1
2

Evolutionary Psychology vs Feminism/Psychology (self.INTP)

sockretes が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順q&a
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]BlueBirdBlow 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (79子コメント)

Well I see two major problems here but first let me say that I do agree that a lot of psychologists forget to counter in evolutionary factors and look at humans as an anthropologist would and instead look at them like they some special mystical creatures. With that said, there is a unique thing that we can do as humans and that is going against instinct by using rational, logical thought processes. It is also worth mentioning that while we are "preprogrammed" to do something in certain ways we are not "preprogrammed" to be sexist or patriarchal. Prejudice is a construct of our minds and while in once served to help keep us safe by not interacting with dangerous groups of humans it isn't needed any more and we can't just accept that it is part of us and let it run rampant destroying the quality of life of those we deem "inferior."

[–]TotesMessenger 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This thread has been linked to from another place on reddit.

If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote. (Info / Contact)

[–]RevolPeej -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (67子コメント)

We're not programmed to be patriarchal yet nearly every culture ever known and which exists today is? I don't understand how you can come to such a conclusion.

It can't just be based on basic anatomical differences such as size and strength, either. If that were the case, villages, cities, empires and civilizations would of all been ruled by young men as they're the most physically capable, but this has never been the case. The rulers have always been elder males.

Science doesn't quite know why nearly every culture puts men in charge, but it certainly does not argue that the patriarchy is some cultural invention.

[–]narrenburgBhye! 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (47子コメント)

We're not programmed to be patriarchal yet nearly every culture ever known and which exists today is?

By this logic, capitalist market societies are natural because almost all societies have that kind of economy. If that were true, what took so long, and why is there so much resistance to capitalism in the past and present?

[–]ArstanWhitebeard -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (27子コメント)

capitalist market societies are natural because almost all societies have that kind of economy. If that were true, what took so long, and why is there so much resistance to capitalism in the past and present?

Why on earth do you think capitalism didn't exist in the past? Capitalism is just free trade. Bartering systems were capitalistic. This was natural -- this was how people improved their lots. Societies as such didn't exist until much later. As for why people resist capitalism, I'm not sure what you're looking for: just because trade is a natural feature of improving one's life doesn't mean there aren't other ways to improve it more or other factors that might prevent people from wanting to trade, e.g. fear, jealousy, intuitions about "fairness" or "equality," etc.

[–]narrenburgBhye! 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Even a WP level of understanding of capitalism is sufficient to falsify this. «Capitalism is just free trade» and «capitalism is natural» are some of the funniest myths out there.

[–]ArstanWhitebeard -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

How are you defining capitalism then?

[–]narrenburgBhye! 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

  • Trade, industries and means of production being privately owned (no commons allowed),
  • Private property and meticulous codification of private property law,
  • Wage labor,
  • Capital accumulation, and
  • Fully competitive markets

[–]DruggedOutCommunist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (22子コメント)

Bartering systems were capitalistic. This was natural -- this was how people improved their lots. Societies as such didn't exist until much later.

This hypothesis is actually questioned by modern anthropology. It's now hypothesized that systems of credit came first, then currency, then systems of barter.

[–]huntmaster89 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Graeber's views are very far from mainstream in his field, and are at odds with a great deal of research and literature. His claims have not gone unresponded, by economists and anthropologists alike, I wouldn't jump to too many conclusions. I won't go into the arguments here, but don't just take his claims for granted.

[–]ArstanWhitebeard 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

That makes perfect sense, but of course "credit" is a form of trade in the sense that I meant it, isn't it, a form of barter? If I and another two men went out to hunt and came back with enough meat to happily feed 10 people, then I can "trade" my excess meat to those who have none. Even if the person with whom I'm trading doesn't have anything to give back to me immediately, I'm still getting things in return: status (I'm known as a generous/productive person), insurance (if I get sick, others will be more likely to take care of me), mate quantity/quality, and perhaps other benefits down the road.

[–]DruggedOutCommunist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

That makes perfect sense, but of course "credit" is a form of trade in the sense that I meant it, isn't it, a form of barter?

No, barter has a very specific meaning, and stretching the definition doesn't make your argument valid. Not to mention, Capitalism also has a very specific definition, redefining it to simply mean "trade" is stupid.

[–]ArstanWhitebeard 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

No, barter has a very specific meaning, and stretching the definition doesn't make your argument valid.

What I meant by "barter" and what my argument was are two quite different things. If it's the case that the word "barter" means something different than the way in which I used it, that doesn't actually make my argument wrong. What it means is that I used the wrong word to describe a particular state of affairs. Those state of affairs are still accurate, though, so my argument remains intact.

Not to mention, Capitalism also has a very specific definition, redefining it to simply mean "trade" is stupid.

Again, however you want to define capitalism is sort of irrelevant to the point.

See this

[–]DruggedOutCommunist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

If it's the case that the word "barter" means something different than the way in which I used it, that doesn't actually make my argument wrong.

No it doesn't, but your argument is wrong because it's goes contrary to what modern anthropology tells us about early human societies. Graeber even mentions this in his book.

The author claims that debt and credit historically appeared before money, which itself appeared before barter. This is the opposite of the narrative given in standard economics texts dating back to Adam Smith. To support this, he cites numerous historical, ethnographic and archaeological studies. He also claims that the standard economics texts cite no evidence for suggesting that barter came before money, credit and debt, and he has seen no credible reports suggesting such.

.

Again, however you want to define capitalism is sort of irrelevant to the point.

It's entirely central to the point if you are claiming that any society that has systems of voluntary exchange are somehow "Capitalist".

[–]ArstanWhitebeard 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

No it doesn't, but your argument is wrong because it's goes contrary to what modern anthropology tells us about early human societies.

That's simply not true. My argument is actually just straight from evolutionary theory and optimal foraging theory, which are both used by evolutionary anthropologists.

Graeber even mentions this in his book.

But none of what's said in his book that you've quoted speaks to my argument, which is that humans have natural tendencies towards economic behaviors that increase their reproduction. Whether the first ever behaviors were issuing "credit," paying "money" for goods and services, or "bartering" is entirely irrelevant.

It's entirely central to the point if you are claiming that any society that has systems of voluntary exchange are somehow "Capitalist".

However you define "capitalism" is totally irrelevant to whether free and voluntary exchange is "natural," which is my position. I'm not interested in quibbling over the "proper" definition of capitalism or whether voluntary trade and exchange is more "capitalist" than some other system or word.

[–]huntmaster89 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're on the right path here. "credit" is simply a form of mutual exchange that occurs over time, as opposed to on the spot transactions. People would give things to someone they know with the expectation of a returning favour at a later time. Such arrangements were more flexible than on the spot bartering, which is why they were more widespread. The evolution of currency allowed for even greater flexibility of exchange, but prior to this credit exchange such as via gift economy existed. Basically, the prevailing form of trade/exchange has gradually improved in human societies as they evolved over time.

[–]MouonINTP 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Voluntary exchange of some kind though, has always existed, even if its voluntary exchange of gifts and favours. It exists even authority tries to stamp it out, like black markets, POW camps etc. It emerges and when allowed to flourishes develops into to more and more complex economic phenomena over time, and what you get is, prosperity.

[–]DruggedOutCommunist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Voluntary exchange of some kind though, has always existed, even if its voluntary exchange of gifts and favours.

Sure, but that's not what was being argued. Capitalism cannot be simply reduced to "voluntary exchange".

[–]MouonINTP 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Firstly, I don't consider 'capitalism' to be a valid concept, since it was invented by socialists. I talk of free markets are voluntary exchange.

Voluntary exchange is a form of voluntary interaction, which in turn is a form of emergent/spontaneous order. When it is allowed to flourish, from basic fundementals of voluntary exchange develop more complex economic phenomena, till you start getting all sorts of different businesses and voluntary institutions emerging fulfilling different roles, currency emerging since its more conducive to free markets, basic banks emerging, etc. As this goes on the equilibrium wage rises (relative to inflation [if inflation is even a problem in a free market without economic crises - look up the austrian business cycle theory]), and people get lifted out of poverty until poverty no longer exists, and from there humanity colonizes the stars via free market prosperity.

[–]DruggedOutCommunist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Firstly, I don't consider 'capitalism' to be a valid concept, since it was invented by socialists. I talk of free markets are voluntary exchange.

Then why comment when we were explicitly talking about Capitalism, not markets.

Also the term voluntary is entirely subjective and what one may consider voluntary, others may consider coercive. Indentured servitude and debt peonage are examples of this.

[–]MouonINTP -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Then why comment when we were explicitly talking about Capitalism, not markets.

Because the person means markets, not capitalism, like most advocates of free markets, he just is a bit confused about terminology.

the term voluntary is entirely subjective

Not really its pretty clear what it means. Basically where its two or more people choosing to interact, and no one is imposing it coercively. What we all understand as voluntary.

[–]TotesMessenger -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This thread has been linked to from another place on reddit.

If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote. (Info / Contact)

[–]RevolPeej -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (17子コメント)

Capitalism is ancient. It's been around for thousands of years. When trade routes between, say, India and China opened up the costs of goods in each respective place was affected by market valuation. Silk was rarer in India, hence the demand was higher, supply was lower, making the price higher. This is in no way different than how we operate today.

If you're arguing for why democracy came later (capitalism is a monetary system, not a political one), then it's because empires are far more stable political machines. They can use brute force and extreme taxation to quell rebellions and control their subjects. Their people do not have a say in governance. Though not as extreme as ancient empires, modern China is still a politically communist country which plays by the global capitalist rules. One reason they are so able to undercut prices, thus manipulating the market, is because of their governments control of production. For the workforce, this is a crappy situation. For the country as a whole, it means growth.

[–]narrenburgBhye! 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Saying «capitalism is ancient» still doesn't explain how capitalism is natural (which, by the way, is different from saying capitalism is inevitable).

Also, Silk Road isn't capitalism. You know why? Capitalism is characterized by:

  • Trade, industries and means of production being privately owned (no commons allowed),

  • Private property and meticulous codification of private property law,

  • Wage labor,

  • Capital accumulation, and

  • Fully competitive markets

Words have meanings, and it doesn't help to redefine them on the spot to fit a narrative.

[–]RevolPeej -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Did humans create it? Ok, then it's natural.

Capitalism is thousands of years old and people have been "punching the clock" for just as long.

You're arguing that every ancient society did not have private property or means of production. Athenians, men of the right class, at least, possessed the right to own private property.

I understand how my China example doesn't quite pass muster in a by the book definition such as you supplied, but the Chinese do participate in global economy which is based on capitalism. How can a country participate in a system yet not participate in that system? It just doesn't follow. I sort of feel like Rodney Dangerfield in "Back to School" when he tells the business professor his by the book business strategies don't have any real world application.

[–]3teers -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

There isn't a solid consensus of what exactly capitalism is. It's established that capitalism is production and trade by private means. I would argue that this could exist without private property laws, and despite high rates of theft would still fit under "capitalism."

I don't like the "natural" argument because everything in the physical world is "natural" including human culture. Kind of a meaningless characterization.

I would argue that socialism requires a coercive state structure (government) and is further from the "default" position where you have people engaging in peaceful, voluntary contracts with each other.

[–]narrenburgBhye! 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I would argue that socialism requires a coercive state structure

It doesn't.

peaceful, voluntary contracts with each other.

That primitive accumulation was sure peaceful!

the "default" position

If it lasted for less than 10% of human history, how can it be the default position?

[–]huntmaster89 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Socialist societies have never existed for any meaningful duration without coercion. Even the anarcho-communist commities of the Spanish civil war ended up banning any market activity, with the small scale 'councils' functioning as miniture states, and authoritarian one's at that. http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm

[–]narrenburgBhye! 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

(edit:) Nobody is saying you can have a society with zero coercion. Not even anarcho-communists!

How were the workers councils in Spain institutions with monopolies on the legitimate use of violence within a specific geographic area?

Also, anarcho-communists deem markets to be exploitative, so banning market activity for them is kind of like banning slavery.

[–]huntmaster89 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

As I said, these 'workers' councils essentially functioned like small scale authoritarian states, as you could see from the article. Banning people from choosing to trade with eachother is anything but banning slavery, regardless of what mental gymnastics one might engage in to arrive at that conclusion.

[–]ArstanWhitebeard 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's most likely because you need threat of punishment to maintain some semblance of productivity in socialist/communist nations. I'm sure you're familiar with the famous game theory experiments showing this by Fehr and Gachter.

[–]huntmaster89 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

These game theory experiments have implications not just for socialist societies, but for economic theory in general (see the Nash equilibrium). That said, there are no examples of socialism existing without states or some equivalent imposing such conditions by force. Even when they do, markets activity always occurs on the black market to get around the colossal ineffeciencies imposed by the lack of real market prices.

[–]huntmaster89 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Markets have existed as long as people have traded, which people have done ever since different communities came into contact with eachother with different needs and resources. In modern time things have become much more complex and articulated, but many of the basic principles still apply. For example, I would advise looking up I Pencil about Spontaneous order on youtube, it does a great job of conveying how complex processes can occur without any central coordination.

[–]narrenburgBhye! -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Markets have existed as long as people have traded

wat

Markets haven't always existed, and they weren't natural. They were forced onto everyone by states.

My tone may come off as me being exasperated, but that's because, from an academic perspective, even an elementary understanding of capitalism (and economics in general) is enough to falsify pretty much every talking point I've come across here.

[–]huntmaster89 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Markets haven't always existed, and they weren't natural. They were forced onto everyone by states.

I'm sure you think this, but you haven't provided any basis for it whatsoever. Were you convinced of this by dubious theory of David Graeber, who's view that Bronze Age societies were organized around temple-collectives definitely has nothing to do with pushing his radical anarcho-socialist politics?

Such views have become wildly popular among hardcore leftists those seeking to validate their pre-existing hostility to markets and 'capitalism'.

How many schools of thought does your 'elementary understanding' of economics include? Anything to the right of Paul Krugman by any chance, because that statement seems rather biased. These kinds of claims that you speak of have not gone without rebuttal, for example:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/david-graeber-on-the-invention-of-money-%E2%80%93-notes-on-sex-adventure-monomaniacal-sociopathy-and-the-true-function-of-economics.html

[–]narrenburgBhye! -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't need to read or agree with Graeber to know that markets were coerced. And I did cite a source (here it is again).

[–]huntmaster89 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fair enough. I'm not inclined to agree, but I can appreciate that you have reason to think what you do. But it would still be rash to assume that its a settled issue, as history is all about the back and forth between different interpretations of the periods and issue in question. Other historians take a different view, and we could all find historical perspectives that agree with our own and could say "see, its true!". I also don't think it makes sense in terms of economics for money to have been artificially invented by states and not be a natural consequence of exchange, and of spontaneous order, that evolves regardless of state imposition. That states/rulers took control of money to further their own ends does not mean that its only because of this that it came to exist in the first place.

[–]blasto_blastocyst 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Capitalism is a few hundreds of years old. You can't project current society onto the Romans, let alone the Assyrians.

[–]huntmaster89 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Replace hundreds with thousands and you might be onto something. Markets are as old as civilization and settlement itself, if not older. Since different communities encountered eachother and trades, markets of some form have existed.

[–]lukas8u -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Lol you have no fucking clue if you think trade routes are the same thing as capitalism.

[–]hairam 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (16子コメント)

Are... you serious? Do you really think there are no and have never been matriarchies? Because you're wrong.

[–]huntmaster89 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Historically such societies are rare and fairly thinly spread. And its not like men had all the power, men and women simply had more power in different areas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrgovSZ32Yg

[–]hairam 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

First off, it's important to say that I, though I read and typed "matriarchy" myself, I was thinking mostly "matrilineality", so, my impassioned and surprised "you're wrong..." was... on an aspect of matriarchies more so than it was about true concrete knowledge I have on matriarchies.

But... more related to your comment:

1: who is that guy?

That's fine if matriarchies are rare and thinly spread - the issue then would be with the absolutist claim that there have never been any matriarchies - regardless of how few, it would simply be incorrect to claim that none have existed.

That being said, my post was regretfully just as absolutist to a certain extent, but...

[–]huntmaster89 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you for the conciliatory response, I guess it became a heated thread for all involved, and I could have been more polite myself.

This guy is Lindybeige (first name is Lloyd). He does mostly does videos on history and historical weapons, but he's also knowledgeable of evolutionary psychology and has done at least a couple video on the the historical status and roles of women. He's also quite funny and entertaining in my view.

I wouldn't myself claim that matriarchies have never existed, clearly they have. I think though that Lindybeige conveys quite well in that video and this one, why they did not tend to be the norm, and why it was usually men who went to fight in wars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPmbDPsyt6I

[–]satin_pajamas -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Name 5 that are historically relevant beyond simply existing.

[–]hairam 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (11子コメント)

I said this to huntmaster89 as well: though I read and wrote matriarchy, I was thinking more of the subset of matrilineality. That's my mistake. But hey, we'll run with this.

First of all, all of this depends on your definition of matriarchy and "historical relevance". I don't presume to be an expert enough to say with any certainty what has and doesn't have historical relevance, so you're going to have to supply me with the definition on that one.

With matriarchy, it seems "female rule" is essentially all that's necessary, though if we're being more specific and include "female rule in a society where rule is passed down female to female" then, I don't know that I have anything for you. But I'm not sure that qualifier is necessary, so I'll go on with my musing anyway.

One thing that came to mind when I responded to the other user was an Oceanic society I had learned about ~1 year ago - I forget if they were only matrilineal or if they exhibited some amount of matriarchal rule. Unfortunately, I can't find my notebook with that information in it, and I don't have the textbooks anymore, so, that one's lost. But, that to say, at least some extent of matrilineality exists in certain Oceanic cultures.

If matriarchy is just female rule, than we can discuss various Queens who ruled (Mary Queen of Scots, Elizabeth I, etc), as well as female Pharaohs (Hatshepsut, Nefertiti, etc). Though again, depending on if female inherited power is essential to your definition of matriarchy, these examples are probably not what you want to hear.

Anyway, thoughts?

[–]satin_pajamas 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (10子コメント)

I meant a civilization or culture that mattered or had an impact beyond simply being a matriarchy. If it were just a "regular" civilization, would anyone care that it existed. Or was it a small tribe in Africa that managed to exist for a little while before being conquered or absorbed by a more influential culture. We've had plenty of Queens, so for the sake of the argument as I interpreted it, are there any in which the traditional leadership roles are interchangeable. Where sons do not outrank daughters.

[–]hairam 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Okay, yeah, I understand what you're getting at, but still, determining how something matters is a really variable value scale. What history "matters" in the east may be different than what history matters in the west - even between you and me, what matters could be vastly different (and, since I would consider even those cultures which may have been conquered or absorbed by another culture to still be of significance, I don't think we're going to discuss this on any level satisfying to either of us). History can be a very biased subject depending on who's telling it and who's receiving it. That's just the nature of being human though, I guess... This is getting to a whole different subject, though.

Insofar as culture where rule is passed mother to daughter, I really couldn't say, as I know pretty much only about matriliniage (even then, considering I lost (or got rid of...) the notebook that covered the matrilineal cultures I knew the best, I am left with a rather general pool of knowledge I can confidently select from on the topic). So yes, refining our discussion to matriarchal rule + matriliniage, I cannot provide you with an answer.

[–]satin_pajamas -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (8子コメント)

so just to put a TL;DR on the end of this. No. You can't name 5 matriarchies.

Take the "significant" qualifier away then.

[–]hairam 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

You should know by now. My response was based on my reading of matriarchy as matriliniage.

I figured we had moved on.

[–]satin_pajamas -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I'm just trying to get a straight answer from you.

Using whatever word you want to use to define it, what were you referring to when you said this

Are... you serious? Do you really think there are no and have never been matriarchies? Because you're wrong.

[–]MouonINTP 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We're not programmed to be patriarchal yet nearly every culture ever known and which exists today is?

The liberal west has not been a patriarchy since aprox. the end of the 19th century, and that 'patriarchy' was not a patriarchy in the sense that modern feminism thinks it was. It just simply was not practically possible/feasible for women to go to war for example, due the effect women dying would have on population, whereas men were more expendable, and you know, are usually physically stronger. The absence of contraception was an even more important factor though, as it meant that the consequence of sex out of wedlock was a mother with a child she couldn't support.

There are a range of other factors too, which mean that division of labour by sex and gender was unavoidable until relatively recently, and no longer is because of medical and technological advances.

[–]huntmaster89 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is a key difference between patriarchal societies i.e. where most of those holding official positions of status are men, and an oppressive patriarchy as defined by feminists, which is largely fictional. Even societies which are genuinely oppressive to women are not so in the quazi-marxist sense that they define it.