2 ms·

> You only have to look at the multitude of society that have survived until now to see that that kind of thought is not valid. For example, in some tribe, war

by rriepe 6y ago

> You only have to look at the multitude of society that have survived until now to see that that kind of thought is not valid. For example, in some tribe, war is stopped when one life is lost (I believe this was Palau), or in others, wives eat the brains of their deceased husband. In some, matriarchy is the norm. Etc. How does this invalidate the thought? It's like saying survival of the fittest isn't valid because of all the different animals that have existed.

rntksi 6y ago
My previous post seems not clear enough. I meant that sociological behaviour does not have "one true adage" (i.e. survival of the fittest, or whatever-else), and cannot be simply concluded that way. ("It is very difficult to conclude a simplistic view of society/sociological behaviours.") The examples I gave were meant to show that the behaviours that one believe to be "fitting" for a certain worldview, is suddenly not "fitting" in another group. This is due to the key concept that most students learn in Sociology 101, being in a group changes your behaviour. Therefore to study "behaviours", if you conclude a simplistic idea, you have to define its boundary. Maybe in, say, the Napolitan culture of Italia, a certain behaviour explains a certain reasoning holds true, but to generalise that to "behaviour" (in general) is hand-waving away many complexities.
- ndavis 6y ago
  In evolutionary terms, "fit" means like a piece in a puzzle and doesn't an ethical connotation or anything like that. More like a model fits, eg in the above game related to ML.
- nojster 6y ago
  > The examples I gave were meant to show that the behaviours that one believe to be "fitting" for a certain worldview, is suddenly not "fitting" in another group. I think this is where we have different viewpoints. To me, a guiding principle that exists like "optimize for survivability" isn't something that people would actively agree to, hence to "belief" is required. It is like saying "not everyone believes in gravity, yet it still exists"
  - lazyasciiart 6y ago
    If I'm following correctly, I think they are talking about the belief of the scientist/observer that a behavior enhances fitness.

by rriepe 6y ago

rntksi 6y ago

My previous post seems not clear enough. I meant that sociological behaviour does not have "one true adage" (i.e. survival of the fittest, or whatever-else), and cannot be simply concluded that way. ("It is very difficult to conclude a simplistic view of society/sociological behaviours.") The examples I gave were meant to show that the behaviours that one believe to be "fitting" for a certain worldview, is suddenly not "fitting" in another group. This is due to the key concept that most students learn in Sociology 101, being in a group changes your behaviour. Therefore to study "behaviours", if you conclude a simplistic idea, you have to define its boundary. Maybe in, say, the Napolitan culture of Italia, a certain behaviour explains a certain reasoning holds true, but to generalise that to "behaviour" (in general) is hand-waving away many complexities.

ndavis 6y ago
In evolutionary terms, "fit" means like a piece in a puzzle and doesn't an ethical connotation or anything like that. More like a model fits, eg in the above game related to ML.
nojster 6y ago
> The examples I gave were meant to show that the behaviours that one believe to be "fitting" for a certain worldview, is suddenly not "fitting" in another group. I think this is where we have different viewpoints. To me, a guiding principle that exists like "optimize for survivability" isn't something that people would actively agree to, hence to "belief" is required. It is like saying "not everyone believes in gravity, yet it still exists"
- lazyasciiart 6y ago
  If I'm following correctly, I think they are talking about the belief of the scientist/observer that a behavior enhances fitness.