I like this post, I like the example, I like the point that science is newer than debate and so we’re probably more naturally inclined to debate. I don’t like the apparently baseless storytelling.
In the jungle of our evolutionary childhood, humanity formed groups to survive. In these groups there was a hierachy of importance, status and power. Predators, starvation, rival groups and disease all took the weak on a regular basis, but the groups afforded a partial protection. However, a violent or unpleasant death still remained a constant threat. It was of particular threat to the lowest and weakest members of the group. Sometimes these individuals were weak because they were physically weak. However, over time groups that allowed and rewarded things other than physical strength became more successful. In these groups, discussion played a much greater role in power and status. The truely strong individuals, the winners in this new arena were one’s that could direct converstation in their favour—conversations about who will do what, about who got what, and about who would be punished for what. Debates were fought with words, but they could end in death all the same.
I don’t know much about the environment of evolutionary adaptation, but it sounds like you don’t either. Jungle? Didn’t we live on the savannah? And forming groups for survival, it seems just as plausible that we formed groups for availability of mates.
If you don’t know what the EEA was like, why use it as an example? All you really know is about the modern world. I think reasoning about the modern world makes your point quite well in fact. There are still plenty of people living and dying dependent on their persuasive ability. For example, Adolf Hitler lived while Ernst Rohm died. And we can guess that it’s been like this since the beginning of humanity and that this has bred us to have certain behaviors.
I think this reasoning is a lot more reliable, in fact, than imagining what the EEA was like without any education in the subject.
Maybe I’m being pedantic—the middle of the post is structured as a story, a chronology. It definitely reads nicely that way.
It didn’t even occur to me to interpret “In the jungle of” literally, to the point that I didn’t even notice it contained the word “jungle” until I Ctrl-F’d for it.
And forming groups for survival, it seems just as plausible that we formed groups for availability of mates.
Genetically speaking mate-availability is a component to survival. My understanding of the forces that increased group size is that they are more complex than either of these (big groups win conflicts for terrritory, but food availability (via tool use) and travel speed are limiting factors I believe—big groups only work if you can access a lot of food and move on before stripping the place barren), but I was writing a very short characterisation and I’m happy to acknowledge minor innacuracies. Perhaps I’ll think about tightening up the language or removing that part as you suggest—I probably wrote that it far too casually.
For example, Adolf Hitler lived while Ernst Rohm died
Nice example. Although Hitler did die anyway. And I think a decent part of the reason was his inability to reason effectively and make strategically sound decisions. Of course I think most people are kinda glad he was strategically irrational… In any case I think you’re right the charisma is still useful but my suggestion is that truth-seeking (science etc) has increased in usefulness over time, whereas charisma is probably roughly the same as it has been for a long time.
structured as a story, a chronology
Perhaps I should make the winning section more storylike to make focus on its point rather than it being a scientific guide to that subtopic. Or maybe I just need to rethink it… The core point seems to have been received well at least.
...my suggestion is that truth-seeking (science etc) has increased in usefulness over time, whereas charisma is probably roughly the same as it has been for a long time.
Yes, and I think it’s a good suggestion. I think I can phrase my real objection better now.
My objection is that I don’t think this article gives any evidence for that suggestion. The historical storytelling is a nice illustration, but I don’t think it’s evidence.
I don’t think it’s evidence because I don’t expect evolutionary reasoning at this shallow a depth to produce reliable results. Historical storytelling can justify all sorts of things, and if it justifies your suggestion, that doesn’t really mean anything to me.
A link to a more detailed evolutionary argument written by someone else, or even just a link to a Wikipedia article on the general concept, would have changed this. But what’s here is just evolutionary/historical storytelling like I’ve seen justifying all sorts of incorrect conclusions, and the only difference is that I happen to agree with the conclusion.
If you just want to illustrate something that you expect your readers to already believe, this is fine. If you want to convince anybody you’d need a different article.
Cheers now that we’ve narrowed down our differences that’s some really constructive feedback. I think I intended it primarily as a illustration and assume that most people in this context would probably already agree with that perspective, though this could be a bad assumption and it probably makes the argument seem pretty sloppy in any case. It’ll definitely need refinement, so thanks.
I like this post, I like the example, I like the point that science is newer than debate and so we’re probably more naturally inclined to debate. I don’t like the apparently baseless storytelling.
I don’t know much about the environment of evolutionary adaptation, but it sounds like you don’t either. Jungle? Didn’t we live on the savannah? And forming groups for survival, it seems just as plausible that we formed groups for availability of mates.
If you don’t know what the EEA was like, why use it as an example? All you really know is about the modern world. I think reasoning about the modern world makes your point quite well in fact. There are still plenty of people living and dying dependent on their persuasive ability. For example, Adolf Hitler lived while Ernst Rohm died. And we can guess that it’s been like this since the beginning of humanity and that this has bred us to have certain behaviors.
I think this reasoning is a lot more reliable, in fact, than imagining what the EEA was like without any education in the subject.
Maybe I’m being pedantic—the middle of the post is structured as a story, a chronology. It definitely reads nicely that way.
It didn’t even occur to me to interpret “In the jungle of” literally, to the point that I didn’t even notice it contained the word “jungle” until I Ctrl-F’d for it.
The metaphor’s going over my head. Don’t feel obligated to explain though, I’m only mildly curious. But know that it’s not obvious to everyone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungle#As_metaphor
Well that was a straightforward answer.
(I think the last time I heard the word “jungle” used literally to refer to rainforest was probably in Jumanji.)
(last time I heard the word “jungle” was a Peruvian guy saying his dad grew up in the jungle and telling me about Peruvian native marriage traditions)
I thought it was near the ocean...
LOL it was just a turn of phrase.
Genetically speaking mate-availability is a component to survival. My understanding of the forces that increased group size is that they are more complex than either of these (big groups win conflicts for terrritory, but food availability (via tool use) and travel speed are limiting factors I believe—big groups only work if you can access a lot of food and move on before stripping the place barren), but I was writing a very short characterisation and I’m happy to acknowledge minor innacuracies. Perhaps I’ll think about tightening up the language or removing that part as you suggest—I probably wrote that it far too casually.
Nice example. Although Hitler did die anyway. And I think a decent part of the reason was his inability to reason effectively and make strategically sound decisions. Of course I think most people are kinda glad he was strategically irrational… In any case I think you’re right the charisma is still useful but my suggestion is that truth-seeking (science etc) has increased in usefulness over time, whereas charisma is probably roughly the same as it has been for a long time.
Perhaps I should make the winning section more storylike to make focus on its point rather than it being a scientific guide to that subtopic. Or maybe I just need to rethink it… The core point seems to have been received well at least.
Yes, and I think it’s a good suggestion. I think I can phrase my real objection better now.
My objection is that I don’t think this article gives any evidence for that suggestion. The historical storytelling is a nice illustration, but I don’t think it’s evidence.
I don’t think it’s evidence because I don’t expect evolutionary reasoning at this shallow a depth to produce reliable results. Historical storytelling can justify all sorts of things, and if it justifies your suggestion, that doesn’t really mean anything to me.
A link to a more detailed evolutionary argument written by someone else, or even just a link to a Wikipedia article on the general concept, would have changed this. But what’s here is just evolutionary/historical storytelling like I’ve seen justifying all sorts of incorrect conclusions, and the only difference is that I happen to agree with the conclusion.
If you just want to illustrate something that you expect your readers to already believe, this is fine. If you want to convince anybody you’d need a different article.
Cheers now that we’ve narrowed down our differences that’s some really constructive feedback. I think I intended it primarily as a illustration and assume that most people in this context would probably already agree with that perspective, though this could be a bad assumption and it probably makes the argument seem pretty sloppy in any case. It’ll definitely need refinement, so thanks.
EDIT> My reply attracted downvotes? Odd.