4 ms·
Quoting your own source: > However, independently of the emergence of inclusive fitness theory, from 1960s onwards many anthropologists themselves had reexamin
by drewdevault 3y ago
Quoting your own source:
> However, independently of the emergence of inclusive fitness theory, from 1960s onwards many anthropologists themselves had reexamined the balance of findings in their own ethnographic data and had begun to reject the notion that human kinship is 'caused by' blood ties (see Kinship). Anthropologists have gathered very extensive ethnographic data on human social patterns and behaviour over a century or more, from a wide spectrum of different cultural groups. The data demonstrates that many cultures do not consider 'blood ties' (in the genealogical sense) to underlie their close social relationships and kinship bonds. Instead social bonds are often considered to be based on location-based shared circumstances including living together (co-residence), sleeping close together, working together, sharing food (commensality) and other forms of shared life together. Comparative anthropologists have shown[6] that these aspects of shared circumstances are a significant component of what influences kinship in most human cultures, notwithstanding whether or not 'blood ties' are necessarily present (see Nurture kinship, below).
I like how easy you and p-e-w are making it to debunk your argument by citing a bunch of sources that don't support you. I think you're just racist conservatives making up facts from whole cloth to support some narrative of deintegration.
- jrmg 3y agoI think you're just racist conservatives making up facts from whole cloth to support some narrative of deintegration. I’ve been trying to discuss with them on the merits of their argument, but having thought on this overnight I agree with you. All their big argumentation and lofty words are, at their base, seemingly trying to defend a basic position that it’s okay - perhaps even desirable - to base desire to associate with someone solely on their ‘shape’ (obviously, skin color).
- jojobas 3y agoTrying to fight innate behaviours doesn't get you far, and this is certainly an innate behaviour. What becomes in-group and out-group depends on nurture, the concept of in-group itself is older than trees.
- jojobas 3y agoOk, unrelated dissimilar people can sometimes become in-group to each other. The fact is they don't more often than they do. People from different cultures rarely find each other suited enough for friendship, naturally stay apart and normally only form this sort of bonds under external circumstances. Hell, even French-speaking and Dutch-speaking Belgians consider each other "other".
- p-e-w 3y agoI don't really care that you call me racist (that term has long ago ceased to mean anything other than "I don't like what you say"), and your use of conservative as a slur will be familiar to anyone following political discussions on Reddit or Mastodon. But everything I wrote can be summarized thus: I'm unconvinced by the dogmatic assumption that diversity itself is a positive thing. It's rather disappointing that on HN, where members regularly congratulate themselves on being able to examine viewpoints on their merits alone, you have chosen to drag this conversation into the mud with personal attacks. I will not engage in such behavior myself, and this pretty much concludes the matter for me.