3 ms·

> Tagging is as old as ... Many animals mark their domain by peeing around. So "tagging" may have biological roots

ggm 4y ago
Desmond Morris would agree. "the naked ape" pretty much said it's all down to genes.
thaumasiotes 4y ago
> So "tagging" may have biological roots Everything anyone does has biological roots. There is no part of any living thing that doesn't have biological roots. That's what "biology" is.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Technically correct, in that biology created a brain capable of learning non-genetic information. But, personally, I think if a behaviour is learned rather than e.g. a genetically programmed reflex, it's useful to draw a line between them and say that the former isn't biological in origin.
  - cjbgkagh 4y ago
    Having worked in behavioral analytics at scale the most surprising aspect is how much of it is purely genetic. There is a lot of emergent complexity that looks unique but really isn’t, simply variations on a theme. But an individual is unlikely to meet enough people to see the trends in the long tail. Clustering at scale along with the birthday paradox will give you a bunch of people with the same rare behavior and usually you can drill down and find there is quite a lot of genetic similarities as well.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      I can absolutely believe that. In general I wouldn't want to guess which behaviours are in each category, but from e.g. the things dogs and cats do that seem fundamentally weird to humans and vice versa, I expect many genetic behaviours to exist. Going upthread a bit, I would expect tagging to be genetic, as it seems similar to other territorial markings created by other species. But I don't expect e.g. the specific shapes of Futhark runes to be, as the straight edges look like merely the easiest shapes to carve into rock and other writing systems aren't limited to those shapes even when (e.g. Egyptian hieroglyphics) they are carved.
      - cjbgkagh 4y ago
        Oh yeah, specific shapes of runes are not genetic, those are taught, I didn’t think we were drawing the line that far over. Modern society has chosen to underplay the role of genetics for seemingly quasi religious reasons, it’s as if we’ve gone back to using the soul to explain things. Basically every time I spotted unusual behavior in search logs I found out that people searching were way more related then they’re supposed to be. Socially taboo behaviors were used as a baseline as there are things that people will not tell each other but will tell a search engine.
        ben_w 4y ago
        > I didn’t think we were drawing the line that far over Don't worry, I'm agreeing with you — I chose to use the example of shapes of runes as something unambiguously on the "learned" side, not as something close to the dividing line :) > Socially taboo behaviors were used as a baseline as there are things that people will not tell each other but will tell a search engine. That's piqued my curiosity. While on the basis of past experience I may regret asking… do you have a link to any results of this research?
        cjbgkagh 4y ago
        The kind of stuff I wouldn’t even put in an email. I did confer with colleagues from a variety of companies doing similar work and they saw similar things, it’s the kind of thing that pops up quite frequently even when not looking for it. Essentially many of the base assumptions society has agreed upon are wrong. In order to maintain that belief the messengers are crucified, so smart people who know keep it to themselves. It has a more personal link for me as I have one of the more distinct and rare genetic personalities and come from a long line of unusually smart assholes. It turns out clEDS causes a great deal of pain and when you complain about it people will tell you it’s normal, and how are we to know it’s not. Overtime it’ll change your brain chemistry and sabotage your life to the point you do become an asshole. There is also a strong link to intelligence, there is a fringe theory of RCCX genes explaining giftedness and I was one of those profoundly gifted children (clEDS is a recessive TNXB mutation, though I believe the official classification is wrong and the particular sub type of TNXB mutation matters). At school I was warned that people that gifted usually hit a wall pretty early on due to burnout, but really it’s chronic fatigue that starts to get really bad in the mid 20s. So it seems to be a Faustian bargain and I guess if given the choice I would chose it again, it certainly makes life more interesting. I hope that overtime I can figure out a solution to the pain, I’ve done much better than most and hope I’ll be able to avoid turning into an asshole, though some may say too late…
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > But, personally, I think if a behaviour is learned rather than e.g. a genetically programmed reflex, it's useful to draw a line between them and say that the former isn't biological in origin. That will lead you into all kinds of obvious mistakes. The things you're capable of learning are set by your biology too.
    - galaxyLogic 4y ago
      The biology will give you the capability but not what you actually learn from others. That is called culture I believe.
      - thaumasiotes 4y ago
        Ever seen two people read the same story, watch the same TV show, or observe the same real-life event, and come to opposite conclusions?
        ben_w 4y ago
        Frequently, but even just priming is sufficient to cause that observation. The existence of magnetic hysteresis doesn't make it pointless to draw a line between natural and artificial magnets.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      The line I draw has never resulted in me being unaware of that. (Rather the opposite: I have a long-standing fascination with the idea of genuinely unthinkable thoughts, thoughts which cannot be had no matter what). So, while I would for example say that my capacity for complex language is biological in origin, I think it is more useful to describe my knowledge of Esperanto as not biological in origin.

ggm 4y ago

Desmond Morris would agree. "the naked ape" pretty much said it's all down to genes.

> So "tagging" may have biological roots Everything anyone does has biological roots. There is no part of any living thing that doesn't have biological roots. That's what "biology" is.

ben_w 4y ago
Technically correct, in that biology created a brain capable of learning non-genetic information. But, personally, I think if a behaviour is learned rather than e.g. a genetically programmed reflex, it's useful to draw a line between them and say that the former isn't biological in origin.
- cjbgkagh 4y ago
  Having worked in behavioral analytics at scale the most surprising aspect is how much of it is purely genetic. There is a lot of emergent complexity that looks unique but really isn’t, simply variations on a theme. But an individual is unlikely to meet enough people to see the trends in the long tail. Clustering at scale along with the birthday paradox will give you a bunch of people with the same rare behavior and usually you can drill down and find there is quite a lot of genetic similarities as well.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    I can absolutely believe that. In general I wouldn't want to guess which behaviours are in each category, but from e.g. the things dogs and cats do that seem fundamentally weird to humans and vice versa, I expect many genetic behaviours to exist. Going upthread a bit, I would expect tagging to be genetic, as it seems similar to other territorial markings created by other species. But I don't expect e.g. the specific shapes of Futhark runes to be, as the straight edges look like merely the easiest shapes to carve into rock and other writing systems aren't limited to those shapes even when (e.g. Egyptian hieroglyphics) they are carved.
    - cjbgkagh 4y ago
      Oh yeah, specific shapes of runes are not genetic, those are taught, I didn’t think we were drawing the line that far over. Modern society has chosen to underplay the role of genetics for seemingly quasi religious reasons, it’s as if we’ve gone back to using the soul to explain things. Basically every time I spotted unusual behavior in search logs I found out that people searching were way more related then they’re supposed to be. Socially taboo behaviors were used as a baseline as there are things that people will not tell each other but will tell a search engine.
      - ben_w 4y ago
        > I didn’t think we were drawing the line that far over Don't worry, I'm agreeing with you — I chose to use the example of shapes of runes as something unambiguously on the "learned" side, not as something close to the dividing line :) > Socially taboo behaviors were used as a baseline as there are things that people will not tell each other but will tell a search engine. That's piqued my curiosity. While on the basis of past experience I may regret asking… do you have a link to any results of this research?
        cjbgkagh 4y ago
        The kind of stuff I wouldn’t even put in an email. I did confer with colleagues from a variety of companies doing similar work and they saw similar things, it’s the kind of thing that pops up quite frequently even when not looking for it. Essentially many of the base assumptions society has agreed upon are wrong. In order to maintain that belief the messengers are crucified, so smart people who know keep it to themselves. It has a more personal link for me as I have one of the more distinct and rare genetic personalities and come from a long line of unusually smart assholes. It turns out clEDS causes a great deal of pain and when you complain about it people will tell you it’s normal, and how are we to know it’s not. Overtime it’ll change your brain chemistry and sabotage your life to the point you do become an asshole. There is also a strong link to intelligence, there is a fringe theory of RCCX genes explaining giftedness and I was one of those profoundly gifted children (clEDS is a recessive TNXB mutation, though I believe the official classification is wrong and the particular sub type of TNXB mutation matters). At school I was warned that people that gifted usually hit a wall pretty early on due to burnout, but really it’s chronic fatigue that starts to get really bad in the mid 20s. So it seems to be a Faustian bargain and I guess if given the choice I would chose it again, it certainly makes life more interesting. I hope that overtime I can figure out a solution to the pain, I’ve done much better than most and hope I’ll be able to avoid turning into an asshole, though some may say too late…
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > But, personally, I think if a behaviour is learned rather than e.g. a genetically programmed reflex, it's useful to draw a line between them and say that the former isn't biological in origin. That will lead you into all kinds of obvious mistakes. The things you're capable of learning are set by your biology too.
  - galaxyLogic 4y ago
    The biology will give you the capability but not what you actually learn from others. That is called culture I believe.
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      Ever seen two people read the same story, watch the same TV show, or observe the same real-life event, and come to opposite conclusions?
      - ben_w 4y ago
        Frequently, but even just priming is sufficient to cause that observation. The existence of magnetic hysteresis doesn't make it pointless to draw a line between natural and artificial magnets.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    The line I draw has never resulted in me being unaware of that. (Rather the opposite: I have a long-standing fascination with the idea of genuinely unthinkable thoughts, thoughts which cannot be had no matter what). So, while I would for example say that my capacity for complex language is biological in origin, I think it is more useful to describe my knowledge of Esperanto as not biological in origin.