rba (careful or this interface will autocorrect to ‘bra’) asserted that John Cant was the first to write on the topic in 1981, in his article titled Hypothesis for the Evolution of Human Breasts and Buttocks.
No. Desmond Morris provided a controversial hypothesis for female breast prominence in The Naked Ape (1967), which became known as the “frontal mimicry” or “extra-butt” hypothesis. Cant does cite Morris.
This event is not listed on the Discord Boston Less Wrong. Is it still on? Plus rain tomorrow?
There are two times and two locations; I realize that is just a mistake, the 2pm event is what is on the facebook page. Do you have any examples of drills?
A large academic literature exists on how people who read fiction have more empathy. Granted, causality could go both directions. See https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&q=people+who+read+lots+of+fiction+have+more+empathy&btnG=
HI Everyone. I’m a psychology professor and have been thinking about the prisoners’ dilemma since I read Axelrod’s book, The Evolution of Cooperation, in the 1990s. Axelrod appeared to have the last word on strategies back then (cooperate on the first move, then tit-for-tat plus occasional forgiveness to avoid getting off track if a partner makes a mistake). I do not know too much about variations, although the TV show Friend or Foe made some waves 20+ years ago. In the few excerpts I’ve seen of that show, the naked manipulation made my skin crawl. I just checked the wiki for the show and it turns out there have been at least 3 other games shows that involve a cooperate vs. defect component. This will be my first time attend a LessWrong event, and I’m interested in the variations Ben Thompson has developed and learning from all of you.
What is the street address in Cambridge for the food court?
I subscribe to Hanson’s substack, and I also do not understand Hanson’s repeated exhortations that cultural drift is a severe threat. Indeed, I found the current article from googling to understand Hanson, ha ha. I agree with your summary of Hanson’s views. I don’t understand the same things that you don’t understand.
My own views (of course Hanson would disagree with these): Fertility decline will not proceed to the point that the Amish and Mennonites will dominate in 2 centuries. Why: a lot of things can happen in 50-100 years.
Some possibilities:
Amish and Mennonites, if they continue to grow in size, will not stay static. They may change and rediscover liberal values; those liberal groups will split off and form the majority population, replicating the structure we have today.
Climate change will decimate the global population, putting humanity into a problem-solving space that is hard to anticipate now.
Global population may decline for a while, but this won’t lead to a lack of innovation.
Global population may decline and eventually stabilize at a sustainable level. Why: People like having children. Status goals in wealthy countries mean that people are putting off childrearing, but that will eventually smooth itself out. People will start having something like replacement level of children.
Before bras were invented, breast prominence was an extremely accurate signal of young age. Signals of young age are a highly accurate signal to males of conception probability, since the probability of conception declines monotonically with female age.
Why does breast prominence decline steadily (and drastically) as a function of age: the weight of the breast tissue pulls the breast in a downward direction steadily and speedily. This gravity pull is so extreme that within a few decades, an adult woman (who did not use cloth to protect against gravity) no longer has prominent breasts. She has 2 flat strips of triangular flesh, each with a point ending below her belly button.
Given that breast prominence declines so accurately with the years of gravity’s pull, male attentiveness and appreciation for round, prominent, uplifted breasts is because those breasts are a highly accurate signal of conception probability.
Males are sexually attracted to other signs of youth, but other signs are not as accurate measures of age as the steady pull of gravity. Csondier a reliable sign of youth: facial skin tautness. Facial skin texture is susceptible to individual genetic factors and other aspects of health, including psychological difficulty, sleep, and nutrition.