The article "The Prehistoric Psychopath" explores the evolutionary puzzle of psychopathy, questioning whether it's a purely maladaptive trait or if it could have offered some advantages in our ancestral past. It proposes that psychopathic traits, such as lack of empathy, manipulativeness, and risk-taking, might have been beneficial in specific prehistoric contexts like intergroup conflict or resource acquisition, allowing individuals to exploit others or seize opportunities without moral constraints. The article emphasizes the complex interplay between genes and environment, suggesting that psychopathy likely arises from a combination of genetic predispositions and environmental triggers, and that its expression and success might have varied across different social structures and ecological niches in prehistory. Ultimately, the article highlights the difficulty in definitively determining the evolutionary origins and historical prevalence of psychopathy, given the limitations of archaeological and anthropological evidence.
Researchers have identified spontaneous, synchronized oscillations in the movement of dense human crowds, similar to those observed in flocks of birds or schools of fish. By analyzing high-resolution trajectory data from high-density crowd events, they discovered distinct collective oscillatory modes where individuals unconsciously coordinate their movements, swaying side-to-side or back-and-forth. These oscillations emerge at certain critical densities and appear to be driven by local interactions between individuals, enhancing crowd fluidity and facilitating navigation. This discovery sheds light on the fundamental principles governing human collective behavior and could contribute to safer and more efficient crowd management strategies.
Hacker News users discussed the study on crowd oscillations with a mix of skepticism and interest. Some questioned the novelty of the findings, pointing out that synchronized swaying in crowds is a well-known phenomenon, especially at concerts. Others expressed concern about the methodology, particularly the reliance on overhead video and potential inaccuracies in tracking individual movements. Several commenters suggested alternative explanations for the observed oscillations, such as subconscious mimicking of neighbors or reactions to external stimuli like music or announcements. There was also a thread discussing the potential applications of the research, including crowd management and understanding collective behavior in other contexts. A few users appreciated the visualization and analysis of the phenomenon, even if they weren't surprised by the underlying behavior.
The original poster wonders if people can be categorized as primarily "story-based" or "fact-based" thinkers. They observe that some individuals seem to prioritize narratives and emotional resonance, readily accepting information that fits a compelling story, even if evidence is lacking. Conversely, others appear to prioritize factual accuracy and logical consistency, potentially dismissing emotionally resonant stories if they lack evidential support. The author questions whether this distinction is valid, if people fall on a spectrum, or if other factors are at play, and asks if this dichotomy influences communication styles and understanding.
The Hacker News comments discuss the idea of "story-based" vs. "fact-based" people, with many expressing skepticism about such a rigid dichotomy. Several commenters suggest the distinction isn't about accepting facts, but rather how people prioritize and interpret them. Some argue everyone uses narratives to understand the world, with the key difference being the quality of evidence people demand to support their narratives. Others point out the influence of cognitive biases, motivated reasoning, and the difficulty of separating facts from interpretation. The role of emotion and empathy in decision-making is also highlighted, with some arguing "story-based" thinking might simply reflect a greater emphasis on emotional connection. A few commenters mention Myers-Briggs personality types as a potential framework for understanding these differences, though this is met with some skepticism. Overall, the consensus seems to be that the proposed dichotomy is overly simplistic and potentially misleading.
Summary of Comments ( 4 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43408761
HN commenters largely discussed the methodology and conclusions of the linked article. Several questioned the reliability of extrapolating psychopathic traits based on sparse archaeological evidence, arguing that alternative explanations for prehistoric violence exist and that applying modern psychological diagnoses to ancient humans is problematic. Some debated the definition and evolutionary role of psychopathy, with some suggesting it may be a social construct rather than a distinct disorder. Others pointed out that while some individuals might exhibit psychopathic traits, classifying an entire group as psychopathic is misleading. The difficulty in distinguishing between instrumental and reactive violence in archaeological records was also a recurring theme, highlighting the limitations of inferring motivations from prehistoric remains. A few commenters focused on the article's presentation, criticizing its length and suggesting ways to improve readability.
The Hacker News post titled "The Prehistoric Psychopath" (linking to an article on Works in Progress) generated a moderate discussion with several interesting points raised in the comments section.
Several commenters engage with the core premise of the article, which explores the idea of psychopathy as an evolutionary strategy. One commenter questions the evolutionary advantage of psychopathy in prehistoric times, particularly given the importance of social cohesion in hunter-gatherer societies. They suggest that the article's argument might be flawed due to its reliance on modern interpretations of psychopathy applied to prehistoric contexts. Another commenter challenges the idea that psychopathy is solely a genetic trait, highlighting the role of environmental factors and pointing out that even with a genetic predisposition, psychopathy wouldn't necessarily manifest in every individual. They also suggest that traits associated with psychopathy could be beneficial in certain limited contexts, offering a nuanced perspective on the potential evolutionary pressures at play.
Another thread of discussion centers around the definition and understanding of psychopathy itself. One commenter emphasizes the complexity of the term, arguing that it encompasses a broad spectrum of behaviors and shouldn't be reduced to a simple binary categorization. This aligns with another comment questioning the utility of applying modern diagnostic criteria to individuals in prehistoric societies, emphasizing the difficulties in reconstructing past mental states. Another commenter highlights the distinct difference between primary and secondary psychopathy, pointing out that primary psychopathy might indeed have evolutionary roots while secondary psychopathy is more likely a result of adverse environmental influences.
Some commenters offer alternative explanations for behaviors that might be interpreted as psychopathic in prehistoric contexts. For example, one commenter suggests that apparent cruelty or violence might be driven by practical necessities like resource competition or territorial defense, rather than inherent psychopathic traits. Another commenter explores the potential for misinterpretation of archaeological evidence, cautioning against projecting modern moral frameworks onto past societies and emphasizing the challenges in understanding the motivations behind prehistoric actions.
Finally, a few comments focus on the article's methodology and presentation. One commenter criticizes the article for being too speculative and lacking sufficient evidence to support its claims. Another points out the need for interdisciplinary approaches to understand complex phenomena like psychopathy, emphasizing the importance of integrating perspectives from fields like anthropology, psychology, and genetics.
Overall, the comments on the Hacker News post offer a diverse range of perspectives on the article's central argument, challenging its assumptions, exploring alternative interpretations, and raising important questions about the nature of psychopathy and its potential evolutionary origins. While no single consensus emerges, the discussion provides a valuable platform for critical engagement with the topic.