I think the claim is more that if you provide financial support for X without solid record keeping to verify X, expect that you will get more self reported people in that description.
Put differently, relying on self reporting for any sort of status from people is just not a reliable methodology.
As stated, this feels wrong. Specifically, it does not account for traits being appropriate for environment. I like to say it as what was needed for one stage could be the problem for the next stage.
That is, traits that stop registering may no longer be something that helps survival. But that does not mean they were not necessary for survival at an earlier point.
How exactly does that contradict the concept of fitness?
Several examples from the paper are exactly that. E.g dark skin was better for survival in Africa, but as populations moved north light skin was strongly selected for. Given the levels of sunlight in Europe, lighter skin increased fitness.
It is against the idea that the beneficial traits will survive to the present. It could be that there was some trait/gene that was absolutely needed for survival in the past, that flat out became irrelevant and dropped off before the present.
That is, it is not an argument against any of the traits that are present. Is why I said the problem is with how it was stated. But you do not have everything with you to provide evidence for all of the things necessary for you to have gotten here. At best, you have evidence that nothing you have with you prevented you from getting here.
That make sense? I grant that pulling it back up, I see the comment I was responding to was hedged. My concern is largely against the idea that things that "were selected for" in the past can be determined by evidence. I'm not convinced it can't be. But I find this presentation of it to be somewhat weak.
More to the point, TFA is specifically addressing the issue (which is part of what makes it a big deal).
They aren't saying "we see these things now, so they must be good" but rather things like "we see these selected for from 9kya to 3kya, but from then to the present they were selected against"; they are specifically looking at how apparent selective pressures changed over time.
> the idea that things that "were selected for" in the past can be determined by evidence
When the evidence is a copious selection of ancient genomes, distributed over both space and time, they certainly can be.
Apologies, I only meant my gripe with the comment I was responding to. Is why I put "as stated." I meant that to be that I was not arguing what I think they were messaging towards.
The callout on "evidence" I have there is that I meant that to only be present evidence. And again, I am not convinced it can't be done. It takes a lot of work. Which, the article is doing. But just saying that traits that helped you survive are typically retained, so by definition increase fitness, does not.
This is as useless as the circular view that releasing dependencies for others to test makes you a free-rider on them using your stuff.
Which, honestly, I think it is fair to say that a lot of supply chains are lulling people into a false sense of what they do. Your supply chain for groceries puts a lot of effort into making itself safe. Your supply chain for software dependencies is run more like a playground.
Agreed. You can also say that they are better engineered for most use, nowadays. With the adage that anyone can build a bridge that doesn't fall over, an engineering team is needed to build one that has the minimum resources to stay up.
In particular, how durable do people think backpacks need to be? If you are going through them particularly quickly, maybe you are over loading compared to what they were designed for?
Why would you expect that more critical thought would lead to more visible opinions? Would be like expecting everyone to have a different route they take out of their neighborhood. Nothing wrong if someone does want to try a different way, to a large extent, but often nothing is gained from it, either.
The counter hope, of course, is that more critical thought will result in more people discovering some abstract truth out there. I don't think that is realistic, either.
The mundane landing spot, I think, is the likely one. For most things, critical thought is just not much of a benefit. Knowledge and understanding are far more beneficial. Is why we don't constantly reinvent how to drive a car. We have largely agreed that we have some mechanisms that work, and it is better to educate folks on how those work, than it is to get people to think critically about the controls.
Going further in that regard, understanding is far more immediately useful than critical deconstruction. Learning about affordances and how they guide you to what you are wanting to do is far more useful to someone's daily life.
Which is not to say that critical thought in designing said affordances is not good. Just, for most of us, we are not in a position to really impact any of that.
So many things in life are better if you can get past that fear of not being good. Because very very few people can skip the stage where they are not good. (I'd be comfortable saying nobody. But there is always somebody, it seems.)
I mean, if you are looking at unventilated kitchens, you are going to get bad values cooking. Pretty much period. Yes, by products of burning gas are bad. But by products of cooking are already bad. Ventilate your kitchen.
Induction is also faster to boil water, easier to clean since it's just flat glass, and safer since an induction stove without a pot/pan stays room temperature (in fact, they usually can detect if a pot/pan is present and automatically turn themselves off)
Induction is also particularly nice for certain types of cooking because many induction stoves can be set to a specific temperature instead of just to a power level.
Agreed that folks should look more favorably on induction. I did not mean my comment as a defense of gas. Just pointing out that most of the pollution from cooking is one where you want a good range hood that vents to the outside. And you need to clean it.
Our last house did not have a vent to the outside and it was eye opening to realize how much grease throughout the entire house was from that.
Right, I was not intending this as a defense of gas ranges. More surprised that they would baseline with a non-ventilated kitchen. Cooking, itself, will pollute your air to a surprising degree.
The oven mitts metaphor probably works really well, if you shift it into metal working. Yes, it takes getting used to wearing heavy gloves when working. No, you don't want to skip out on them.
Edit: Honestly, any job where gloves are standard works. Gardening. Sailing. Many sports.
This feels like a silly over emphasis on a naming that ignores how alike it is to so many things that came before. Don't even have to go too far back to get stories of people finding themselves in a fantasy world through a wardrobe.
How many stories were about hidden worlds below our own? Isn't even that much different from "turtles all the way." Heck, even the Minecraft movie played with a literal mine going into a magical world.
Put differently, relying on self reporting for any sort of status from people is just not a reliable methodology.
reply