This research is another example of something that kinda pings out at me. It seems to be trying to draw a deeper view from something that might be cultural. Does every nation have twit-gangs that jump on people who violate social norms?
If not, then talking about "evolution" is stone-cold stupid. I mean, even if every major western nation had gangs of twits, it still wouldn't be time to talk about "evolution." I'll grant it wouldn't be too soon to start thinking about it, to start speculating, but jezum criminy, "and if we could run the same study on medieval serfs, we'd get the same results ,because, dude, *evolution*" is an awfully arrogant position to take, barring time travel.
(I'll admit I didn't dig into the article too deeply. And I wouldn't be a damn bit surprised if certain emotional reactions, like "I'm doing the right, and well-accepted, thing" isn't an evolution thing. And, hey, science JOURNALISM - no science. Still - it bugs me a bit.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
If not, then talking about "evolution" is stone-cold stupid. I mean, even if every major western nation had gangs of twits, it still wouldn't be time to talk about "evolution." I'll grant it wouldn't be too soon to start thinking about it, to start speculating, but jezum criminy, "and if we could run the same study on medieval serfs, we'd get the same results ,because, dude, *evolution*" is an awfully arrogant position to take, barring time travel.
(I'll admit I didn't dig into the article too deeply. And I wouldn't be a damn bit surprised if certain emotional reactions, like "I'm doing the right, and well-accepted, thing" isn't an evolution thing. And, hey, science JOURNALISM - no science. Still - it bugs me a bit.)