16y ago>I did not argue that Hey, that's MY point :) Still, in the end of your FIRST line you stated: the ultimate cause for the enjoyment is increase in genetic fitness. >my understanding, that your argument is: 1) ... 2) ... 3) ... All wrong. At no point was a talking about the set "people". I was disagreeing with the traits specific to the "top of the pyramid" proposed by the article within the domain of intellectual debate. Which is a small subset of the set "people" in a very small subset of the domain of possible actions people can perform. I'll have to make sure to rigorously pair any hypothesis with its counter-hypothesis when I risk posting on HN in the future.