3 ms·

It was really interesting to see Season 2 of the Island (men vs women). The most interesting part was not how much women failed to survive, and how successful

It was really interesting to see Season 2 of the Island (men vs women). The most interesting part was not how much women failed to survive, and how successful men were (which makes sense, as men are designed for survival), but the feeling of how much easier in that world is to show the need for masculanity (which is mostly not needed anymore).

anotherman554 3y ago
>>> which makes sense, as men are designed for survival Evolution doesn't only "design" a single sex for survival. (With the possible, arguable exception of some insect species.)
- yarg 3y ago
  No, but it designed men with very few compromises (as far as auto-adversarial hill-climbing algorithms go). Women are structured as a compromise between their own needs and the needs of their children.
  - anotherman554 3y ago
    Women live longer than men on average so this line of thinking that men are optimized for survival, as opposed to women, is pretty darn silly. (Neither is more or less optimized.)
    - yarg 3y ago
      Expected lifespan and the ability to survive dangerous situations are two very different things. If you think for an instant that men and women aren't optimised for very different scenarios, then think harder. Seriously, you can tell just by looking at us. Or do you think that child bearing hips and big vulnerable mammaries are useful things to have in situations that call for physical action (other than birthing and feeding infants)?
      - anotherman554 3y ago
        Among gorillas and baboons, species in which males fight for reproductive opportunities feature males twice as big as females, while among pair- bonded gibbons that fight much less, males are just 10 percent bigger than females. As I understand it men have greater strength because they are optimized to fight other men for reproductive opportunity. This doesn't increase their opportunities for survival since fighting other men can get you killed. It increases their opportunities to reproduce. Our advantages in a hostile environmental come from building tools not physical strength. If physical strength was important a male human would not be 5 times weaker than a gorilla. So no, I would not say men are "designed" to survive on an island better than women, or whatever. They are designed to fight other men in a zero sum game.
        yarg 3y ago
        You seem hell bent on asserting some false equivalency between the physical prowess of men and women. What possible reason you'd have for making such patently ridiculous claims is truly beyond me. > So no, I would not say men are "designed" to survive on an island better than women, or whatever. They are designed to fight other men in a zero sum game. False dichotomy. Also, what fraction of explorers do you think were men? Pretty much fucking all of them. We don't get pregnant, so having children is not a physical inconvenience and (as I mentioned elsewhere) half of us can die without impacting the next generation's population. If you think that men and women had the same evolutionary imperative to develop the skills required for navigating strange environments then you're not adequately considering the innumerable trade-offs involved.
        anotherman554 3y ago
        Do explorers survive better than people who migrate to new locations with their families, or something?
        yarg 3y ago
        > Do explorers survive better than people who migrate to new locations with their families, or something? No, they die far more often. Because they enter unknown risky situations. Humans explore in search of new lands and resources, and in search of safe paths. When they take the more vulnerable members of the tribe, they generally have a better idea of where they're going, what the path is, and what risks are involved. If a path is too dangerous then they don't tend to take pregnant women and small children. So because it is primarily adult or adolescent males that go on the more risky adventures, they're the ones that have the costly adaptations required to maximise the likelihood of survival.
defrost 3y ago
Really makes you wonder how the Pintupi Nine survived one of the world's harshest environment's with no adult males. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30500591 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30500591 I suspect any of the western desert women would merrily laugh and wiggle their little finger were they to hear you speak.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  This entire argument is a bit silly, but FWIW, four of the nine were teenage males.
- xiphias2 3y ago
  Thanks for finding an _exception_. If you look at the series, they took 14 random people for each group and gave them 2 days of survival training and basic helper tools. Just looking at how the men killed the crocodile in a team work with their bare hands first time in their life without any help from experts looked awesome.

anotherman554 3y ago

>>> which makes sense, as men are designed for survival Evolution doesn't only "design" a single sex for survival. (With the possible, arguable exception of some insect species.)

yarg 3y ago
No, but it designed men with very few compromises (as far as auto-adversarial hill-climbing algorithms go). Women are structured as a compromise between their own needs and the needs of their children.
- anotherman554 3y ago
  Women live longer than men on average so this line of thinking that men are optimized for survival, as opposed to women, is pretty darn silly. (Neither is more or less optimized.)
  - yarg 3y ago
    Expected lifespan and the ability to survive dangerous situations are two very different things. If you think for an instant that men and women aren't optimised for very different scenarios, then think harder. Seriously, you can tell just by looking at us. Or do you think that child bearing hips and big vulnerable mammaries are useful things to have in situations that call for physical action (other than birthing and feeding infants)?
    - anotherman554 3y ago
      Among gorillas and baboons, species in which males fight for reproductive opportunities feature males twice as big as females, while among pair- bonded gibbons that fight much less, males are just 10 percent bigger than females. As I understand it men have greater strength because they are optimized to fight other men for reproductive opportunity. This doesn't increase their opportunities for survival since fighting other men can get you killed. It increases their opportunities to reproduce. Our advantages in a hostile environmental come from building tools not physical strength. If physical strength was important a male human would not be 5 times weaker than a gorilla. So no, I would not say men are "designed" to survive on an island better than women, or whatever. They are designed to fight other men in a zero sum game.
      - yarg 3y ago
        You seem hell bent on asserting some false equivalency between the physical prowess of men and women. What possible reason you'd have for making such patently ridiculous claims is truly beyond me. > So no, I would not say men are "designed" to survive on an island better than women, or whatever. They are designed to fight other men in a zero sum game. False dichotomy. Also, what fraction of explorers do you think were men? Pretty much fucking all of them. We don't get pregnant, so having children is not a physical inconvenience and (as I mentioned elsewhere) half of us can die without impacting the next generation's population. If you think that men and women had the same evolutionary imperative to develop the skills required for navigating strange environments then you're not adequately considering the innumerable trade-offs involved.
        anotherman554 3y ago
        Do explorers survive better than people who migrate to new locations with their families, or something?
        yarg 3y ago
        > Do explorers survive better than people who migrate to new locations with their families, or something? No, they die far more often. Because they enter unknown risky situations. Humans explore in search of new lands and resources, and in search of safe paths. When they take the more vulnerable members of the tribe, they generally have a better idea of where they're going, what the path is, and what risks are involved. If a path is too dangerous then they don't tend to take pregnant women and small children. So because it is primarily adult or adolescent males that go on the more risky adventures, they're the ones that have the costly adaptations required to maximise the likelihood of survival.

defrost 3y ago

Really makes you wonder how the Pintupi Nine survived one of the world's harshest environment's with no adult males. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30500591 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30500591 I suspect any of the western desert women would merrily laugh and wiggle their little finger were they to hear you speak.

paulddraper 3y ago
This entire argument is a bit silly, but FWIW, four of the nine were teenage males.
xiphias2 3y ago
Thanks for finding an _exception_. If you look at the series, they took 14 random people for each group and gave them 2 days of survival training and basic helper tools. Just looking at how the men killed the crocodile in a team work with their bare hands first time in their life without any help from experts looked awesome.