What nonfiction books have red pilled you?
Explain what they red pilled you on.
For me it's The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype. Red pilled me on biology. The most interesting part of the extend phenotype was when the author was discussing how some organisms have genes for controlling the behavior of other organisms.
Other urls found in this thread:
necsi.edu
twitter.com
Be wary of Dawkins, the guy's ideas are very niche and not representative of biology. His conception of a gene over the decades is also very different to the usual idea.
That said I did do a thing on stem cells recently, and like three of his ideas came up in a row.
>For me it's The Selfish Gene
That's not taking the 'red pill', because the concept of selfish genes is false.
Start reading more and more evolutionary biology such as I have done, and then you will be trully 'red pilled'.
If you really want to become 'red pilled' (shame the word has a negative association, it had potential) you do not stop reading after one book and call it a day.
You also need to see what other authors say, and only then one can conclude who's in the right.
Super Imperialism and Killing the Host by Michael Hudson.
What about the concept of selfish gene is false?
It turns out that looking at things on a single gene level doesn't reveal all that much.
But that's not what he says on the book
but can modern understandings of kin selection and altruism exist without the ideas of The Selfish Gene being right in some regard?
Stop abusing the term "redpill."
It's an old book. Genomics over genestics, and even then genomes seem to be limited compared to transcriptomes and proteomes in what they show. That's how it is now.
Iirc the idea in the book is replicator and vehicle, you could say that metaphor is flawed in most cases.
Since evolutionary fitness is measured in terms of passing on your genes to the next generation, Dawkins theorized that each gene acted in a way that would allow it the best opportunity to be replicated and passed on to the next generation.
Of course the genes don't literally act in any way, genes that just so happen to develop mutations that gives them an advantage in reproductive success will tend increase in frequency in the population.
You've gone into evo psych there, which has some serious issues.
I'm And where selfish gene came up was in increased longevity of virgin dros flies. So something happens when the genes are replicated that increases expendability or whatever the word is of the vehicle.
I'm focusingon the gene part rather than the selfish part tho. A lot of the focus on genes comes from faulty reasoning around the central dogma, and that's at least partially embodied by your first sentence there. And a lot of the criticism comes down to genes lacking explanatory power, tho there is more to it than this.
>I'm (OP) #
Hang on...
Not OP, that one. Soz OP.
>genetics
>evolution
None of this ever matters.
There's also the example of uncapping and throwing out of diseased larva that is determined by genes in bees.
Some bees have genes for uncapping the cells of diseased larva but not for throwing them out. others have the opposite, some have both.
The bees that have both have an advantage in reproductive success due to a few genes.
Isn't this an example of selection happening at the level of the gene?
you don't matter
Dr. Sowell is absolutely BASED
>redpilled
Get out.
Oh, since you told me to get out i guess i'll get out.
This sucks, buy guys. told me to get out.
>what nonfiction books have red pilled you
le epic redpill meme xD
Yeah sure, the last 100 years of medicine don't matter at all...
I'm sorry,i guess i'll stop using words that you don't like.
Are there any other words you dislike that you'd like for me to stop using?
Im perfectly comfortable with using whatever words you want to use, its the recycling memes till the end of days that make you sound retarded
>This damage control
Are you triggered you sjw cuck
Yes, i'm very triggered.
I'm literally shaking right now.
If you want to know start reading buddy. Check out stuff like scientificamerican, nature and thisviewoflife and proceed to dig deeper into evolutionary biology.
Too lazy? Start with Yaneer Bar Yam and his critique of Dawkins 'Selfish genes'.
The Outline of History by H.G. Wells. I realize now that history is a continuous thread. Many of the same forces fighting against each other 3000 years ago are fighting now. We are a species steeped in a dense medley of war and art. Our primitive and simple forefathers have always hinted at the grand scheme of progress and transition.
Dune taught me that religion is just another mechanism of evolution. Our Gods are as real as we make them. The universe is a big, directionless mess without us maintaining a certain spirituality.
Collective Reflexology by Vladimir Bekhterev.
The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology: A Methodological Investigation by Lev Vygotsky.
Red pilled me on objective methodology.
>A lot of the focus on genes comes from faulty reasoning around the central dogma, and that's at least partially embodied by your first sentence there.
Not him, but please do elaborate. Dogma is dogma and should always be questioned but I don't understand where you're coming from.
Dawkins said himself in retrospect he would have renamed 'Selfish gene' to something I forget now, because it anthropomorphises genes which was not his intention.
If you read the book you'd be familiar with the idea that the 'seflishness' didn't really mean genes on an individual, isolationist level.
There is definitely selection at the genetic/molecular level. For example, genes sometimes undergo duplication events where the copy number of the gene is multiplied. The new homologs for the original gene can, over generations of evolution, form different functions from the original as divergence occurs. New functions can be produced or streamlining of the original gene's product can occur which gives the organism greater control over the cell's resources than before the duplication event.
start with: The Epigenetics Revolution by Nessa Carey if you are into the gene stuff.
>Yaneer Bar Yam and his critique of Dawkins 'Selfish genes'
Curious.
He says
>As far as Dawkins is concerned, the struggle for survival always takes place at the scale of the individual gene. Instead of thinking that organisms compete, Dawkins would have us think that different versions of the gene, known as alleles, compete.
>(The reason we shouldn't think about organisms as competing is that we would then have to think about genes that are part of the same organism as cooperating -- which, according to Dawkins, genes don't really do.)
The FIRST chapter of Selfish Gene:
>One of the qualities of a good oarsman is teamwork, the ability to fit in
and cooperate with the rest of a crew. This may be just as important as
strong muscles. As we saw in the case of the butterflies, natural selection
may unconsciously 'edit' a gene complex by means of inversions and
other gross movements of bits of chromosome, thereby bringing genes
that cooperate well together into closely linked groups. But there is also a
sense in which genes which are in no way linked to each other physically
can be selected for their mutual compatibility. A gene that cooperates
well with most of the other genes that it is likely to meet in successive
bodies, i.e. the genes in the whole of the rest of the gene pool, will tend to
have an advantage.
Or, perhaps the first quote was an incorrect interpretation by an editor or something (necsi.edu
late night bumperino
>The Outline of History by H.G. Wells.
>invoking divinity in the first chapter
Materialists are a waste.
that book is not much better than pseudoscience. much of it is unproven.
he wanted to call it the immortal gene. most of the criticism of the book is from people who haven't read it properly.
Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution.
Made me realize that revolutions are, without exception, shit. They are always worse than whatever they replace.
Also, Thomas Paine is a terrible overrated plebeian.
Never read it desu but I thought one of the main points is that it explained altruism as multiple copies of a gene working together.
GOETHE
O
E
T
H
E
Also likely the most edgy cover on my bookshelf.
>needing to read to be red pilled
>not just absorbing the megadata of the Nth dimension from the flow of consciousness
we're little people
I'm reading Tocquevilles recollections on the revolution of 1848, seems all the brains aren't a fan of useless revolutions, I especially like when he talks about the working class as largely idiots who botched the revolution and they all play out the revolution similar to a play where all they're simply doing is copying their forefathers without the same passion, like caricatures.
"I'm not sure i've ever seen less dispassionate revolutionaries"
kek that was paraphrasing but really funny desu reading intellectually superior and humorous accounts of political/social events.
>Tocqueville
kek this guy got memed on by Houellebecq
My nigga.
Paine implied there was no such thing as a good aristocracy, and then went on to imply that the working classes are the cream of the crop.
Deluded motherfucker. The working classes are, with rare exception: stupid, dumb, canaille scum.
kek, Burke was a dumb hack who tried to lock Paine up. Goes to show huh.
>Burke was a dumb hack who tried to lock Paine up. Goes to show huh.
Paine didn't need Burke's help for that. He got himself locked up AGAIN in France without Burke's help.
Whilst Burke was busy trying to snuggle with the king of France, yes, also, do you reckon France would have been better off not being turned into a republic?
I do agree the swooning over the working class is rather exhausting and stupid, as it's evident that indeed they are not the cream of the crop, but do you disagree with his defence of the revolution entirely?
Hey m8 I don't read social sciences or political theory so I don't care what Houllecock said, tocque is an extremely honest, sensitive and bright mind.
I don't see great thinkers admit in their auto biographies/works often how they failed and are insecure of themselves in the presence of others.
>do you reckon France would have been better off not being turned into a republic?
Absolutely, for the same reasons I think Russia would have been better off without the October Revolution.
>do you disagree with his defence of the revolution entirely?
Pretty much. My problem with Paine is that he's a Last Man in the same vein as Rousseau. That he's taken so seriously nowadays, namely by Americans (who regard him as a sort of unofficial Founding Father) is merely a testament to the fact that we are in the age of Last Men.
Burke was, by every metric, more realistic and reasonable.
A king and a Tzar, both of which were unable (clearly) to keep their population in check. The Russian Tzar being the result of inbred mixing, which is why their son died the way he did.
Which policies then do you think would have been prosperous to the country? Or do you mean to say that the only importance a goverment, king, tzar or emporer should have is to keep the upper classes well-fed?
>Houellebecq
>social science
>political theory
"Non."
I was kidding though.
He can put whatever anthropomorphizing adjective he wants before gene, he's still talking about a gene. That's been the criticism throughout, nobody cares that much about the selfish or whatever part.
That's one of Dawkins' claims, it's not really an explanation. the Yaneer Bar Yam criticism mentioned there (successfully) attacks that set of claims though. The oarsman analogy is used against him too, just blindly quoting Dawkins and an editors interpretation isn't a good move imo.
>The Russian Tzar being the result of inbred mixing, which is why their son died the way he did.
He inherited a disease from Queen Victoria that she got by being illegitimate. So in this case not so much.
>A king and a Tzar, both of which were unable (clearly) to keep their population in check.
A population rabble-roused my Marx/Lenin/etc, to the point where keeping them under control would have meant serious repression. The Tzar actually pulled his punches in this regard, but it was a lose-lose for him in any case. Your blame is misplaced.
>The Russian Tzar being the result of inbred mixing, which is why their son died the way he did.
Burke would have probably favoured the phasing-out of royal inbreeding, particularly given his scientific inclinations as evidenced in his scientific interest.
Again, you can throw out the bathwater without the baby.
>Which policies then do you think would have been prosperous to the country?
It's too late now. Above all else though, Russia probably should've formed/reformed good ties with Western Europe in terms of trade - particularly where food was concerned. The famines/etc were mostly to blame for the population being suckered into Marxism/Communism.
I personally blame Alexander III for his retarded insistence upon Slavonic self-sufficiency (i.e. Cutting ties, cultural and otherwise, with Western Europe).
>Or do you mean to say that the only importance a goverment, king, tzar or emporer should have is to keep the upper classes well-fed?
We're getting into the territory of ressentiment here. What I will say is that a ruler has a duty, not least to himself, to keep the masses placated.
If they are overindulged it is to everyone's peril, however.
>Believing in FAGvolution
*tips fedora*
Evolution isn't real it's just a theory.
What a shit show of a comment.
This, unironic creationism is chic
What a shitshow of a response.
>An analogy doesn't perfectly describe an idea that your trying to convey
>that means the idea is wrong
Got pissed of when he started talking about formalizing the analogy.
Way ahead of its time. Only thing that hasn't aged well is Lasch's interest in Freudian explanations for behaviors. But the observations themselves are spot on.
It doesn't even matter whether it's real or not.
>tfw narcissism is unironically the end of history
>tfw mental extinction
It's a scientific theory - a theory based on scientific evidence.
The great thing about science is you're welcome to come up with a better theory.
You've not read the paper. The analogy is used against the gene-centric view, it isn't discarded.
>used against the gene-centric view
That's exactly why it's retarded
He takes an analogy and tells us why it doesn't perfectly account for selection at the level of genes.
You still haven't read the paper you idiot. It's not even long.
bumperoni
evo psych has issues but kin selection is readily observable
There are good examples of kin selection in nature you mean. You're right that it's a better example than altruism and not firmly evo psych, but it isn't ubiquitous.
Find a new term other than redpilled, like informed. If that's not memeish enough try woke or awoken or some shit
but for me it was The Origins of Virtue
How about punanepilled
Why are people repeating discredited memes from the 70s? Group selection obviously is not a thing, jesus christ people.
Agree. Sowell is goat. How was race and culture?
>Made me realize that revolutions are, without exception, shit. They are always worse than whatever they replace.
You do realize Burke praised the American revolution, yes?
He didn't.
He sympathized with the colonists and their aims/demands because he still saw them as Englishmen, deserving of all the rights of petition/etc as Englishmen in Britain.
He thoroughly believed that parliament should have come to an agreement with them - primarily because he knew that if there WAS a revolution in America, it would be too far away for Britain to meaningfully do anything about it.
orange
True, because God created us.
You're wrong, god is not real. It might take you a while to swallow this redpill, but you'll come out more intellectually enriched for it.
It'll be like the Matrix when you finally realize, your mouth will freeze open in a silent scream, only the harsh staccato sounds of digital noise as it crunches over a telephone wire echoing in the back of your neck, a coolness sweeping your body, then I'll slip on my mirror shades and whisper "Buckle your seat-belt Dorthy, cause Kansas is going bye-bye" and you'll just sitting there like, "woah, how f-ing cool is this guy" [this guy being me in this case, not Dawkins, cause I'm the guy whose sprung you and I'm the one who's wearing the mirror shades and just said the wicked cool line at you]
yes yes yes yes yes!!!!!!!
for me it was Black Rednecks and White Liberals