4 ms·

so the author said something which can be nitpicked, therefore the entire article is rubbish? I guess we all do this to a certain extent given that there's so

by bsedlm 5y ago

so the author said something which can be nitpicked, therefore the entire article is rubbish? I guess we all do this to a certain extent given that there's so much content to parse through and anything that will allow us to quickly dismiss something lets us use that energy for something else

bambax 5y ago
> so the author said something which can be nitpicked, therefore the entire article is rubbish? I'm sorry, but yes. This shows the author wasn't thinking and is intellectually lazy and incurious -- like if he was laying out bigoted theories in the first paragraph, and making whole deductions out of it. This is actually bigoted, by the way: to declare that there is just one way to live the life of a hunter-gatherer, and that it's "simple".
- mistermann 5y ago
  As I see it (as someone fascinated with this phenomenon), this is somewhat of an example of what the author is talking about. The claim: >> The golden rule of hunter-gather life is pretty simple ...post-processing, is perceived as: > There are at least as many "hunter-gather lives" as there are tribes, and probably more, and it's very likely the author knows about none of them. ...dropping "the golden rule of". Ironically, this is followed up with: > This shows the author wasn't thinking and is intellectually lazy and incurious -- like if he was [laying out bigoted theories in the first paragraph], and making whole deductions out of it. I wrote more about a theory I have about this phenomenon in a recent thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29430192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29430192
  - bambax 5y ago
    You're playing with words. The rest of the paragraph in TFA does describe the life of hunter-gatherers, not just one "golden rule" (which is never enunciated). > If you happen to be blessed with muscle, don’t throw it around. If you happen to be a great hunter or a dazzling beauty, don’t flaunt it over others. Be one of the good guys, in other words. This is completely gratuitous and unsubstantiated. It's ridiculous. And then there is more of the same.
    - mistermann 5y ago
      > You're playing with words. So you interpret and perceive (and then assert as True). But then, aren't we all "playing with words", at all times, to some degree? For example, I could say that you are "engaging in persuasive rhetoric" when you say that. >> If you happen to be blessed with muscle, don’t throw it around. If you happen to be a great hunter or a dazzling beauty, don’t flaunt it over others. Be one of the good guys, in other words. > This is completely gratuitous and unsubstantiated. It's ridiculous. And then there is more of the same. gratuitous: uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted Don't throw your muscle around, don't flaunt exceptional characteristics over others, be a good guy - in the building and maintenance of a successful community, these things are "uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted"? unsubstantiated: not supported or proven by evidence Here you have a better case, but when it comes to the "not supported by" part, I suspect these are not entirely new ideas in the fields of anthropology and social evolution (I speculate). Out of curiosity, did you read my other comment? I put a fair amount of work into it, and I believe it has some relevance. Perhaps you could critique it!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sharker8 5y ago
  Agreed on that one can interpret the author's stance as bigoted because there is a cultivated myth here which is sentimental and all about how stories pre printing press were all about banding tribes together. People love this myth because it fits the mold of 'techno-optimism'. They were of course also about kinda boring things like record keeping about crops, but westerners ignore that and say those aren't stories because they don't have characters or something. As if we can generalize about things for which we have absolutely no record in many cases. Also as if western people invented the concept of a narrator (implied in this article but I've heard it elsewhere).

by bsedlm 5y ago

bambax 5y ago

> so the author said something which can be nitpicked, therefore the entire article is rubbish? I'm sorry, but yes. This shows the author wasn't thinking and is intellectually lazy and incurious -- like if he was laying out bigoted theories in the first paragraph, and making whole deductions out of it. This is actually bigoted, by the way: to declare that there is just one way to live the life of a hunter-gatherer, and that it's "simple".

mistermann 5y ago
As I see it (as someone fascinated with this phenomenon), this is somewhat of an example of what the author is talking about. The claim: >> The golden rule of hunter-gather life is pretty simple ...post-processing, is perceived as: > There are at least as many "hunter-gather lives" as there are tribes, and probably more, and it's very likely the author knows about none of them. ...dropping "the golden rule of". Ironically, this is followed up with: > This shows the author wasn't thinking and is intellectually lazy and incurious -- like if he was [laying out bigoted theories in the first paragraph], and making whole deductions out of it. I wrote more about a theory I have about this phenomenon in a recent thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29430192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29430192
- bambax 5y ago
  You're playing with words. The rest of the paragraph in TFA does describe the life of hunter-gatherers, not just one "golden rule" (which is never enunciated). > If you happen to be blessed with muscle, don’t throw it around. If you happen to be a great hunter or a dazzling beauty, don’t flaunt it over others. Be one of the good guys, in other words. This is completely gratuitous and unsubstantiated. It's ridiculous. And then there is more of the same.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    > You're playing with words. So you interpret and perceive (and then assert as True). But then, aren't we all "playing with words", at all times, to some degree? For example, I could say that you are "engaging in persuasive rhetoric" when you say that. >> If you happen to be blessed with muscle, don’t throw it around. If you happen to be a great hunter or a dazzling beauty, don’t flaunt it over others. Be one of the good guys, in other words. > This is completely gratuitous and unsubstantiated. It's ridiculous. And then there is more of the same. gratuitous: uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted Don't throw your muscle around, don't flaunt exceptional characteristics over others, be a good guy - in the building and maintenance of a successful community, these things are "uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted"? unsubstantiated: not supported or proven by evidence Here you have a better case, but when it comes to the "not supported by" part, I suspect these are not entirely new ideas in the fields of anthropology and social evolution (I speculate). Out of curiosity, did you read my other comment? I put a fair amount of work into it, and I believe it has some relevance. Perhaps you could critique it!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sharker8 5y ago
Agreed on that one can interpret the author's stance as bigoted because there is a cultivated myth here which is sentimental and all about how stories pre printing press were all about banding tribes together. People love this myth because it fits the mold of 'techno-optimism'. They were of course also about kinda boring things like record keeping about crops, but westerners ignore that and say those aren't stories because they don't have characters or something. As if we can generalize about things for which we have absolutely no record in many cases. Also as if western people invented the concept of a narrator (implied in this article but I've heard it elsewhere).