Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html?_r=1

Now some researchers are suggesting that reason evolved for a completely different purpose: to win arguments. Rationality, by this yardstick (and irrationality too, but we’ll get to that) is nothing more or less than a servant of the hard-wired compulsion to triumph in the debating arena. According to this view, bias, lack of logic and other supposed flaws that pollute the stream of reason are instead social adaptations that enable one group to persuade (and defeat) another. Certitude works, however sharply it may depart from the truth.

So being a stubborn prat who just can't admit when he's wrong is an evolutionary advantage? Makes sense, and certainly explains a lot about the internet.

I missed the part where they explain why some people push and push for the ego massage of getting someone to admit that they're wrong, though.

I think Socrates mentioned something along these lines quite some time ago.

Monster Rain wrote:I missed the part where they explain why some people push and push for the ego massage of getting someone to admit that they're wrong, though.

Oh, that's in there;

"“When people are motivated to reason, they do a better job at accepting only sound arguments, which is quite generally to their advantage.” Groups are more likely than individuals to come up with better results, they say, because they will be exposed to the best arguments."

I vehemently disagree.

Monster Rain wrote:I missed the part where they explain why some people push and push for the ego massage of getting someone to admit that they're wrong, though.

I think Socrates mentioned something along these lines quite some time ago.

Its in the footnote. I always hated footnotes. Footnotes are evil and should be smoten, like Charles Manson, Pol Pot, and anyone involved in the making of Hop.

Orlanth wrote: I vehemently disagree.

and that's OK.

What a beautiful thread this is.

Or we could just admit the truth that most people are idiots instead of looking for complex answers to simple questions.

1 cents

sebster wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html?_r=1

Now some researchers are suggesting that reason evolved for a completely different purpose: to win arguments. Rationality, by this yardstick (and irrationality too, but we’ll get to that) is nothing more or less than a servant of the hard-wired compulsion to triumph in the debating arena. According to this view, bias, lack of logic and other supposed flaws that pollute the stream of reason are instead social adaptations that enable one group to persuade (and defeat) another. Certitude works, however sharply it may depart from the truth.

So being a stubborn prat who just can't admit when he's wrong is an evolutionary advantage? Makes sense, and certainly explains a lot about the internet.

Really? How many of the most chronic basement-dwelling internet cranks will get to pass on their genes, though?


Me aside, of course. I'm an aberration.

Albatross wrote:

Me aside, of course. I'm an aberration.

But at least you admit to being a chronic basement-dwelling internet crank though

The first step on the road is the hardest...

There are still people that deny evolution. Despite their being so much evidence it is a fact.

Only evolution can explain people being THAT obstinate!

mattyrm wrote: There are still people that deny evolution. Despite their being so much evidence it is a fact.

Only evolution can explain people being THAT obstinate!

All the self-doubters were weeded out a long time ago.

Selective breeding is my theory.

filbert wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Me aside, of course. I'm an aberration.

But at least you admit to being a chronic basement-dwelling internet crank though

Guilty. But hey, I managed to pass on my chronic basement-dwelling internet crank genes, so that's something.


I can't wait until my lad is old enough to troll me...

(cue Lion King Music)

#'... the CIIIIIR-CUUULLLE, the circle of life....'#

This is a perfect example of how evolution can be used to explain just about anything you want it to.

GG

generalgrog wrote:This is a perfect example of how evolution can be used to explain just about anything you want it to.

GG

Irony we meet again...

Albatross wrote:Really? How many of the most chronic basement-dwelling internet cranks will get to pass on their genes, though?


Me aside, of course. I'm an aberration.

Ah, but in the past those people didn't have internet forums and WoW to draw them into their dark, dank basements. Instead they went out and lived, acting like the rest of ordinary folk.

But now we've got the technology to let them become the basement dwelling virgins their genes demanded of them. perhaps now we'll finally rid ourselves of their kind?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:This is a perfect example of how evolution can be used to explain just about anything you want it to.

GG

Of course, it's an extremely broad field of study. Much like religion in that regard.

Thing is, though, it isn't about just throwing an idea out there, it's about the debate about that idea, and whether that idea remains plausible once you've heard that debate. That second part is what science is all about.

sebster wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html?_r=1

Now some researchers are suggesting that reason evolved for a completely different purpose: to win arguments. Rationality, by this yardstick (and irrationality too, but we’ll get to that) is nothing more or less than a servant of the hard-wired compulsion to triumph in the debating arena. According to this view, bias, lack of logic and other supposed flaws that pollute the stream of reason are instead social adaptations that enable one group to persuade (and defeat) another. Certitude works, however sharply it may depart from the truth.

So being a stubborn prat who just can't admit when he's wrong is an evolutionary advantage? Makes sense, and certainly explains a lot about the internet.

No it doesn't, where did you get that from!

mattyrm wrote: There are still people that deny evolution. Despite their being so much evidence it is a fact.

Only evolution can explain people being THAT obstinate!

define evolution in your terms. your answer will decide if i need to hit you or not

but yeah.evolution caused heads? seeing as how they are the ones people want to kill it seems like a disadvantage...

Albatross wrote:

sebster wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html?_r=1

Now some researchers are suggesting that reason evolved for a completely different purpose: to win arguments. Rationality, by this yardstick (and irrationality too, but we’ll get to that) is nothing more or less than a servant of the hard-wired compulsion to triumph in the debating arena. According to this view, bias, lack of logic and other supposed flaws that pollute the stream of reason are instead social adaptations that enable one group to persuade (and defeat) another. Certitude works, however sharply it may depart from the truth.

So being a stubborn prat who just can't admit when he's wrong is an evolutionary advantage? Makes sense, and certainly explains a lot about the internet.

Really? How many of the most chronic basement-dwelling internet cranks will get to pass on their genes, though?


Me aside, of course. I'm an aberration.

If you're an aberration, what the hell am I?

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Albatross wrote:

sebster wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html?_r=1

Now some researchers are suggesting that reason evolved for a completely different purpose: to win arguments. Rationality, by this yardstick (and irrationality too, but we’ll get to that) is nothing more or less than a servant of the hard-wired compulsion to triumph in the debating arena. According to this view, bias, lack of logic and other supposed flaws that pollute the stream of reason are instead social adaptations that enable one group to persuade (and defeat) another. Certitude works, however sharply it may depart from the truth.

So being a stubborn prat who just can't admit when he's wrong is an evolutionary advantage? Makes sense, and certainly explains a lot about the internet.

Really? How many of the most chronic basement-dwelling internet cranks will get to pass on their genes, though?


Me aside, of course. I'm an aberration.

If you're an aberration, what the hell am I?

A horny young man, which isn't really all that strange.

generalgrog wrote:This is a perfect example of how evolution can be used to explain just about anything you want it to.

GG

Well... yeah. Yeah, that's pretty much what evolution does. Of course, not everyone will agree with the conclusion that this study came to; people are gonna debate about it and stuff for a while.
Besides, and without any malice, merely from a debating point of view, couldn't you say the same about God or Gods? Or magic? Or anything, really? Humans do seem to have a tendency to see patterns in everything, after all.