Im asking @xlD4NKlx what his position is... what is he arguing for?

At this point it sounds like "there are no complex behaviors in humans"

`Over the last million years or so, people evolved the ability to learn from each other, creating the possibility of cumulative, non-genetic evolution. These capacities were favoured by ordinary natural selection in the rapidly varying climates of the Middle and Upper Pleistocene, because cumulative cultural evolution allows humans to culturally evolve highly refined adaptations to local environments relatively quickly compared with genetic evolution`

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781880/ source btw

Ah, I saw that paste and delete but hadn't opened it

and im arguing that humans are inherently social animals @wacka

I don't think anyone denied that, but it's a trade-off between cooperation and competition

Even with those closest to you

yeah so back to the wolf and sheep example... the wolves have a pack... as much as the sheep have a group... I know which group/pack Id rather be in

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03052

brett said greed was essential and other points and made some pseudo-scientific points @kaolbrec

also lmao, you are still doing it and you realise these niche examples aren't representative of something far more complex @wacka

i think greed is more of a symptom of value

*"However, in all but the simplest transactions, individuals experience a cost now in return for a benefit later and thus are vulnerable to defectors who take the benefit but do not produce the return. Imperfect monitoring or effort and quality also give rise to opportunities for free riding. The potential for conflict over land, food and other resources is everywhere."*

and its not a niche example

i explained why it was so empty statements dont cut it

its just the best analogy of a group who just pack together with no direction... and a pack that lets some people get ahead

sure but imo i feel this is more of an anomally and isn't the norm per se

the other analogy is the ol fishermans bucket

also imo i think analogies are dumb... and you shouldn't really use them to make a point

@xlD4NKlx https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886918300710

don't just link me it, quote stuff from it lmao

ok, no analogy... I think people should be able to express themselves and generate their own value... I think if everyone is equal then you can only be as good as the least valuable person

read it yourself you fucking pleb

lmao

if your going to ask for sources dont fucking moan when I dont quote mine it to prove my point

@wacka sure but i am in favour of equality of opportunity and also people generally being equal is a good thing

ah good.. youre not a marxist then... at least theres that

@brett0007wastaken ok man, calm down on the attitude, i literally gave a counter example and took the time to disprove ur pseudo-science and you do this...I think i might have to stop engaging with you

marxist value theory is the stupidest idea anyone came up with since transpiecesation

>provide a scientific paper as a source to back my claims
>nope is bullshit

the only way to gain a proper understanding is to read the paper

@wacka well marxists can also believe in equality of opportunity lmao, I think i weird criticism and a weak one at that is taking equality to the extreme and to quote one of the 'criticisms' i have heard: "should we ensure everyone has 4 arms and legs? What if someone loses them?" I am sure you are smart enough to infer why this is a flawed point and unnecessarilly takes marxism to the extreme and is very unreasonable.

@brett0007wastaken chill out buddy, all your un-scientificness is giving the left a bad rep, also i don't feel like its worth to respond to that anger rant

well according to marx value theory .. everyone has the same value based on the amount of labour

@xlD4NKlx what?

so If I spend as much time painting a picture of a woman with a smile as divinci did.. my drawing is of the same value

labour theory of value?

@xlD4NKlx also cute you think im angry

also `Marx did not refer to his own theory of value as a "labour theory of value".` so marx value theory isn't a good name if you are referring to it @wacka

or is susan starts a job at 30k, but does well and 5yrs later is on 50k (but the same job)... then ben joins and should automatically be on 50k