4 ms·

> Racism and global climate change are not explained by our shared history with chimpanzees, nor are gender diversity, the #MeToo movement, and the recent rise

> Racism and global climate change are not explained by our shared history with chimpanzees, nor are gender diversity, the #MeToo movement, and the recent rise in nationalism. No. It can all be compared to how most social mammals operate. Racism & nationalism have their roots in tribalism, a very useful tool to keep a tribe cohesive and thus competitive against other tribes. Climate change: Have a look at any invasive species for examples. Gender diversity & MeToo: Genders in mammals will take on certain specialized roles in order to survive in their environment. Are they right and ethical? Of course not. Times have changed, and our psyches haven't kept up. But ignoring our evolutionary heritage only results in treating the symptoms rather than the cause. That's not how you correct problems. > It’s only by delving into humanity’s distinctive evolutionary history, since our split with the other ape lineages, that we are better able to develop a fuller understanding of the human niche, of what makes us specifically human. Uh, no. It's also important to find out what's baked into our psyche, no matter how ugly or inconvenient, and take steps to compensate for them or maybe even correct them. That's what higher reasoning is for.

kazinator 8y ago
I would say that racism is rooted not specifically tribalism but more broadly in inductive reasoning (particular-to-general heuristics) which has been absolutely indispensable to survival and evolution. It is critical to classify a creature as friend or foe based on what class it belongs to, rather than granting the instance benefit of doubt. How previously observed members of a group have behaved in the past constitutes rational evidence for estimating the future behavior of a newly observed member of that group.
- tkahnoski 8y ago
  Trying to understand the thread of reasoning here so correct me if I didn't interpret this correctly. An individual observing some members of a group with different physical characteristic with a certain behavior, an individual infers all members of that group behave that way. Then with an individual being exposed to a sampling of that groups behavior due to say the news or social media algorithms the individual makes an inference but is unable to account for the bias these sources might have.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Even before social media - we're a social and talkative species. More often than not, we're not observing members of a group directly, but we're receiving an already made generalization from other people - which they as well may have received, not made. In the past, the main source of those received generalizations were people we met. Ever since the printing press, it's mass media instead.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - kazinator 8y ago
    > individual infers all members of that group behave that way. E.g. "all sharks bite legs off" This leads to survival: not having your legs bitten off.
deft 8y ago
Classic HN. Layman comments to tell us why a trained professional knows less than them.
- lainga 8y ago
  Classic HN: this is "pop sci, and not a scientific article" in one comment, and "written by a trained professional" in another.
- handsomechad 8y ago
  This isn't fair, the OP broke down his arguments for why the author was wrong, and all you do is appeal to the author's authority as a "trained professional". After a certain amount of life experience you realize that "trained professionals" in some (many?) fields of study often have glaring gaps in their knowledge of are purposely ignorant of some set of facts/ideas that do not corroborate their philosophical leanings. Either way I feel it would have been more productive to rebut the GP on the merits of his arguments. For the record, I agree with him, though I am also not a "trained professional", just an amateur who has spent a lot of time thinking about this subject.
  - TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
    > This isn't fair, Of course it's fair, in a discussion. > the OP broke down his arguments for why the author was wrong, No he didn't. There are no "arguments" presented. There's a vague premise (It can all be compared to how most social mammals operate. <--- not an argument in any sense) then some 1 line ramblings that seem thinly related.
  - msbarnett 8y ago
    > This isn't fair, the OP broke down his arguments for why the author was wrong No they haven't. An argument is a persuasive set of evidence and reasoning presented to make a case for a conclusion -- OP merely made a bunch of handwavey, highly debatable statements as if they were fact
- kstenerud 8y ago
  Cannibals and Kings - Marvin Harris Warriors and Worriers - Joyce Bennenson Sex at Dawn - Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá
smhost 8y ago
Higher reasoning isn't all that great. E.g., people have constructed consistent systems of reasoning that are entirely misanthropic or, if not actually misanthropic, they conclude that the extinction of the human species is good. And you're missing the point that the stratification of phenomena into "higher reasoning" <-> "base instinct" is a false hierarchy. Even when you're working within ethics, you eventually have to ground yourself in moral intuitions, which is fundamentally irrational (the underlying mechanism of moral intuition can't be examined through reason). I think maybe what the author is ultimately saying is that it's not wrong to think about these uniquely human qualities as being just as natural and basic as anything else.

kazinator 8y ago

I would say that racism is rooted not specifically tribalism but more broadly in inductive reasoning (particular-to-general heuristics) which has been absolutely indispensable to survival and evolution. It is critical to classify a creature as friend or foe based on what class it belongs to, rather than granting the instance benefit of doubt. How previously observed members of a group have behaved in the past constitutes rational evidence for estimating the future behavior of a newly observed member of that group.

tkahnoski 8y ago
Trying to understand the thread of reasoning here so correct me if I didn't interpret this correctly. An individual observing some members of a group with different physical characteristic with a certain behavior, an individual infers all members of that group behave that way. Then with an individual being exposed to a sampling of that groups behavior due to say the news or social media algorithms the individual makes an inference but is unable to account for the bias these sources might have.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Even before social media - we're a social and talkative species. More often than not, we're not observing members of a group directly, but we're receiving an already made generalization from other people - which they as well may have received, not made. In the past, the main source of those received generalizations were people we met. Ever since the printing press, it's mass media instead.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- kazinator 8y ago
  > individual infers all members of that group behave that way. E.g. "all sharks bite legs off" This leads to survival: not having your legs bitten off.

deft 8y ago

Classic HN. Layman comments to tell us why a trained professional knows less than them.

lainga 8y ago
Classic HN: this is "pop sci, and not a scientific article" in one comment, and "written by a trained professional" in another.
handsomechad 8y ago
This isn't fair, the OP broke down his arguments for why the author was wrong, and all you do is appeal to the author's authority as a "trained professional". After a certain amount of life experience you realize that "trained professionals" in some (many?) fields of study often have glaring gaps in their knowledge of are purposely ignorant of some set of facts/ideas that do not corroborate their philosophical leanings. Either way I feel it would have been more productive to rebut the GP on the merits of his arguments. For the record, I agree with him, though I am also not a "trained professional", just an amateur who has spent a lot of time thinking about this subject.
- TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
  > This isn't fair, Of course it's fair, in a discussion. > the OP broke down his arguments for why the author was wrong, No he didn't. There are no "arguments" presented. There's a vague premise (It can all be compared to how most social mammals operate. <--- not an argument in any sense) then some 1 line ramblings that seem thinly related.
- msbarnett 8y ago
  > This isn't fair, the OP broke down his arguments for why the author was wrong No they haven't. An argument is a persuasive set of evidence and reasoning presented to make a case for a conclusion -- OP merely made a bunch of handwavey, highly debatable statements as if they were fact
kstenerud 8y ago
Cannibals and Kings - Marvin Harris Warriors and Worriers - Joyce Bennenson Sex at Dawn - Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá

smhost 8y ago

Higher reasoning isn't all that great. E.g., people have constructed consistent systems of reasoning that are entirely misanthropic or, if not actually misanthropic, they conclude that the extinction of the human species is good. And you're missing the point that the stratification of phenomena into "higher reasoning" <-> "base instinct" is a false hierarchy. Even when you're working within ethics, you eventually have to ground yourself in moral intuitions, which is fundamentally irrational (the underlying mechanism of moral intuition can't be examined through reason). I think maybe what the author is ultimately saying is that it's not wrong to think about these uniquely human qualities as being just as natural and basic as anything else.