Hacker News Reader

Comment by ClayFerguson | Hacker News Reader

This makes perfect sense. There's a huge evolutionary advantage in calling attention to a bad actor (someone behaving in a way not advantageous to the tribe), because that person will either change, or be expelled from the group, or killed, which helps the group. However praising someone just makes them feel good, and is not a real motivator. Humans evolved to be violent and critical, because the tribes that didn't have that attribute got killed off, conquered, or died of starvation during hard times.

View on HN

Humans evolved meeting their survival needs collectively (in hunter-gatherer times). Language development aided this cooperative mode of production. So too would criticism and praise.

I've found reductionist social Darwinism lacks explanatory for these phenomena.

> "Humans evolved to be violent and critical, because the tribes that didn't have that attribute got killed off, conquered, or died of starvation during hard times."

Why are you so sure that it was competition and not cooperation that ensured the strength of a tribe?

Or to put it another way, could cooperation, even cooperation with those you dislike, also lead to a materially successful tribe?

Every time someone armchairs evolutionary psychology on the Internet my brainstem tries to curl in on itself.

It stands to reason that the brain structures we have without deliberate practice are not some reflection of our social context, but a neutral state of the human brain, what with your aptly demonstrating the phenomenon being discussed even in light of professing awareness of an alleged "hierarchical society based on relations of dominance".

Expressing exasperation isn't assigning blame.

I guess having a negative reaction and voicing it is "assigning blame". That seems watered out though.

And being aware of some dynamic is totally different from being free or above its influence.

Making sense is not enough to be scientific. You can make up a plausible evolutionary cause for virtually any behavior. It's almost impossible to test those hypotheses. It's exasperating to even try to hold a conversation when the opening is something as reductionist and anti-scientific as the grandparent post.

... I don't think you caught what I did there.

I think the future of popularity voting algorithms will have to include blame. I wan't to be able to blame and plonk someone who inserts Native Ads in my News Stream. Voting Algorithms are currently doing the opposite. Reputable News Outlets can shift blame to anonymous voters for pushing Ads.

> This makes perfect sense.

Just-so stories have that trait.

"There's a huge evolutionary advantage in calling attention to good actors (someone behaving a way which is advantegeous to the tribe), because that person will have that behaviour reinforced, and the social proof will motivate others to follow suite. This helps the group."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

Oh now, it can be fun to think about. :) Can't blame a pal for wanting to share.

Is that consistent with armchairing any unproven theory?

I think of this:

http://www.craigflint.com/graphics/illustrations/justsoeleph...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com