0775: "Savannah Ancestry"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
XbHW_TestEngr
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Kirkland, WA
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby XbHW_TestEngr » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:44 am UTC

/snark
oh, nevermind
/snark
Last edited by XbHW_TestEngr on Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:49 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
... and there will be cake.

I have traveled from 1960 to be a member of the unofficial Council of Elders. Phear M3

benbald72 wrote:I feel connected to the author and therefore appreciate the comic, regardless of whether or not I understand the joke ....

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:47 am UTC

And here I thought we had established that this shit isn't, in fact, funny.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Louis XIV
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:25 pm UTC
Location: Versailles, France

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Louis XIV » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:50 am UTC

Maybe the mother is not that stupid:

Image
Last edited by Louis XIV on Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:01 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:59 am UTC

mythago wrote:
ijuin wrote:AFAIK the justification is based on the concept of "reserve capacity"
This would only be true if women were intentionally binding their own feet in order to attract a mate through a display of "reserve capacity".
No, it could still be true, because parents have as much interest in (at least two of) their offspring finding mates and reproducing as they have in producing additional offspring themselves. No evolutionary explanation of a trait, psychological or not, *requires* that there be an advantage to the individual reproductive success of the individual with the trait. Really, someone binding the feet of a kinswoman is just the darker side of the same kin-selection coin that explains some types of altruism.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

DVC
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:20 am UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby DVC » Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:17 am UTC

mythago wrote:
ijuin wrote:AFAIK the justification is based on the concept of "reserve capacity"--i.e. handicapping yourself in order to prove that you can essentially "do stuff with one hand tied behind your back", and are therefore stronger and "more fit" than somebody who can't. In this case, because binding one's feet make it difficult to stand and walk, it implies that the person does not need to stand or walk much to get by (e.g. because she has servants or children to do the farm work and house work for her, which in turn implies that she is prosperous and high-status enough to afford the servants/children and to afford to eat without having to perform any labor). This is the same sort of thing as growing your fingernails so long that you can not even pick up a spoon to feed yourself--also implying that you have the wealth and status to get somebody else to do all of your work for you.


This would only be true if women were intentionally binding their own feet in order to attract a mate through a display of "reserve capacity". It wasn't. Foot-binding was something done to children far too young to care about mates by their families as a display of their families' and husbands' status. It implies that the husband is so affluent that he can afford to support a permanently crippled wife.

One of the major failings of evo-psych is that it assumes that every characteristic has an evolutionary advantage and does so for the person with the characteristic.


Another of its failings is that it doesn't take into account the course society might take given a certain set of starting conditions. It seems to me that evo-psych people have somehow failed to notice this field of study known as anthropology. It seems fairly obvious to me that if one group of people have a strength advantage over another they would use that to get into power, and then begin to set up social conventions that would keep them and their type in power. Even after society has changed such that physical strength is no longer a significant advantage, the conventions put in place will continue to have an affect. If you start with that as a basis you can explain the vast majority of the different behaviours of men and women in today's societies without having to use evolution at all.

User avatar
Giannist
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:23 pm UTC
Location: College

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Giannist » Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:18 am UTC

GOOMHR: My roommate is a female math major from Savannah, Georgia!
"All Hail the God of Entropy!"

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:29 am UTC

DVC wrote:It seems fairly obvious to me that if one group of people have a strength advantage over another they would use that to get into power, and then begin to set up social conventions that would keep them and their type in power. Even after society has changed such that physical strength is no longer a significant advantage, the conventions put in place will continue to have an affect. If you start with that as a basis you can explain the vast majority of the different behaviours of men and women in today's societies without having to use evolution at all.
No, you can't, because you still have to explain why modern gender roles ever had anything to do with giving one group of people a strength advantage over another. Getting away from biological evolution doesn't get you out of having to provide evidence for your very own baseless just-so stories...
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

DVC
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:20 am UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby DVC » Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:40 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
DVC wrote:It seems fairly obvious to me that if one group of people have a strength advantage over another they would use that to get into power, and then begin to set up social conventions that would keep them and their type in power. Even after society has changed such that physical strength is no longer a significant advantage, the conventions put in place will continue to have an affect. If you start with that as a basis you can explain the vast majority of the different behaviours of men and women in today's societies without having to use evolution at all.
No, you can't, because you still have to explain why modern gender roles ever had anything to do with giving one group of people a strength advantage over another. Getting away from biological evolution doesn't get you out of having to provide evidence for your very own baseless just-so stories...


Yes, you can.

Here's an example: There is apparently one (1) very dubious study that says that women are better multi-taskers (here is an article on the study: http://www.physorg.com/news198940410.html)*. It's been established (sorry I don't have a link to this, but you can search for it) that concentrating on just one task is far more efficient for humans than attempting to do many things at the same time. So, why do we believe that women are better multi-taskers? Here's a plausible explanation: getting others to do all your small mundane tasks for you gives you more time to devote to difficult tasks, achieving results in difficult tasks makes you more valuable to society, and reinforces your status in the community.

*They say this, "[...] although the sexes performed equally when they multitasked on simple maths and map reading tasks, women far excelled men when it came to planning how to search for a lost key, with 70 per cent of women performing better than their average male counterparts." It appears what they have done is determine multi-tasking ability based on the plan each respondent comes up with for searching for a missing key. They acknowledge that men and women have different skills when it comes to spatial awareness (they navigate in different ways), so why wouldn't we expect that they plan/perform differently when it comes to laying out a route on a map? How does the different abilities of men and women in this one task, given the finding of their relative multi-tasking ability on other tasks, result in a conclusion that women are better at multi-tasking?

SocialSceneRepairman
Posts: 199
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:17 am UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby SocialSceneRepairman » Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:56 am UTC

chrth wrote:How hard is it to understand that Savannah was chosen because it sounds like savannah?


It was, of course, and it could have been anywhere in the South or Midwest, but it couldn't have worked with a "Savannah, Massachusetts" or a "Savannah, Rhode Island." It might have worked with a "Savannah, Maine" or "Savannah, New York," but only if there were places by those names well-known enough for the audience to recognize them as "yokel" areas (like Syracuse or Bangor). This was a jab at Southerners, as well as one at (the laity's version of) evolutionary psychology.

User avatar
TheSoberPirate
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 12:48 am UTC
Location: 13 T 492960 4492224

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby TheSoberPirate » Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:06 am UTC

DVC wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
DVC wrote:It seems fairly obvious to me that if one group of people have a strength advantage over another they would use that to get into power, and then begin to set up social conventions that would keep them and their type in power. Even after society has changed such that physical strength is no longer a significant advantage, the conventions put in place will continue to have an affect. If you start with that as a basis you can explain the vast majority of the different behaviours of men and women in today's societies without having to use evolution at all.
No, you can't, because you still have to explain why modern gender roles ever had anything to do with giving one group of people a strength advantage over another. Getting away from biological evolution doesn't get you out of having to provide evidence for your very own baseless just-so stories...


Yes, you can.

Here's an example: There is apparently one (1) very dubious study that says that women are better multi-taskers (here is an article on the study: http://www.physorg.com/news198940410.html)*. It's been established (sorry I don't have a link to this, but you can search for it) that concentrating on just one task is far more efficient for humans than attempting to do many things at the same time. So, why do we believe that women are better multi-taskers? Here's a plausible explanation: getting others to do all your small mundane tasks for you gives you more time to devote to difficult tasks, achieving results in difficult tasks makes you more valuable to society, and reinforces your status in the community.

*They say this, "[...] although the sexes performed equally when they multitasked on simple maths and map reading tasks, women far excelled men when it came to planning how to search for a lost key, with 70 per cent of women performing better than their average male counterparts." It appears what they have done is determine multi-tasking ability based on the plan each respondent comes up with for searching for a missing key. They acknowledge that men and women have different skills when it comes to spatial awareness (they navigate in different ways), so why wouldn't we expect that they plan/perform differently when it comes to laying out a route on a map? How does the different abilities of men and women in this one task, given the finding of their relative multi-tasking ability on other tasks, result in a conclusion that women are better at multi-tasking?


That might indeed be a plausible explanation, but explanatory power is not enough. For something to be science, it has to be able to make testable predictions based on that story, and it needs to be falsifiable. This is (apparently) really hard for evolutionary psychologists to do, judging from the state of the literature.

User avatar
James A. Donald
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:02 pm UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby James A. Donald » Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:08 am UTC

Belial wrote:Pop-evo-psych isn't being silenced, it's being lauded. The "politically incorrect" message you love so much is the one that's being celebrated. It's all over the pages of newsweek and the washington post and psychology today.


Pull the other one, it has bells on. You might read in the Washington post the evo-psych reasons why men like youth, boobs, broad hips, and narrow waists. You might have read somewhere, but not in Newsweek nor the Washington post nor Psychology Today, what evo-psych has to tell us about stepfathers and stepmothers (they really are wicked) but you have not read anywhere, and probably do not know, what evo-psych tells us about female sexual preferences and bond formation processes, nor what it tells us about the effect on an individuals time preference of having ancestors who evolved in a climate with severe winters, and/or the effect on time preference of having ancestors that have practiced agriculture for the last ten thousand years, rather than the last couple of hundred years.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:16 am UTC

SocialSceneRepairman wrote:It was, of course, and it could have been anywhere in the South or Midwest, but it couldn't have worked with a "Savannah, Massachusetts" or a "Savannah, Rhode Island." It might have worked with a "Savannah, Maine" or "Savannah, New York," but only if there were places by those names well-known enough for the audience to recognize them as "yokel" areas (like Syracuse or Bangor). This was a jab at Southerners
Bullshit.

It. Was. A. Pun.

And it was done with the only well-known city in the world that could possibly have worked. And it wasn't done at their expense! Saying someone's mother happens to be from Savannah, GA, and then telling a "your momma's dumb" joke about her, is not a jab at the city or the residents in general of Savannah, GA. There are dumb people *everywhere*, as this thread well shows.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
James A. Donald
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:02 pm UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby James A. Donald » Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:33 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Really, someone binding the feet of a kinswoman is just the darker side of the same kin-selection coin that explains some types of altruism.

In the ancestral environment, it would often be to the advantage of both partners to commit themselves irrevocably, to give up some freedom in return for guarantees by the other: the man committing to support the women and her offspring forever, the woman committing herself to sleep with that man as he desires and with no one else, forever. However, since an individual woman is in no position to make such an agreement stick, such agreements are not made, because not believed. Parental authority has to substitutes, and for parental authority to substitute, it may be advantageous for parents to restrict the freedom of the daughter by drastic means - such as binding her feet. The man gets a virgin who cannot run away, and in return makes commitments to the family of the virgin rather than the virgin - indefinite support for the virgin and offspring being part of that commitment.

Absent the ability to make binding commitments, and make them stick, and absent violent male coercion of women, human mating tends to the lek pattern, where a few of the more desirable males impregnate the vast majority of the women, but do not contribute protection or support, and the rest of the males just seeth bitterly, which arrangement is not to the advantage of women and results in both male and female energies being directed to negative sum competition. Thus brutal parental coercion may well be to the reproductive advantage of parent and daughter. If women cannot credibly commit to always bang their husband, and to never bang a more desirable male than their husband, they are apt to wind up single or remain single, thus parental impositions on women that restrict their freedom of choice may well increase reproductive success. Such impositions on daughters are usually associated with equivalent impositions on males by older males - that is to say, shotgun marriages. The patriarch guarantees female fidelity, and demands guaranteed male support by the son in law, and is apt to get upset if that guarantee is broken.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Nice bullshit just-so story there...

James A. Donald wrote:In the ancestral environment, it would often be to the advantage of both partners to commit themselves irrevocably
[citation needed]

Absent the ability to make binding commitments, and make them stick, and absent violent male coercion of women, human mating tends to the lek pattern, where a few of the more desirable males impregnate the vast majority of the women, but do not contribute protection or support, and the rest of the males just seeth bitterly
Even bigger [citation needed]

You're going to need to provide some actual, like, evidence or something, if you want any of us to believe that pretty story you wrote.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

tckthomas
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:17 am UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby tckthomas » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:08 am UTC

Attempt at summary(correct me)

1) Drawing on blackboard fails.
2) Thread on evolutionary psychology.
3) Girl is called Georgia, but mother lives in Savannah, Georgia
4) So "Savannah, Georgia" can mean 2 things, the city, or savanna then adressing name of the girl.
5) The city would let her think he puts her mother into that, and that her mother didn't prepare her for abstract math.
6) Double joke in alt-text when it says quarterback is a river in egypt.
7) Appears so complicated when actually the joke is when we try to find the joke.

Well, did I fail?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:14 am UTC

tckthomas wrote:Girl is called Georgia
What? No. The girl's name doesn't enter into it.

but mother lives in Savannah, Georgia
Yes. Her mother is the Savannah ancestor the guy mentions previously.

So "Savannah, Georgia" can mean 2 things, the city, or savanna then adressing name of the girl.
No, it only means the first one. He's correcting the misunderstanding: he doesn't mean the terrain-type savannah, he means the Savannah that's in Georgia.

The city would let her think he puts her mother into that, and that her mother didn't prepare her for abstract math.
Yes. This is in fact the *only* meaning the character of the guy intended with his initial comment.

Appears so complicated when actually the joke is when we try to find the joke.
No, actually, it's not that complicated. Though I suppose there is this extra added layer of humor in the form of people like you being so utterly incapable of seeing that the joke is actually quite simple and straightforward.

Well, did I fail?
Yes. Hardcore.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

tckthomas
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:17 am UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby tckthomas » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:36 am UTC

yay! I like failing.

Probably much easier to wait for the next comic.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5480
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:59 am UTC

Louis XIV wrote:Maybe the mother is not that stupid:

Spoiler:
Image

Shenanigans.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
mythago
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby mythago » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
mythago wrote:
ijuin wrote:AFAIK the justification is based on the concept of "reserve capacity"
This would only be true if women were intentionally binding their own feet in order to attract a mate through a display of "reserve capacity".
No, it could still be true, because parents have as much interest in (at least two of) their offspring finding mates and reproducing as they have in producing additional offspring themselves. No evolutionary explanation of a trait, psychological or not, *requires* that there be an advantage to the individual reproductive success of the individual with the trait. Really, someone binding the feet of a kinswoman is just the darker side of the same kin-selection coin that explains some types of altruism.


The original explanation of 'reserve capacity' was of individuals showing their evolutionary fitness.

And the 'reserve capacity' explanation for foot-binding only makes sense if foot-binding does, in fact, offer an evolutionary advantage.
three lines of plaintext
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs

User avatar
James A. Donald
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:02 pm UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby James A. Donald » Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:34 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:In the ancestral environment, it would often be to the advantage of both partners to commit themselves irrevocably
[citation needed]

Think about it.

gmalivuk wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:Absent the ability to make binding commitments, and make them stick, and absent violent male coercion of women, human mating tends to the lek pattern, where a few of the more desirable males impregnate the vast majority of the women, but do not contribute protection or support, and the rest of the males just seeth bitterly
Even bigger [citation needed]


Observe our own society. Marriage has not vanished, but it is on the way out, with 39% illegitimacy and 50% divorce rate. Supposedly the rate of fatherless children is a mere 9%, a number curiously similar to the supposed unemployment rate, but neither number passes the giggle test. (The unemployment rate supposedly remains curiously constant while payrolls collapse, and similarly fatherlessness supposedly remains curiously constant while marriage collapses, and GDP supposedly grows while sales tax collections do not) Obviously there can be no statistics as to what proportion of the males are servicing most of the females, thus there can never be a citation, but casual observation suggests to me a rather small portion of males are rather busy, and a considerably larger portion of males have time on their hands - and certain part of their anatomy on their hands.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7573
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby phlip » Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:37 am UTC

So, in other words, "it stands to reason" and "the plural of anecdote is data", respectively?

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Eebster the Great » Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:05 am UTC

steinam wrote:I was going to post my obligatory defense of the intelligence of southerners, southern women in particular but after reading some of these posts I think it's not necessary. There are clearly people who are, shall we say, intellectually-challenged everywhere. But all of you are very very special in your own way :roll:


And yet another person who did not understand the comic feels obliged to post. I pray these people never go see Fiddler on the Roof.

User avatar
waitwhut
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:09 am UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby waitwhut » Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:14 am UTC

I think the real joke is that so few people actually got such an obvious comic.

User avatar
James A. Donald
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:02 pm UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby James A. Donald » Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:36 am UTC

phlip wrote:So, in other words, "it stands to reason" and "the plural of anecdote is data", respectively?

That is the best data you can get on human mating patterns.

If human mating is socially regulated - weddings, engagements, shotguns, etc, then we have readily observable and precise data. The data we have is that socially regulated mating is collapsing - which leaves us with nothing but data less easily observed.

RabbitWho
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 10:16 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby RabbitWho » Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:46 am UTC

This has to spark an interesting discussion about Savannah theory and what it means for gender roles. This discussion has to last for at least 12 pages or I'm loosing faith in all of you!


*ahem*

I think we evolved from aquatic apes.


Do your worst.

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:48 am UTC

RabbitWho wrote:I think we evolved from aquatic apes.

That theory is so 1978.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Belial » Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:49 am UTC

phlip wrote:So, in other words, "it stands to reason" and "the plural of anecdote is data", respectively?


But the reason it gets no respect (aside from all that respect it gets) is because it's so politically incorrect.

It's not blindingly stupid, it's rebellious.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:58 am UTC

James A. Donald wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:In the ancestral environment, it would often be to the advantage of both partners to commit themselves irrevocably, to give up some freedom in return for guarantees by the other: the man committing to support the women and her offspring forever, the woman committing herself to sleep with that man as he desires and with no one else, forever. However, since an individual woman is in no position to make such an agreement stick, such agreements are not made, because not believed. Parental authority has to substitutes, and for parental authority to substitute, it may be advantageous for parents to restrict the freedom of the daughter by drastic means - such as binding her feet. The man gets a virgin who cannot run away, and in return makes commitments to the family of the virgin rather than the virgin - indefinite support for the virgin and offspring being part of that commitment.
[citation needed]

Think about it.
phlip, two pages ago, wrote:Don't worry, for pop evo psych, you don't have to. Just make up some plausible-sounding backstory for why the (social) minority you dislike wouldn't have as good abilities as you do. Then present it in a just-so, everyone-knows fashion, with science-sounding terms, tack "it stands to reason" on the end, and challenge your opponents to prove you wrong.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

RabbitWho
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 10:16 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby RabbitWho » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:02 pm UTC

Pez Dispens3r wrote:
RabbitWho wrote:I think we evolved from aquatic apes.

That theory is so 1978.



I can prove it!

Image

Image

Image

Image

See!

RabbitWho
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 10:16 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby RabbitWho » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:16 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:In the ancestral environment, it would often be to the advantage of both partners to commit themselves irrevocably, to give up some freedom in return for guarantees by the other: the man committing to support the women and her offspring forever, the woman committing herself to sleep with that man as he desires and with no one else, forever. However, since an individual woman is in no position to make such an agreement stick, such agreements are not made, because not believed. Parental authority has to substitutes, and for parental authority to substitute, it may be advantageous for parents to restrict the freedom of the daughter by drastic means - such as binding her feet. The man gets a virgin who cannot run away, and in return makes commitments to the family of the virgin rather than the virgin - indefinite support for the virgin and offspring being part of that commitment.
[citation needed]

Think about it.
phlip, two pages ago, wrote:Don't worry, for pop evo psych, you don't have to. Just make up some plausible-sounding backstory for why the (social) minority you dislike wouldn't have as good abilities as you do. Then present it in a just-so, everyone-knows fashion, with science-sounding terms, tack "it stands to reason" on the end, and challenge your opponents to prove you wrong.





Plausible? People didn't live far past 25, you have a kid when you're, say, 12, you'd be dead by the time your "virgin" was old enough to give away.
Look at the way chimps live! Pretty much the only time the female isn't foraging is when she's giving birth. [exaggeration, obviously] What sticks them together? Love! That's what it's for! There are plenty of species where the mother and father stay together to raise their young.

Male supremacy came out of the male need to feel superior, not out of actual superiority. :P
Last edited by RabbitWho on Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:21 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Belial » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:19 pm UTC

RabbitWho wrote:Plausible? People didn't live far past 25,


Incorrect. Those numbers were arrived at by factoring infant mortality numbers into the average, which skewed them way downward. If you lived long enough to learn how to walk, in most historical periods, your life expectancy was probably around 50 or 60-ish with outliers in both directions.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

RabbitWho
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 10:16 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby RabbitWho » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:24 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
RabbitWho wrote:Plausible? People didn't live far past 25,


Incorrect. Those numbers were arrived at by factoring infant mortality numbers into the average, which skewed them way downward. If you lived long enough to learn how to walk, in most historical periods, your life expectancy was probably around 50 or 60-ish with outliers in both directions.



Then how come every time they find the remains of early humans they assess they died young?

Bowshewicz
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 11:19 am UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Bowshewicz » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:24 pm UTC

See, what I thought about this comic was that the guy really is talking about how he feels women are predisposed to be worse at math. When the girl catches him and points out the sexism of his statement, instead of admitting it, he just digs himself deeper by turning it into a "your mom" joke.

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby SirMustapha » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:48 pm UTC

waitwhut wrote:I think the real joke is that so few people actually got such an obvious comic.


It's not that people didn't get it: they thought they didn't get it, because the apparent joke is so bad and painfully unfunny, so people felt the humour should be somewhere else; therefore all the theories.

But no, the joke is just that. And it hurts.

Zing!

RabbitWho
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 10:16 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby RabbitWho » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:08 pm UTC

SirMustapha wrote:
waitwhut wrote:I think the real joke is that so few people actually got such an obvious comic.


It's not that people didn't get it: they thought they didn't get it, because the apparent joke is so bad and painfully unfunny, so people felt the humour should be somewhere else; therefore all the theories.

But no, the joke is just that. And it hurts.

Zing!



I thought it was funny, you musn't have understood it. Obviously you're from an inferior evolutionary line.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Belial » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:11 pm UTC

RabbitWho wrote:Then how come every time they find the remains of early humans they assess they died young?


Because you're more likely to find people intact if they died out in the middle of nowhere (or under a mammoth) than if they died with relatives? Iunno.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Tatiana
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Birmingham, AL
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Tatiana » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:53 pm UTC

I appreciate the jab at pop-evo-just-so-stories but wish Randall didn't have to make a dumb-southerner joke to make it work. That sort of negates the effect, doesn't it? :mrgreen:
οττξЃs gotta OTT, so come to the facebook OTT group!

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:04 pm UTC

James A. Donald wrote:Think about it.
So you have no support for this claim.

James A. Donald wrote:Observe our own society.
Or this one.

Great. You should have just said "I imagine" or "it seems to me like this would be the case" or whatever. Then we'd have known you were just making shit up from the beginning.

Tatiana wrote:I appreciate the jab at pop-evo-just-so-stories but wish Randall didn't have to make a dumb-southerner joke to make it work. That sort of negates the effect, doesn't it? :mrgreen:
It would, if that's the joke that was being made. But since it's just a pun, there's no dumb-southerner joke.

I wouldn't expect you to get it, though. You're probably from the South. :-P
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Belial » Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:05 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:It would, if that's the joke that was being made. But since it's just a pun, there's no dumb-southerner joke.


Or, since it's a "your mom" joke, it's supposed to be both ridiculous and kind of dumb.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

RabbitWho
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 10:16 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby RabbitWho » Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:10 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
RabbitWho wrote:Then how come every time they find the remains of early humans they assess they died young?


Because you're more likely to find people intact if they died out in the middle of nowhere (or under a mammoth) than if they died with relatives? Iunno.


Nice hypothesis. What makes you think people lived to be older? I guess what I'm saying is.. [citation needed]

I read that based on the time they developed their teeth homo erectus probably had a maximum life expectancy of 40 years. What percentage of people live to their maximum life expectancy? Even in the safe world we live in now where we're fed every day and we have vaccinations and medicine and condoms.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], mscha and 94 guests