5 Burst results for "Sarah Hertie"
"sarah hertie" Discussed on Chapo Trap House
"This is something that I would suggest to all young leftists that like you were saying that crypto currency looks like a right wing libertarian thing. And it sorta does when it's bitcoin and social Balaji was immediately tagged as being a right wing of right makes might makes right type meal Wilson. Yes. I've heard a lot of people be very highly suspicious of anything to do with socio biology, just because it's been used for you know, really reactionary purposes in the past. Yes. But I would say this that they're mistaking it for social Darwinism. And it's not that ill Wilson is great. I love him and his students Sarah Hertie wrote a book called mother nature that puts the feminist slant on social biology in a way that he'll Wilson thoroughly approved the the primates since we are a primate the primates that were most closely related to some of them are gangsters like chimps some of them are hippies like banana BOS there's no as him. There's no biological determinism. Also show Belgium is trying to do is say, well, let's see what we can learn from the fact that we are animals. No matter what our brains, and our internet screens, tell us to primates we contain multitudes, the savannah. Yeah. Side and. I just wanna I just wanna continue to say that. If you follow that lesson very far, it leads you to a good life. You begin to think I got to spend more time outdoors. I shouldn't really walk a little bit every day. I should maybe try dancing. Having a lot of sex throwing rocks at things, you know, altering my consciousness on a regular, but controlled basis. I all these things are paleolithic and good for you. Getting sent swan the main character in twenty three twelve one of my favorite little conceits in that book is that there is even some question about whether she remains or I should say they remain humid because as part of some ritual or just party, she ingests an alien hallucinogenic Ilian bacteria that continue. Apply inside them is kind of the internal floor of their body. Yeah. I'd like editing. Iras ahead of the curve on this gut microbiome and much like my because in twenty eleven when I was writing this stuff that wasn't quite as a known as it is. Now, it's funny. How quickly things have changed? And we may indeed finding billion bacteria on an syllabus or on Europa now eating it would be a bold move. That's all I can say bold person. I read that one this scene in the end of Lou Mars. You know spoiler alert when they all take saxes memory pill. Three -ment really reminds me of descriptions. I've heard of what it's like strip on AIBA gain. Are you familiar with either gain or gain or Boga? I've I've only heard of it. I've never tried it. And I'm I'm like to try new drugs. They have to confess to you. But when I was young the what I'm really loving this rehabilitation of psychedelics because for about forty years, I've just built embarrassed at the stupidities of my youth. And now. It's turning out that it wasn't so stupid after all except that we didn't actually know what we're taking. But if we were taking what we thought we were taking psychedelics are now being seen to be a very powerful and profound a change of consciousness, not just while you're tripping. And in fact, that's almost the not the most important part but afterwards somehow absolutely the Michael Palin book has been a revelation, and it's brought all that stuff back onto the table. And again for people in their twenties or in their thirties who are still a young and semi immortal who can can stand the psychic shock of an event that big. I think it's good for you. I live. I've learned some important things. I gotta say about myself in the world for taking psychedelics so co-signed that gain was fiercely the drug that hunter S Thompson completely made up that democratic presidential candidate. Ed Muskie was on the trip. But he made that out of whole cloth, but actually involved in this nineteen seventy percents election. My god. Well Thompson while. The road of excess leads to wisdom. He was a very excessive guy. I was never that excessive..
"sarah hertie" Discussed on The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast
"And so the suggesting it is going to be the woman who says I find that really offend. I'm suggesting is about probably is never mind, but women are also more sensitive today. Give emotion. So there is some slightly higher probability that that might be the case. But then I think women are also associated at least in men's imaginations with nature, which is part of the chaotic domain say as opposed to culture because they're sexually selective. So you think what is nature we have that as a cognitive category. Right. We think of the natural world, we think of nature versus culture, it's a fundamental opposition. What is nature? Well, nature is trees and landscapes and animals and all of that. But that isn't what nature fundamentally is nature fundamentally is that which selects from a genetic perspective, that's nature. That's the fundamental definition of nature. And it is the case that human females are sexually selective, and it's a major component of human behavior. So the. The evolutionary theory. Roughly speaking is that the reason we diverged from chimpanzees eight million years ago seven million years ago is at least in part because of the differences between sexual selectivity between female, humans and female, chimpanzees female chimpanzees are more likely to have offspring from dominant males, but it's not because of their sexual selectivity. So a female chimpanzee has periods of fertility that are marked by physical by observable physiological changes not the case with human females human female automation is is concealed. So that's a very profound biological difference between human females and chimpanzees and the chimpanzee females will mate with any male, but the dominant males chased the subordinate males away but human females are sexually selective. And so, and it's not trivial fact so you have twice as many, female and. Sisters as male ancestors. You think well how can that be? Well, imagine that on average every single human female has had one child throughout the entire course of history, which is approximately correct, by the way, then imagine that half of the man had zero and the other half had to. Okay. And that's roughly the case so half of males. Historically, speaking have been reproductive disasters. And the reason for that is because of female sexual selectivity. So it is actually the case that female, humans are nature. It's not only that they're that. They're associated with nature symbolically as far as reproduction is concerned. They are the force of nature that does the selection and so their nature in the most fundamental way. And there is a chaotic element of that at least in relationship to men and also in relationship to women because a lot of the female on female competition is competition that's chaotic for the right to be sexually selective. Right. Not only with regards to man, which drives a lot of politicking. But also in relationship to each other because part of what human females do is jockey for position in the female dominance hierarchy for the top position. Which is the woman who gets to be most sexually selective. And so that drove. Female female competition, and it's different dynamic. There's there's similarities between female female competition and male male competition, but there are also differences and their pronounced so men, for example, while men are more likely to compute compete for socioeconomic status, and that's partly because that drives female may choice. So the correlation for men between socioeconomic status and sexual success is about point six and for women. It's zero. Zero. In fact, it's actually slightly negative you so and that's a huge difference between men and women. I know that you knew the anthropologists Sarah Hertie, HR D Y, an and she's like my favorite feminist theorist. Although is she would say, I'm a theorist who happens to be a feminist, but she studied primate behavior, and she watched she looked at the women very care.
"sarah hertie" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"It's accountability. We'll tend not to be great. And then you will end up with a whole system where millions of Americans are working for some government bureaucracy doing work that they know is not that valuable, and we'll be justifying their own livelihoods because that's just what humans do it'd be much better to try and get those things done and as a fishing away as possible not set out saying, hey, we're gonna need to employ ten million people to do this. But it's like we need to get the job done. If it takes ten million fine. If it takes two million, also fine. And then those other eight million people the great challenge is building enough resources in communities. So that people don't need to look to the government for a sense of purpose structure fulfillment and work we need to broaden our vision of work. And have it be work that we all actually believe in and want wanna do in addition to a massive public investment in all of the goods that we know we are under an investing in right now, Andrew Young who advocated for a universal basic income his book, the war a normal people. We're going to I'm going to do one more round with the with the with the fabulous authors. And then I really want to ensure that we have questions from the audience. So. Unless I wanted to ask you that one particular concept that you describing in your vet called the mother had advantage. Obviously, one of the reasons why we have a discrepancy between what women and men make is because they're presumptions about mothers, and how they work and how efficiently they work and the and the economy said love for you to try to tell us how that's actually inverted so backup. There's a there's a concept called the motherhood penalty and are their moms in this room. Can you right? So bombs are paid less. They're considered less competent by many employers. Right. And each kid you have your paid a certain percent less actually statistically. So when I started interviewing people for this book, and I also spoke to many people I knew they described something very different than the motherhood penalty. They described I mean, they they may have been penalized at their workplace, but they felt that after they had kids they had they were sharper smarter, better leaders. So I started to look into the social science and the science around this. For squeeze. And I found that there was a study done by the federal Bank of St Louis Louis that found that there was. Ten they say ten thousand women, and they found that they were much more productive after they had kids, and they publish more than ten thousand academics. Then before they had kids, and then I spoke to Sarah Hertie, who's a scientist. And then I I read Craig. Kinsley who's also studied this. And he's he's a late scientist, and they they both were suggesting that pregnant women and new mothers were better thinkers, stronger or potentially. This was the case. This isn't always the case. And it was it was really interesting to me, and I came up with this framework for the motherhood advantage. And I just thought like if all the moms that I knew had internalized that not just the employers way. Hope we'll read this book. But also, the the moms who are probably reading this book if they just felt they were going to work, and they were thinking I'm actually going to be a sharper thinker here. I'm actually going to be a better leader. And there was a wonderful bit of scholarship on. Why women can sometimes it'd be better leaders in the work place after they have kids, and that's that they're leading toddlers and their leading children and children have very different minds than we do right there. Oh, one of the theorists. I I read. Said children children's minds are open structures and being able to deal with really irrational beings. Does prepare you well for the workplace. And you know, and it prepares you well for for dealing with many different kinds of people and being flexible and using your time. Well, right like, I I'm I'm writing in the interest to seize of, you know, my I was in the little edges by my daughter's nap time and then later when I was relieving the sitter. I would like to promote this concept. So please go tell your friends the motherhood advantage till your employees employers. I said. Nathan I wanted you to tack a little bit about how we can. Kind of build this collaborative model and how it can can break. I think Andrew had. I kind of a slight critique, which is that it's it's hard for that model to to flourish. Right. It's it's it's pretty orthogonal to the experience of capitalism today, which is is really thriving on shareholder value. And so how would you how could you say you could we could really expand that it's a really it's a it's the question that I've been pouring my life in last years. It's a it's a fun question. Actually, I work with a lot of folks who are starting new co ops, especially in the digital space. You're trying to build new platforms to make data and work more accountable and the digital economy, and they have a lot of trouble finding funding finding financing the VC's aren't turned the VC model is not gonna work for this. Because they want control they want exponential returns. But if you're. A farmer actually down the road from me in Colorado. There's one hundred twenty eight billion dollar agricultural cooperative Bank called Kobe, and you can you can work with them. And and that's a financing institution. That's been built in American agriculture. Thanks to intentional developments built on popular movements in the late nineteenth early. Twentieth. Century, those those other kinds of populous who were building on their own power rather than you know, resentment, and and they developed a farm credit system that enabled cooperatives have access to to capital. And then the electrical cooperatives are one of these great stories where you know. My grandfather was born on on a veep farm in Colorado with no electricity, and he grew up his entire childhood with no electric city because investor owners as in broadband today. See no value in bringing services to poor farmers. Right. So that changed when through a I a series of grassroots experiments, then a new deal program that in nineteen thirty six American electrification act rural electrification act enabled farm communities to have very low interest loans to set up their own electric companies these companies within a decade, electrified virtually Oliver rural America and currently bring power to more than half of the land mass of the country. So win the appropriate financing is made about available and that program, by the way is revenue positive program today for the US department of agriculture and has been for decades. Then these kinds of models are very very billable very. Lean and capable of entering into markets that investors won't touch. So if we're intentional about building, the appropriate infrastructure for these kinds of businesses, you can scale these like anything else. The problem is is we live in a world in which the stories we have about how prosperity happens all involve bringing in a profiteers and paying a tax to the one percent in order for any of us to do anything. I just want to say the capital incentives are very very extremely tilted in one direction, and unfortunately, it is not towards cooperatives. And so I'm going to suggest even from the store, you just gave it's going to require public or state intervention, which would require very very different than active government than we currently enjoy. And I would say also that that putting purchasing power into the hands of consumers would be the best way to try and supercharge a cooperative movement that this is not because I can tell you I've been in business for a while. And I are friends who've. Been working on this. And there's all of this great stuff. And then the investors will not touch it. And then if you come bring me investors, some like winner take all model that like might go to the moon, then they'll pile into that. And it's unimaginable amounts of what Tim O'Reilly called super money that are piling into this model, and then you're over here being like, hey, I built this co-op like we could do like self driving. Uber. We can own it. Hey own your own data. And like, you know, it's completely washed out by the tens of millions of dollars of marketing the other one so public intervention consuming consuming consumer buying power through universal basic income or some other means, but it will not happen based on the economics. Yeah. I think the point Nathan's making is that? But I don't wanna put in words in your mouth that we made decisions as a country different points. Dan. The invested can allow cooperatives to flourish. Right. So I think the point is, you know, we have the government that we make right? We we have the government we make. And so the question when could argue the is really hard to imagine in a country where work is the basis of dignity that could also argue the cooperatives are different model, and we just have to think through what is maybe it's all of the above for these issues. I would say that seems like all of our visions are pretty consistent. Would you guys agree? Yes. Okay. But I thought also, but there are things that are smaller scale that would really help families like universal pre-k. There are things that we can that. We can have that. We're having locally that are not nationalize that could. Right. I mean, this is New York City ramped up from twenty thousand seats to something like sixty five thousand seats in two years, and it complicated, wildly heterogeneous place. Like, New York. Do it. Why can't there Vermont or there's like so many other places that just don't have universal pre K or three K, and that would really help parents. Great. So I could not agree more of that answer. And so I'm going to turn it over to the audience for questions and Alpi repeat some questions. I there was someone in the back his no longer raising his hands. So I'll go right there. Thank you, actually, right behind you. And then I'll continue afterwards. You have to wait for the. Yes. Profession..
"sarah hertie" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM
"Man the hunter the classic hypotheses that men hunting to feed mates and offspring was a quintessential step in the eva lucien of our species something that may have led to group cooperation advanced tool use and extra protein to fuel bigger brains a newer theory claims that what made us human might have had less to do with men out hunting and a lot more to do with what was going on at home as part of an npr wide series how to raise a human npr's john poole explains kristen hawkes is an anthropologist at the university of utah she tries to figure out our passed by studying modern hunter gatherers like the hudson who live in the east african savannah groups like this or about as close as we can get to seeing how are early human ancestors might have lived so here's an opportunity to see well okay here are people living on wild foods with all these big animals that there hunting and so let's see what happens hawks and her colleagues kept track of how much food everyone was bringing home she says when they track the success rates of individual men they almost always failed to get a big animal the average hunter was successful three point four percent of the days so if you're picking away to feed the kids they'd be in trouble night after night after night after night after night after night so if dad wasn't bringing home the bacon who was the women for starters mom was keeping the family fed by digging tubers food is scarce in these savannahs and how successful she was at gathering correlated with how big her kid was until she had another baby and then that relationship went away and then the correlation was with their grandmothers which must have been kind of mind mindblowing which was mind blowing mom and grandma were keeping kids fed not men the hunter sarah hertie is a primatology at uc davis who also studies connections between child rearing and human evolution an.
"sarah hertie" Discussed on NPR's World Story of the Day
"Man, the hunter. The classic hypothesis is that men hunting to feed mates and offspring was a quintessential step in the evolution of our species. Some think it may have led to group cooperation advanced tool use and extra protein to fuel bigger brains. A newer theory claims that what made us human might have had less to do with men out hunting and a lot more to do with what was going on at home as part of an NPR wide series, how to raise a human NPR's. John Poole explains Kristen Hawkes is an anthropologist at the university of Utah. She tries to figure out our passed by studying modern hunter gatherers like the Hudson who live in the East African savannah groups like this are about as close as we can get to seeing how are early human ancestors might have lived. So here's an opportunity to see well, okay, here are people living on wild foods with all these big animals that they're hunting. And so let's see what happens hawks in her colleague. Kept track of how much food everyone was bringing home. She says, when they tracked the success rates of individual men, they almost always failed to get a big animal. The average hunter was successful, three point, four percent of the days. So if you're picking away to feed the kids, well, if the kids who are relying on this for dinner tonight, they'd be in trouble night after night after night after night after night after night. So of dad wasn't bringing home the bacon who was the women. For starters, mom was keeping the family fed by digging tubers. Food is scarce in these savannahs and how successful she was at gathering correlated with how big her kid was until she had another baby, and then that relationship went away. And then the correlation was with their grandmothers, which must have been kind of mind blowing, which was mind blowing mom and grandma were keeping the kids. Fete not men, hunter. Sarah Hertie is a Primatology at UC Davis who also studies connections between child rearing and human evolution, an eight that produced such costly, costly slum, maturing offspring. As we have could not have evolved unless mothers had had a lot of help hurt. He says there was another big change happening on the home front. If young kids were being fed by people besides mom, she thinks over evolutionary time, this is what lead humans to be. So socially oriented to care so much about the thoughts and intentions of other people. People often try to explain the fact that humans are so good at cooperating by saying, well, we needed to cooperate in order to succeed, big game hunting, or we needed to cooperate so that men in one group could bond with other men to go wipe out the neighboring. What that doesn't do is explain why these traits emerge. So early, she's talking about advance social traits that we can see even before babies begin walking like pointing sharing paying attention to social cues, like smiling and frowning. And then when I thought about it more, I thought, wait a minute, you know, why are these little kids doing this? That's Michael Tomasulo. He's a developmental psychologist at Duke University in the max plank institute. He originally assumed this early social orientation was preparing kids for skills. They need as adults following the man, the hunter theory, but after years of comparing cognitive differences between babies and apes, he agrees that these cooperative traits could have evolved to help babies adapt to having multiple caregivers. Tomasulo says, other apes don't show anywhere near the level of interest in the sharing behaviors that emerged. So early in humans, humans as individuals aren't that much clever. Than other apes. It's the fact that we can put our heads together with others and communicate and collaborate and learn from others and teach others. Human children are doubted for cooperation and share intention -ality in ways that apes aren't. It's this disability to put our heads together that may have allowed humans to survive thrive and spread across the globe. While the men were out hunting grandmothers and babies were sharing food cooperating and developing new social relationships. Perhaps building the foundations of our species success. John pool, NPR news.