5 ms·

"the virus seeks to replicate" variants of the virus that caused their hosts to socialize more replicated more

zumu 8y ago
Kind of a tangent, but the way you phrased it, while much more technically correct, is totally roundabout and unnatural to a native English speaker. I've often postulated that the necessity of a Subject in English sentences causes us to inadvertently project agency in our descriptions of events / phenomena that in reality don't have an "actor" in a meaningful sense. It's fascinating to consider to what extent this false notion of causation and agency may constrain a native English speaker's understanding of the world.
- vbuwivbiu 8y ago
  I completely agree it's ungainly - maybe this is better: "host-sociability-enhancing variants replicated more"
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Kind of a tangent, but the way you phrased it, while much more technically correct, is totally roundabout and unnatural to a native English speaker. As a native English speaker, I disagree; it is a perfectly natural way for the intended message to be communicated in English. > I've often postulated that the necessity of a Subject in English sentences causes us to inadvertently project agency in our descriptions of events / phenomena that in reality don't have an "actor" in a meaningful sense. A subject need not be an (semantic, much less also self-willed) agent (and, when it is, it can , and misleading anthropomorphization is in no way a peculiarity of English speakers. “Evolution favored variants which enhance host sociability” has a subject, which is a semantic (but not self-willed) agent. “Variants which enhanced host sociability are favored by evolution” has a subject, which is the patient rather than the agent. Both are quite natural English expressions, and (unlike attributing will to the virus) accurate (or, at least, describe a plausible phenomenon.)
leppr 8y ago
May I prescribe you a daily dose of Lactobacillus reuteri ?

zumu 8y ago

Kind of a tangent, but the way you phrased it, while much more technically correct, is totally roundabout and unnatural to a native English speaker. I've often postulated that the necessity of a Subject in English sentences causes us to inadvertently project agency in our descriptions of events / phenomena that in reality don't have an "actor" in a meaningful sense. It's fascinating to consider to what extent this false notion of causation and agency may constrain a native English speaker's understanding of the world.

vbuwivbiu 8y ago
I completely agree it's ungainly - maybe this is better: "host-sociability-enhancing variants replicated more"
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Kind of a tangent, but the way you phrased it, while much more technically correct, is totally roundabout and unnatural to a native English speaker. As a native English speaker, I disagree; it is a perfectly natural way for the intended message to be communicated in English. > I've often postulated that the necessity of a Subject in English sentences causes us to inadvertently project agency in our descriptions of events / phenomena that in reality don't have an "actor" in a meaningful sense. A subject need not be an (semantic, much less also self-willed) agent (and, when it is, it can , and misleading anthropomorphization is in no way a peculiarity of English speakers. “Evolution favored variants which enhance host sociability” has a subject, which is a semantic (but not self-willed) agent. “Variants which enhanced host sociability are favored by evolution” has a subject, which is the patient rather than the agent. Both are quite natural English expressions, and (unlike attributing will to the virus) accurate (or, at least, describe a plausible phenomenon.)

leppr 8y ago

May I prescribe you a daily dose of Lactobacillus reuteri ?