And I think this is a good example. The most typically human trait is flexibility because that is what intelligence generates.
This suggests your suffering from the arugment to mederation fallacy.
In the specific case when something is argued to be impossible, taking a middle way seems sensible: almost everything is possible, just often you have to throw the equivalent of a nuke on it, and then you will get all kinds of unwanted consequences.
we can change genders
Can we? It’s possible for say men, to cut of their peneses and declare themselves women.
Really I bet this is not new to you, you just pretend you have never heard the difference…
At least it is possible to isolate the factual analysis enough to see that it is false.
I find it far too optimistic but I figure neither of us has evidence here.
Um, are you actually familiar with the philosophies you listed or are you going by the popular caricatures?
Popular versions, yes, but they are not caricatures simply—more like what people actually believe in. Popularity matters. To give you a reverse example, some people argue the Soviets were never properly, really Communists or Marxist. This means, they did not really believe what some books said. Books matter. But actual history, what people actually do, often matters more. Soviet Communism was the kind of Communism that mattered, because this had nukes and the obscure kind of Communism that had only some books and debating groups mattered far less. The same thing with the ones I mentioned—they were far smarter than this, but based on them there is a popular view of a simplified “dog eat dog” world where everything is competition and winners take all and losers suck and cooperation does not worth for anything.
This jaded view was already disproved by Plato. Justice and efficiency go hand in hand and there is rarely lasting success without a lot of cooperation and fairness.
I often think the jaded views on the right horseshoe into the oppression-oriented views on the left quite nicely, the difference is largely about how to evaluate the same facts and how changable it is, but both extremes would say the world as we know it so far is usually pretty ugly. I think it is not, we are just under the spell of a huge yellow journalism bias. When someone murders their spouse, that is on TV evening news. When people cook their spouse their favorite food or take them to their favorite restaurant, that is not. Reporting is biased towards the negative, largely because it is biased towards the unusual, and it is far, far harder to do something unusually good than unusually bad. Unusually bad deeds are comparatively easy, destroying is easier than building, because things are on the whole pretty fragile. So most unusual i.e. reporting worthy things are bad. However, most usual things are good. Correct for this bias and you find that most human efforts were usually into cooperating and building and were generally constructive. For every one case where someone burned someone for witchcraft (unusual and bad move) there are a hundreds of cases where he just paid a decent price to the witch for an anti-coughing tea (usual and good, mutually beneficial exchange) and so on. Just this did not get reported on. Too usual.
So you’re arguing that the Albanian sworn virgins were (socially) men? The very fact that they were called “virgins”, thus appealing to the ideal of female virginity, should give you a clue. I thought you were smarter than that.
Popular versions, yes, but they are not caricatures simply—more like what people actually believe in. Popularity matters.
Depends on which people. What the followers of the philosophies believe matters, what most people believe about the followers, not so much.
This jaded view was already disproved by Plato. Justice and efficiency go hand in hand and there is rarely lasting success without a lot of cooperation and fairness.
I’m not sure who you think your arguing against here. It certainly isn’t (most of) the philosophies you listed.
So you’re claiming that any human will be just as healthy on any diet?
No, and building straw mans like that is not useful at all. I am just claiming most human groups learned to be healthy on almost any nutrients their environment managed to offer. I.e. flexibility, adaptation ability, due to intelligence.
So you’re arguing that the Albanian sworn virgins were (socially) men?
Yes, the article is very clear about that. What is your point really? There is nothing particularly magic or essential about social roles, although it is clear that hormones play a role in being more suitable or less suitable for them.
No, saying that even in the paleolithic they were adapted to wildly different diets, because they were intelligent and they could make the most of whatever grew near them. http://hells-ditch.com/2012/08/archaeologists-officially-declare-collective-sigh-over-paleo-diet/ If they found wild rice, that was okay. If they found whale blubber, that was also OK.
And I think this is a good example. The most typically human trait is flexibility because that is what intelligence generates.
In the specific case when something is argued to be impossible, taking a middle way seems sensible: almost everything is possible, just often you have to throw the equivalent of a nuke on it, and then you will get all kinds of unwanted consequences.
Come on, you are smarter than that, you know the difference between biological sex and social gender. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_sworn_virgins
Really I bet this is not new to you, you just pretend you have never heard the difference…
I find it far too optimistic but I figure neither of us has evidence here.
Popular versions, yes, but they are not caricatures simply—more like what people actually believe in. Popularity matters. To give you a reverse example, some people argue the Soviets were never properly, really Communists or Marxist. This means, they did not really believe what some books said. Books matter. But actual history, what people actually do, often matters more. Soviet Communism was the kind of Communism that mattered, because this had nukes and the obscure kind of Communism that had only some books and debating groups mattered far less. The same thing with the ones I mentioned—they were far smarter than this, but based on them there is a popular view of a simplified “dog eat dog” world where everything is competition and winners take all and losers suck and cooperation does not worth for anything.
This jaded view was already disproved by Plato. Justice and efficiency go hand in hand and there is rarely lasting success without a lot of cooperation and fairness.
I often think the jaded views on the right horseshoe into the oppression-oriented views on the left quite nicely, the difference is largely about how to evaluate the same facts and how changable it is, but both extremes would say the world as we know it so far is usually pretty ugly. I think it is not, we are just under the spell of a huge yellow journalism bias. When someone murders their spouse, that is on TV evening news. When people cook their spouse their favorite food or take them to their favorite restaurant, that is not. Reporting is biased towards the negative, largely because it is biased towards the unusual, and it is far, far harder to do something unusually good than unusually bad. Unusually bad deeds are comparatively easy, destroying is easier than building, because things are on the whole pretty fragile. So most unusual i.e. reporting worthy things are bad. However, most usual things are good. Correct for this bias and you find that most human efforts were usually into cooperating and building and were generally constructive. For every one case where someone burned someone for witchcraft (unusual and bad move) there are a hundreds of cases where he just paid a decent price to the witch for an anti-coughing tea (usual and good, mutually beneficial exchange) and so on. Just this did not get reported on. Too usual.
So you’re claiming that any human will be just as healthy on any diet?
So you’re arguing that the Albanian sworn virgins were (socially) men? The very fact that they were called “virgins”, thus appealing to the ideal of female virginity, should give you a clue. I thought you were smarter than that.
Depends on which people. What the followers of the philosophies believe matters, what most people believe about the followers, not so much.
I’m not sure who you think your arguing against here. It certainly isn’t (most of) the philosophies you listed.
No, and building straw mans like that is not useful at all. I am just claiming most human groups learned to be healthy on almost any nutrients their environment managed to offer. I.e. flexibility, adaptation ability, due to intelligence.
Yes, the article is very clear about that. What is your point really? There is nothing particularly magic or essential about social roles, although it is clear that hormones play a role in being more suitable or less suitable for them.